"Black Lives Matter" - it's stupid. Just cut the crap.....

[kandb]

The issue is when a black man kills a black man he goes to jail. When a cop kills a black man nothing happens.

Do you think the people in that community don't care about the senseless shootings? I stated in this thread that they do protest for peace in inner cities but it doesn't make the news. Do you think mothers of black children like burying their children? That they enjoy keeping their kids in the house all summer Bc it's too violent to let them outside?

The media blasts the murders in Inner cities all over tv but never show the people who want it to stop. They never show the good side. That way people think they're a bunch of savages and animals who kill eachother. Then people think (maybe subconsciously) "oh well. A cop just killed a black man but ya know, they kill eachother all of the time anyway, so who cares." The public plays right into the media desensitizing them.

It's a complex problem, both the police issues with the black community and the black community has a lot of issues that it has to address. Many of the black men that have been shot and focused on in the media, did not even have parents raising them (the grandparents raised them), when the shootings happened, the parent's suddenly "appeared", probably to get in on the lawsuit. I also believe that there is no respect for the police in the black communities and where there is no trust/respect, there will never be a positive relationship. It's a very complex problem that I don't think is going to get solved easily, sadly.

 

[sunshinehighway]

You obviously have never served as a homicide investigator and have no idea what goes into a murder investigation -- and that is not your fault.

But you're making the same faulty assumptions that the Mayor and State Attorney in Baltimore made...although you are making those mistakes in good faith, with honest intent, not for political gain.

The Sanford, FL police did exactly what they should have done with George Zimmerman -- get his initial story and evaluate. They had ONE witness, and it was too early to have any physical evidence...which is everything in a murder investigation.

You don't make a murder case in one night -- you make it over time...if, in fact, there is a case.

Zimmerman gave an account that he was acting as a volunteer crime watch person , saw Martin acting strangely, called the police (true) and followed him. Zimmerman said Martin surprised him, attacked him, and was on top of him beating him with his fists. Zimmerman claimed he shot Martin in self defense.

At that very early point in the investigation, the police had nothing further to go on. They needed to do a lot of further investigation. Their assessment the night of the shooting was that they did not have sufficient probable cause to charge Zimmerman with anything. And they were right -- they had no case at that point. None.

They released Zimmerman, and that was absolutely the right thing to do -- even if they didn't believe him at that point. If they had arrested him at that point, they would have trashed their case completely.

They continued their inquiry -- but unfortunately there was a great public outcry, including political interference at the highest possible level.

Eventually the physical evidence came in, and it showed the following: Zimmerman was lying on his back with Martin on top of him. A physical struggle had occurred and Zimmerman had suffered minor injuries consistent with his account of the struggle. The gunshot that killed Martin was fired upward, at close range but not hard contact -- again, exactly consistent with Zimmerman's story.

Absent any eyewitnesses who actually saw the struggle (and there were none), the police had no case and they knew it. They completed their investigation and took their findings to the State's Attorney, which was the proper thing to do.

The State Attorney was in an awkward position. There was a lot of publicity, the President had made some terribly unwise statements prejudicial to the potential defendant, and all of the physical evidence supported the defendant's statements.

But still...there was the matter of public trust. The State Attorney did the right thing. He took the case to a Grand Jury, knowing they would indict an innocent man, who would be acquitted, because public trust outweighed justice. It was an awful decision to have to make, but it was the right decision.

Not surprisingly, the jury acquitted George Zimmerman. They had no choice -- he committed no crime. He acted in legitimate self-defense, regardless of how stupid he was getting into this mess.

I'm sorry for Travon Martin's family. They are from my home town, and everything I have seen of them tells me they are decent people.

Zimmerman's an idiot. Travon Martin made a stupid mistake in attacking him.

This is a tragic case in many ways -- but there is no crime here.

I understand you feeling that way, but I honestly don't think that is the way most posters here -- on both sides, and in the middle -- have approached this situation. I really think we're all trying to process this, which is very difficult considering the week we've just been through.

