What is the difference between what is happening on the news now and the lynchings of yesteryear? I suppose if you use the absolute definition for lynching, there will be some difference. Lynchings, for example, were usually by hanging. Lynchings certainly weren't televised. People would come and take lots of pictures though, and those pictures were sold sometimes, and put on postcards and distributed with the daily mail. People liked to look at the pictures, I guess, though I can not imagine, for the very life of me, what kind of person, what kind of human being, would like to look at something like that. Or rather, I can. I just can't relate.
By definition, "lynching is an extrajudicial punishment by an informal group. It is often used to characterize informal public executions by a mob in order to punish an alleged transgressor, or to intimidate a group. It is an informal form of group social control, but with a drift toward PUBLIC SPECTACLE. Lynchings have been more frequent in times of SOCIAL and ECONOMIC tension, and have often been a means for a dominant group to suppress challengers. However, it has also resulted from long-held prejudices and practices of discrimination that have conditioned societies to accept this type of violence as normal practices of popular justice."
In taking this wiki definition apart, one could say that the police are not exactly an informal group. The police are not, however, a judge, jury, or executioner. Perhaps they can be considered somewhere in the middle of the angry mob that chases poor Frankenstein and a judge, jury and executioner. The police, for example, are allowed to take a life when innocent lives or their own lives are threatened, which definitely launches them over the line of angry mob...but, how far? Where is the line? Does anybody even know anymore?
The above few questions are not for the police, particularly. The police are a group of people who are governed by the society for which they perform their duties. What some police are doing, they are doing because the society allows it. Things really are JUST that simple.
A good example will be this comment that I pulled from...somewhere...and want to analyze. I picked this one because it is not, by far, the most hateful that I've seen. It is also not the most unreasonable.
"...its very relevant..."
This refers to the dead man's prior history of drug abuse. I don't know what drug they're talking about here because I don't t think it matters at all, but this person does think that it matters. This is one of those: It matters if Trayvonne was maybe/possibly making lean but does not matter that George beats his wife and waves guns at people, people.
"Honestly I am really tired of this mass media on these cases."
I'm tired of looking at what I consider to be senseless death too, but for very different reasons than this person. I would like the deaths to stop and, therefore, there would be no need for mass media coverage. What I do not want is for the deaths to continue and there is no mass media coverage. The truth may be ugly but I try not to flinch away from it. I most certainly will not ignore it. There is a problem, let's solve it together, shall we?
"Its doing nothing but creating a divide."
Uhm, there's already a divide. Pretending there is not a divide does not solve the division problem. Unarmed people are being shot down in the street by the people that are supposed to be protecting them.
"A persons prior or usual behavior is very much relevant it also describes the person in question."
If you have a video of a man with his hands up in the universal gesture of submission being shot down in the street, I don't see what his prior record has to do with anything. Did they ask to see his prior record before they shot him and used that information to deem him a threat?
I can see why such information would be useful in court--but, uhm, you gotta GET to court. Alive.
"Now do I think this man should have died, of course not."
This is something of a relief.
"But I also feel if I were black I would be pissed off at my own people..."
You mean humans, right?
"...change the bad image..."
Humans do have a shitty image. We rob, rape and kill everything we touch. Well, some of us anyway.
"... get control of the thugs killing each other..."
What do 'thugs' killing each other have to do with this incident or any of the multitude of others? Are you saying that all black people are "thugs" and that this somehow justifies the murder of unarmed citizens who happen to be black? By "thugs", I am going to assume you mean 'bad guys". Mass media has tampered with the original definition of the word. How, pray tell, does one "get control" of the bad guys? Aren't the bad guys rather uncontrollable by nature? That's why they're bad guys, yeah?
"...and you will see racial profiling disappear."
Lynchings have been more frequent in times of SOCIAL and ECONOMIC tension, and have often been a means for a dominant group to suppress challengers. However, it has also resulted from long-held prejudices and practices of discrimination that have conditioned societies to accept this type of violence as normal practices of popular justice."