From
www.lukeford.net:
'We Have More To Fear From Black Criminals Than White Policemen'
From the LAT on the case that gripped Los Angeles and caused fears of new riots: "Jurors in the Donovan Jackson police-abuse trial declared Tuesday that they could not reach a verdict on the assault charge against Jeremy Morse, the former Inglewood police officer caught on videotape last summer slamming Jackson, then 16, onto the trunk of a police car and punching him in the face."
Dennis Prager on the trial: If this had been a black officer or a white suspect, there would've been no trial. The police man here bashed the suspect's head on the car and gave him one punch.
He probably punched him incorrectly. It shouldn't have resulted in a trial. It should've been handled within the department.
If a policeman says get in the back of the police car, you get in without fighting back. That's what I'd do. What you'd do.
Is trying to make police perfect going to make them better or worse?
Police can not be perfect. Police in Cincinnatti, reacting to black rioting, stopped using force with black suspects. Black murder rates soared. The people who suffer the most from ineffective police work is blacks. This shows how emotions in the black community over historical injustice overtake rational thought. All you're going to have is more dead innocent people, most of them black.
How can you be a white officer in a black area and be constantly thinking you are not trusted? I can understand white police officers in such areas saying, I'm not going to risk my life going after a black criminal.
The LA Riots were not caused by the Rodney King beating. They were caused by the media repeatedly showing a select few seconds of video of the beating. If the media had repeatedly shown any group member getting beaten, that group would've become angry.
We are using excessive force against the police by putting this officer on trial. We have more to fear from black criminals than from white policemen.
THIRD HOUR: New rape law in Illinois is entirely aimed at women yet it uses the word "people." It's all about women changing their mind during sex.
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) -- A new rape law in Illinois attempts to clarify the issue of consent by emphasizing that people can change their mind while having sex.
Under the law, if someone says ``no'' at any time the other person must stop or it becomes rape.
The National Crime Victim Law Institute said it believed the law is the first of its kind in the country.
Lyn Schollett, general counsel for the Illinois Coalition Against Sexual Assault, said the law was important to make it clear to victims, offenders, prosecutors and juries that people have the right to halt sexual activity at any time. ``I think it will empower prosecutors in charging cases where the victim and the offender have a sexual history,'' she said.
But the director of the Victim Advocacy & Research Group in Boston said it would be hard to imagine courts not upholding a woman's right to withdraw consent. ``To me, it's demeaning,'' Wendy Murphy said. ``It's like the old saying: 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it.' I don't think it was broke.''
The law was inspired by a California case involving two 17-year-olds who had sex at a party. The girl changed her mind about having sex, but the boy did not stop immediately. He was charged with rape, and it took years for the courts to decide that he could be found guilty under California law.
The California Supreme Court ruled in January that a man can be convicted if a woman first consents but later asks him to stop.
Dennis: I don't like the law because trivializes the word rape. The word's been raped by the Left. Feminists and their allies in the Democratic party have denuded the word rape of meaning. It's come to mean any sex that a woman regrets. In the rape statistics of Ms Magazine, that regret is included.
For any woman who has been raped, this new law must be vile. I don't defend this behavior of men. I just don't want to call it rape.
If every undesirable sexual act is rape, then nothing is rape.
If a man doesn't withdraw quickly enough, he raped her?
If women initiate sex, and then change their minds, do they have any responsibility?
Feminists and liberals attempts to protect women is fascinating because these same people always tell men and women are equally strong, capable... It's baloney if women need all these legislations. If a woman can't handle a pinup calendar on a male coworker's desk, they are clearly weaker. Feminists must believe that women are weaker.
There was a movement of feminist law professors that a man who breaks an engagement should be sued.
If men are emotionally hurt, they have to deal with it. But if women are hurt, they can sue.
Maybe there are lessons women should learn from unpleasant sexual experiences, such as how quickly she gets into sexual situations. Maybe there will be a good thing to come out of all this - an increased reticence to have intercourse.
To call a man a rapist, because he did not immediately stop having sex with his girlfriend of a year, is terrible (referring to the California case). And it makes women look weak.
As our society becomes more secular, it becomes less religous and values based. With the collapse of values, you need more laws to regulate human behavior. We give condoms out to 15-year olds and arrest them more easily. Previously, we did neither.
Prager does not believe wives should be able file rape charges against their husbands. If a spouse or boyfriend does this, you should leave the relationship.
A woman caller said she believes she benefits from this law as a woman, by the broadening of the definition of rape.
DP says he's no longer aghast about the charge of rape.