If anyone--red, yellow, black, or white--threatens mob violence if a high-profile trial does not go their way, then:
1. They think they can adjudicate the evidence between than the better-informed jury, who are held to strict standards of evaluation. This is absurd.
2. They think that by retaliating against those who had nothing to do with the trial they can make a moral point. This is immoral.
3. If the threat of mob violence is racially-based, they hold all members of the supposedly guilty race responsible and worthy of violence or intimidation. This is immoral.
How, would anyone want to claim 1, 2, or 3 as a consequence of their threats of mob violence?
1. They think they can adjudicate the evidence between than the better-informed jury, who are held to strict standards of evaluation. This is absurd.
2. They think that by retaliating against those who had nothing to do with the trial they can make a moral point. This is immoral.
3. If the threat of mob violence is racially-based, they hold all members of the supposedly guilty race responsible and worthy of violence or intimidation. This is immoral.
How, would anyone want to claim 1, 2, or 3 as a consequence of their threats of mob violence?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Nasty responses will not be posted.