Lexicus
Deity
then your response requires more thought
Well folks we've reached Peak Irony here
then your response requires more thought
It's still amazing to me that some people believe you must find fault with one party or the other, exclusively, rather than consider that both parties collaborated to achieve mutually undesirable ends. Anyways, the jury wanted to give her an actual sentence, Strife.
She was a 15 year old girl
She didn't get shot because she was a teenager.She was a 15 year old girl
she was killed shoplifting.
Du observed Harlins putting a bottle of orange juice in her backpack. Du concluded Harlins was attempting to steal, and did not see the money Harlins held in her hand. Du claimed to have asked Harlins if she intended to pay for the orange juice, to which Du claimed Harlins responded, "What orange juice?" Two eyewitnesses disputed that claim, saying that Du called Harlins a "[female dog]" and accused her of trying to steal, to which they claimed Harlins replied that she intended to pay for the orange juice.[3] After speaking with the two eyewitnesses present and viewing the videotape of the incident, recorded by a store security camera, the police concluded that Harlins intended to pay for the beverage.[4][5] The videotape showed that Du grabbed Harlins by her sweater and snatched her backpack. Harlins then struck Du with her fist three times, knocking Du to the ground. After Harlins backed away, Du threw a stool at her. Harlins then picked up the orange juice bottle that dropped during the scuffle, Du snatched the bottle from her, and Harlins turned to leave. Du reached under the counter, retrieved a handgun, and fired at Harlins from behind at a distance of about three feet (one meter).
She didn't get shot because she was a teenager.
Do black teenage girls act substantially different from other teenage girls?Indeed, it was because she was black.
Did the eyewitnesses dispute the drink having been placed in the bags?
That is a conclusion based on the totality of the circumstances, not a critique of specific actions and reactions.If the Los Angeles Police in the 1990s concluded that she wasn't intending to shoplift the drink, I think we can take that conclusion as definitive.
The shopkeeper did escalate. According to the wiki page, her first reaction after the grab was to start punching. That was not disputed afaict.The shopkeeper escalated it and physically grabbed her, in what world is the child at fault for trying to get away?
That is a conclusion based on the totality of the circumstances, not a critique of specific actions and reactions.
The shopkeeper did escalate. According to the wiki page, her first reaction was to start punching. That was not disputed afaict.
No, I'd say she was tragically inconsiderate.Would you say that Latasha was no angel?
No, I'd say she was tragically inconsiderate.