We're 13 pages into this thread and it's been pretty civil and respectful so far. I think we're all working through this the best we can.

In regards to the bolded I think you need to understand that you are making assumptions about Martin's behavior and blaming him based on the account of the man who killed him. He wasn't convicted of assaulting Zimmerman nor was it shown that he did attack Zimmerman. He wasn't there to defend himself or give his account so there was only Zimmerman account to go by. It's one thing to say there just wasn't enough to say what happened so there wasn't a conviction but by saying Martin attacked Zimmerman and Zimmerman was legitimately acting in self defense you are taking it a step further.
Martin was absolutely vilified in the discussions here. His parents were too. Even now people will post thing about him that were not true to vilify him.

 

[luvsJack]

I would rather police respond to actual crimes rather than people driving down the road- gang bangers or not. You see them commit a crime arrest them. You don't get to stop them because you think they are in the wrong part of town or driving the wrong car.
I also like this thing called civil rights where I or any other person in this country have the right to drive or walk down public streets without being stopped by the police to explain my reason for being there.

So you have no desire for the police to prevent crimes? Tell that to the family of the 3 year old killed in a drive by. Would have been nice had those boys been pulled over befor the shooting, don't you think?

You do realize that prevention is part of their job? How would you feel if you had a murdered family member only to be told "well he looked suspicious but i didnt pull him over because its his right to drive down the road" or drug deals started going on in your neighborhood because they never pulled over any one who looked suspicious?

None of that is about race--I certainly do not mean that all drivers of any one race should be stopped. A gang member, drug dealer or any other criminal can come in any color or gender.

I mentioned my older son being pulled over because of his nice truck with a Texas tag--it was aggravating at the time but I do know that the police are out there trying to stop the drugs that come up this highway daily. (And no I do not mean that everyone from Texas is selling or transporting drugs)

 

[Gracie09]

So you have no desire for the police to prevent crimes? Tell that to the family of the 3 year old killed in a drive by. Would have been nice had those boys been pulled over befor the shooting, don't you think?

You do realize that prevention is part of their job? How would you feel if you had a murdered family member only to be told "well he looked suspicious but i didnt pull him over because its his right to drive down the road" or drug deals started going on in your neighborhood because they never pulled over any one who looked suspicious?

None of that is about race--I certainly do not mean that all drivers of any one race should be stopped. A gang member, drug dealer or any other criminal can come in any color or gender.

I mentioned my older son being pulled over because of his nice truck with a Texas tag--it was aggravating at the time but I do know that the police are out there trying to stop the drugs that come up this highway daily. (And no I do not mean that everyone from Texas is selling or transporting drugs)

Randomly stopping people you think are the wrong color for the neighborhood does not prevent crime. Investigations that lead to actual evidence do. And saying it's not about race is lip service when the people being pulled over are overwhelming one race.

 

[JimMIA]

In regards to the bolded I think you need to understand that you are making assumptions about Martin's behavior and blaming him based on the account of the man who killed him. He wasn't convicted of assaulting Zimmerman nor was it shown that he did attack Zimmerman. He wasn't there to defend himself or give his account so there was only Zimmerman account to go by. It's one thing to say there just wasn't enough to say what happened so there wasn't a conviction but by saying Martin attacked Zimmerman and Zimmerman was legitimately acting in self defense you are taking it a step further.
Martin was absolutely vilified in the discussions here. His parents were too. Even now people will post thing about him that were not true to vilify him.

With all due respect, please read posts before you comment on them.

You obviously didn't in this case, so you just look silly.

 

[ASchwa]

They rarely, if ever, serve time or get found guilty of any charges even if it's blatant that they were in the wrong. And investigation? I don't hold police investigations against their own in high regard.

