I was shocked that he came out and just said "black people" as if the groups that rioted after the Simpson and King trials were representative of the entire race. Or that the groups that have espoused violence in the Zimmerman incident are equally representative of an entire race.
If anyone DOES riot because of a ruling for the shooter in this case, do you think the majority of rioters would be 1. white 2. hispanic 3. Alaskan indian or 4. black?
I'm frankly surprised to discover that you seem to harbor the same classification system after reading your analogy.
You should be surprised because I am usually on the other side of these things, right there with you, which is why I felt I needed to point it out. I did not at all get the impression that the implication was that groups that rioted in previous cases were representative of the black population. Where did you get that? I think this might be the misunderstanding...because I got: "the majority of rioters were black", which is true. No racial over or under tones there at all, IMO.
With the further assumption that, in this case also, given that it has been made out to be a racial issue between white/and or latino(?) and black, or certainly trying to be sold as such (again, unfortunately), that the majority of potential rioters (I am still not sold on the idea that there will even be rioting, frankly), would certainly be black, if the decision goes in favor of Zimmerman. Just logic, not racism.
I mean, if you put this into political ideology terms instead of color (NRA vs anti-gun, pro-lifers vs. pro-choicers, etc), the same would apply. Just makes sense that those who seem to be on the receiving end of the short end of the justice stick, would likely be the most active in any kind of lawful or unlawful response to a verdict.
"Look this has gotta be some kind of mistake. Our daughter is tiny, there's no way she assaulted anyone. Insulted maybe. Was the cop wearing white socks and dark shoes? Because that really sets her off."