...eventually. After community outcry demands it. And only if other majority-demographic people (depending on the circumstance) join in on said outcry.
Are you saying that Black people are only convicted of defending themselves from the police if community outcry demands it, or that said convictions are overturned (or not pursued) because of public protest? The wording of your comment is a bit confusing.
What I meant was that those who unjustifiably attack Black people (police or otherwise, but especially police) tend not to be charged or convicted UNLESS there's public outcry. Did I possibly misunderstand what you meant?
Ah! I understand your confusion -- my post wasn't written well. I meant that, unlike the charges against the Black Panthers, today Black people who defend themselves against unwarranted police attacks are generally convicted by the courts.
The difference is that, these days, if Black or other people being attacked in such a way dare to protect themselves, our courts convict them.
...eventually. After community outcry demands it. And only if other majority-demographic people (depending on the circumstance) join in on said outcry.
Are you saying that Black people are only convicted of defending themselves from the police if community outcry demands it, or that said convictions are overturned (or not pursued) because of public protest? The wording of your comment is a bit confusing.
What I meant was that those who unjustifiably attack Black people (police or otherwise, but especially police) tend not to be charged or convicted UNLESS there's public outcry. Did I possibly misunderstand what you meant?
Ah! I understand your confusion -- my post wasn't written well. I meant that, unlike the charges against the Black Panthers, today Black people who defend themselves against unwarranted police attacks are generally convicted by the courts.