The shooting of Akai Gurley was concluded a couple of months ago when the ex NYPD officer was convicted of negligent homicide. He was sentenced to five years probation and community service. They investigated and it was shown that it was an accident. I applaud the justice system in New York City that took in consideration everything that happened. I always felt that the shooting of Akai Gurley was wrong.

 

[luvsJack]

I would rather have the due process guaranteed by the Constitution, not a system by which simply looking like an outsider is grounds for a stop and, often, a search or other harassment. Profiling is wrong, full stop. It is wrong when suburban cops pull over a black driver because they assume young black men are all gang bangers or that the only way a black person could come to drive a nice car is via theft. It is wrong when city police pull over a white driver and search the car based on nothing more than the assumption that the only reason a young white person would be in the "hood" is for a drug deal. Both fly in the face of one of America's highest ideals and no amount of "ends justify the means" rationalization can make that right.

I in no way meant that they should assume all black men are in a gang or white kids in a bad neighborhood are buying drugs.

 

[JimMIA]

I always felt that the shooting of Akai Gurley was wrong.

It was an accident.

The officer was negligent because he had his gun drawn while searching a housing project stairwell in New York City. Akai Gurley and his girlfriend did absolutely nothing wrong -- they just happened to enter the stairwell as the two officers were searching it. I guess the officer was startled and his weapon accidentally discharged. The bullet ricocheted off a wall, struck Gurley, and killed him. Certainly a tragic case, but again, no crime here, no malicious intent.

The officer was negligent in the sense that he had his weapon out when the situation didn't call for it to be out. It was a procedural mistake that unfortunately had tragic consequences. It was maybe dumb, or scared -- I don't know, I wasn't there. But it wasn't "wrong."

 

[luvsJack]

Randomly stopping people you think are the wrong color for the neighborhood does not prevent crime. Investigations that lead to actual evidence do. And saying it's not about race is lip service when the people being pulled over are overwhelming one race.

Investigation of a crime that hasn't happened? Are we supplying crystal balls now?

I said from the beginning that stopping someone just based on race is wrong but that it comes from profiling. Profiling and using MORE than race is different.

My sons are white and both have been profiled, one due to his vehicle and the other because of his friends, the way he chose to dress and places he went so no not about race for me.

I also said changes are most definitly needed but throwing out the baby with the bathwater isnt going to work. Tying the hands of police officers doesn't protect anyone.

 

[Gracie09]

I in no way meant that they should assume all black men are in a gang or white kids in a bad neighborhood are buying drugs.

Then why else would they pull them over? Assuming they didn't break the law.

 

[JoeA]

Trayvon Martin is actually very important in terms of pointing out institutional racism in law enforcement.

On February 26, 2012 Trayvon Martin was, initially, thought to be suspicious because he was a young, black man walking, unarmed, in a neighborhood where someone didn't think he belonged. He was, ultimately, killed because of it.

George Zimmerman was subjected to only routine questioning and released, on the night of Trayvon's murder because it was accepted by law enforcement that a young black man walking in that neighborhood was suspicious and warranted shooting.

There was no decent investigation started until there was public outrage. George Zimmerman was not charged until April 11th. A month and a half after the murder of Trayvon, and then only after public outcry.

Had Trayvon Martin been a young, unarmed white man does anyone truly believe that Zimmerman would have strolled out of the police station free as a bird on the same night he killed him?

Had Trayvon been white does anyone really believe that the Sanford PD wouldn't have launched a thorough investigation into the murder immediately?

Had Trayvon been white does anyone truly believe it would have been a month and a half before any charges were brought against George Zimmerman? Especially since the police knew he instigated the encounter because they have the 911 transcripts where he was clearly told not to approach him?

I, honestly, cannot believe the blatant prejudice and bigotry that has been displayed on this thread. People of color, and people who know people of color have repeatedly tried to illustrate real life instances of institutional racism in law enforcement and have been called liars.

The whole purpose of this thread was to tell people who want to remind people that their life matters, too, that they are "crap."

