A) There's two issues here: whether the incident was racism, and whether the retelling you gave was, due to the assumptions it carried. I was addressing the latter.
B) Of course you were being judgemental; the entire point was to communicate your judgement of the situation as a flagrant race card play. Smug is in the eye of the beholder; I'm certain it wasn't intentional.
C) Re: hypo. It can be true that he is guilty and that he was persecuted due to racism at the same time. Not mutually exclusive; just as in another situation someone fully guilty may be proven so by an illegal search. Its up to the courts to decide whether the violation of equality would prevent a conviction. (Currently: racism no; illegal search yes.)
D) Would you hold the same position if the crime was possession of a recreational amount of marijuana?
Comments
On my phone,so pardon the terseness.
A) There's two issues here: whether the incident was racism, and whether the retelling you gave was, due to the assumptions it carried. I was addressing the latter.
B) Of course you were being judgemental; the entire point was to communicate your judgement of the situation as a flagrant race card play. Smug is in the eye of the beholder; I'm certain it wasn't intentional.
C) Re: hypo. It can be true that he is guilty and that he was persecuted due to racism at the same time. Not mutually exclusive; just as in another situation someone fully guilty may be proven so by an illegal search. Its up to the courts to decide whether the violation of equality would prevent a conviction. (Currently: racism no; illegal search yes.)
D) Would you hold the same position if the crime was possession of a recreational amount of marijuana?