Wednesday, April 26, 2006

Kane Watch: Apples and Oranges

So Mr. Kane thinks that a reasonable comparison can be made between the sentencing (or lack thereof) in the Kane beating and the tire slashing incidents. While I do realize it's typically out of the norm for Gene to apply reason to most of his writing, he has clearly dropped the ball on this one.

Allow me to explicate: In the case of the Jude beating, the question was not if Jude was beaten, but rather who, exactly, did what to the man and when. It's no secret that the police put up quite a nasty roadblock in determining the answer to this question, but all the same, it's my belief that no jury had enough evidence to get beyond a reasonable doubt.

The same is just not true in the tire slashing case. The question, again, was not if the tires were slashed, but who did it. And, sorry Gene, but this time the answer was obvious. The guilty tried to plea but the judge understood that a greater message was being sent and appropriately sentenced the guilty for their crimes.

Not a huge surprise that Kane would try to use the latter case as a racial statement and indict the judicial system for valuing "a bunch of tires" more than the life of a bi-racial man, but it just doesn't fly. The evidence was not there in the Jude case.

It's disheartening to see that Kane is more interested in vengence than he is in justice. It would seem from his writing that in the Juded case he would have preferred the jury blindly convict the accused if only to appease his desire for revenge. What type of system would that leave us with then, I wonder?

If the Jude verdict was a result of an all white jury (which I don't believe), and it's true that the evidence was not strong enough to convict, then is Kane saying that an all-black jury would have convicted just to convict? Even though they lacked the evidence? That's a fairly incriminating position.

It's a shame that a voice of the black community has, again, so little faith in his own people.

But perhaps most ridiculous is Kane seemingly arguing here that because the Jude cops were acquitted, every case tried thereafter will somehow reflect an attitude about the Jude case. While race-baiters may bite on such a claim, reason shows us that the two cases are not related whatsoever.

So what does Kane want?

It would seem here that Kane is arguing that any crime less violent than the Jude case should result in no jail time, lest we offend the likes of Kane and his followers. It appears to me that he's saying the judge should have let these tire slashing criminals off because the cops got off? Whatever it is, it's complete absurdity.

Come on, Gene. Apples and oranges.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home