Many, many people from many walks of life are telling you, "This is my experience, these are my feelings because of it," and you are telling them it is "crap."

I wish a lot of posters on this thread could read what they wrote and see what is truly in their hearts.

You shouldn't frame an argument with so many "hads". Nobody really knows what would happen if "had" happened.

You are simply interjecting your opinion. Which is cool if presented as an opinion, but not as fact.

 

[Colleen27]

You do realize that prevention is part of their job? How would you feel if you had a murdered family member only to be told "well he looked suspicious but i didnt pull him over because its his right to drive down the road" or drug deals started going on in your neighborhood because they never pulled over any one who looked suspicious?

None of that is about race--I certainly do not mean that all drivers of any one race should be stopped. A gang member, drug dealer or any other criminal can come in any color or gender.

An appeal to emotion is not a way to formulate policy. Of course every crime victim is going to wish something had been done differently in order to prevent the crime, but it has to be weighed against individual rights and freedoms as well as against practical/administrative concerns. This is America, home to "innocent until proven guilty" and "probable cause"; profiling and the accompanying searches in the name of crime prevention fly in the face of both of those concepts.

It is one thing to say "they can come in any race or gender", but quite another to actually believe it. Say "gang member" to an average American and the picture that comes to mind is a young black or Hispanic man. And statistics bear that out - more than 90% of gang members are male, 85% under age 25, and 80% either black or Hispanic. So make no mistake - when you want police to engage in stops in the name of prevention, you are advocating pulling people over based on age, gender, and race. Anything else would be a waste of resources sacrificed at the altar of political correctness. If you want police to profile, own it for what it is - the belief that suspicion of minority men based on their race and gender is justified. Don't pretend it to be a color- and gender-neutral art of identifying criminals before they commit crimes.

 

[Gracie09]

Investigation of a crime that hasn't happened? Are we supplying crystal balls now?

I said from the beginning that stopping someone just based on race is wrong but that it comes from profiling. Profiling and using MORE than race is different.

My sons are white and both have been profiled, one due to his vehicle and the other because of his friends and places he went so no not about race for me.

I also said changes are most definitly needed but throwing out the baby with the bathwater isnt going to work. Tying the hands of police officers doesn't protect anyone.

It's called investigation. They see something wrong or out of place they investigate it. Most police departments have whole teams that investigate criminal patterns to prevent future crimes. Pulling your son over because of his car is just as bad as pulling a black man over because of his. Absent any evidence of wrong doing stopping someone legally traversing public streets is wrong.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

These are just a FEW of their "poster children." And yet absolutely not a single person was convicted for ANY wrongdoing in ANY of the instances. The system decided ALL of these people DESERVED to be killed. You are right. There is no problem. I don't even know why people are complaining, the system sure seems to be doing its job.

View attachment 180398

Well DUH! You're not going to try a dead man. But, BLM was wrong

W
R
O
N
G

On Mike Brown (and many others). Everyone right up to the U.S. AG (a black man at that) proved they were wrong. Where was the apology? Where was the patience to let the system work? A legitimate organization says:

We demand an investigation
We demand impartiality
And in the case wrong doing is found, we demand punishment.

IN THAT ORDER!

Once it was proven that Mike Brown's DNA was found in the officer's truck and that his wounds were consistent with a person facing the officer, moving forward, hands down, there should have been an immediate press conference from BLM stating they were accepting of the findings & it was time to move on. We're still waiting. We're also waiting for Ferguson to be rebuilt.

And your own comments bring about another issue - this "all or nothing" approach. Because I've pointed out that BLM has frequently been wrong, in your eyes, "I" don't believe a problem even exists. And you're wrong.

We all know that police brutality exists. We all know police brutality is sometimes racially motivated. But, when you attempt to attach those labels (brutality & racism) to EVERY SINGLE INCIDENT that involves death or injury to a black person, you lose all credibility. You have in fact become the boy who cried "wolf". And if you immediately jump to "wolf" every single time, those of us who know wolves exist & know what wolves are capable of are going to tune you out almost as quickly as those who doubt the existence of wolves.

 

[ASchwa]

In regards to the bolded I think you need to understand that you are making assumptions about Martin's behavior and blaming him based on the account of the man who killed him. He wasn't convicted of assaulting Zimmerman nor was it shown that he did attack Zimmerman. He wasn't there to defend himself or give his account so there was only Zimmerman account to go by. It's one thing to say there just wasn't enough to say what happened so there wasn't a conviction but by saying Martin attacked Zimmerman and Zimmerman was legitimately acting in self defense you are taking it a step further.
Martin was absolutely vilified in the discussions here. His parents were too. Even now people will post thing about him that were not true to vilify him.

There was forensic evidence that supported Zimmerman's story. Read it on Wikipedia. There are pictures of the injuries that George Zimmerman had. I have never vilified Martin, only pointed out that his death had nothing to do with police officers. BLM does blame the police for Martin's death. Also, some here say that Law Enforcement Officials didn't investigate properly, meaning Police. BLM vilifies Police Officers which led to those 5 Officers being killed and 7 Officers wounded. As I have said before, BLM uses lies and that led to the incitement that cost those Officers their lives. BLM in my opinion is a hate organization that doesn't care about facts and doesn't care about the law abiding citizens that they say they represent. If BLM could find a way to blame the Police for every thing that goes wrong in the Black community, they will shout it out which makes for divisiveness, not coming together and having dialogue. It seems to me that BLM is part of the problem and not the solution.

 

[roseaster]

There was forensic evidence that supported Zimmerman's story. Read it on Wikipedia. There are pictures of the injuries that George Zimmerman had. I have never vilified Martin, only pointed out that his death had nothing to do with police officers. BLM does blame the police for Martin's death. Also, some here say that Law Enforcement Officials didn't investigate properly, meaning Police. BLM vilifies Police Officers which led to those 5 Officers being killed and 7 Officers wounded. As I have said before, BLM uses lies and that led to the incitement that cost those Officers their lives. BLM in my opinion is a hate organization that doesn't care about facts and doesn't care about the law abiding citizens that they say they represent. If BLM could find a way to blame the Police for every thing that goes wrong in the Black community, they will shout it out which makes for divisiveness, not coming together and having dialogue. It seems to me that BLM is part of the problem and not the solution.

Wikipedia? Seriously? You consider Wikipedia a reliable source? Wikipedia.

I really need to stay away from this thread. I have found this thread profoundly disturbing. Although I know well and personally that hatred, bigotry, and prejudice still exist in this country I am absolutely shocked at the scope of it and the pride people take in it.

For those that want to throw up the constitution, let's go back to the declaration of independence, "All men are created equal."

I am truly sad for the state of this nation. We are so far from our ideals.

 

[lisaviolet]

Sorry, I just don't believe this. This gentleman was pulled over "dozens of times" for no apparent reason. If it's true, he should of video tapped it and sued the police departments. Very hard to believe this and if the gentleman was smart he would of gotten an attorney.

Your "I just don't believe this" is one of the biggest problems we have surrounding these issues. I simply don't get it. Well actually it drives me bat **** crazy but I thought I would go with "I simply don't get it".

I don't see it around me, I get it. Wow, I'm shocked, I get it. Are you kidding me?, I get it. Even - I find that so hard to believe, I might even get that.

But "I just don't believe this" after the OP's post - after a myriad of similar firsthand stories and posts in here, I just don't get it.


I could share so many stories.

But I think since our personal experiences, and those of our coworkers, and loved ones don't make it clear I will go back to this article. If you could give it a go, and anyone else finding it hard to believe, I would appreciate it -

http://torontolife.com/city/life/skin-im-ive-interrogated-police-50-times-im-black/

I personally think BLM is a trivial "movement" whose moment has come and gone. To the degree that they have gotten us all thinking sensibly about racism, that's helpful even though it's not the goal of BLM...which I'll discuss later. But that benefit was early on.

If it hasn't already, BLM will soon slide into one of those franchised fund-raising opportunities that make noise but accomplish nothing. Bad things happen, make a bunch of noise, money flows in -- it's all good.

I say they are trivial because they have accomplished nothing they set out to do.

BLM was not created to fix racism. BLM was created to address police misconduct. As a retired cop, I support that goal and so do most cops. It's a very worthy goal.

But BLM's methodology has been counterproductive. In addition to the unfortunate name choice, they've only been the noisemakers taking the easy "principled stands," developing catchy names, copying easy chants from other causes and era, and feeling good about themselves. Nobody listens to them, nor should they.

But what about the hard work of actually effecting change? What about identifying actual problems (both individual and systemic) in police agencies? What about doing effective pressuring to encourage agencies and communities to really fix something...for once?

Wanna change your local police agency? I'll give you a couple of places to start:

• Look at the demographic makeup of the agency. Does the group picture of the agency look like a group picture of your community? If not, why not? This is a very difficult thing to change; it takes years and years of effort and it's very difficult for everyone involved. But you won't get a responsive police agency until you have a representative police agency -- if for no other reason than because people just won't have confidence that they'll be treated fairly if nobody on the force looks like them.
• Look at the published policies of the agency. Are they appropriate? Do they exist?! Is the agency accredited? If not, why not?
• Look at the actual practices of the agency. Do they match their stated mission, goals, objectives, and policies?
• Look at the complaint procedures of the agency. Are complaints handled straight-up... or cover-up? Are complaint investigations thorough, detailed, and well-documented?
• Look at the disciplinary procedures of the agency. When someone violates policy, are they disciplined? Are they disciplined appropriately -- or is discipline too harsh, too lenient, or worst of all, all over the place?
• Is there a legitimate independent review mechanism for complaints and discipline. I mean real, legitimate, professional, honest review -- not BLM-style noise-makers. Creating something like that is even more difficult than changing the demographics of a government agency (because those boards always attract exactly the wrong people), but if you need one, it can be done. But if the complaint/discipline practices of the agency work, that's much better than any outside group, no matter how well-meaning.
  
• Look at the training of the management, supervisors, and officers. Usually if training is examined, it's only the minimum training of the officers that is reviewed. Good, well-trained officers will never be any better than their bosses, so how the bosses are trained is even more important than the rank and file.
• Go beyond the local agency if they are not responsive. [mi*vida*loca -- this one is for you, Mami! ] If the locals are idiots, go over their heads. Everybody has a boss. Every agency has some other agency higher in the food chain. If the agency or local government resists needed change, go up the food chain. Every state has an agency which licenses police agencies and sets their standards. Every state has a legislative body and a governor. Use them -- they work for US.

All that is hard work -- but if you are inclined that way, you won't be alone.

There are many, many good people in every community already working toward these ends. They're the quiet ones who would rather get things done and make their communities better than scream and pound their chests in empty gestures. You have to look for them, because they won't often be on the local news, but you'll recognize them as soon as you see them.

Or...you can just go outside and scream something silly.

This was very informative, thank you. I appreciate it greatly.

______________________________________

I was thinking a lot today about these issues. And my head went back to a celebratory time in my life, my graduation from university. And I smiled and shook my head at what many people might think is "what the hell" moment at a graduation. But I am so happy that it happened. I was having a party of family and friends. My former BIL is a police officer in Toronto. Two of my best friends were there, they are black. It's 1992, not any time recent. And somehow they got into a heated discussion about race and the police. I believe it started because one of my friends asked him if they could discuss some issues openly. Both were willing and listening.They had been together before, but I guess the ease of the get together provided a good moment.

I won't go on and on about it. But I remember two important points. Both sides learning from each other.

My BIL started to get heated about a black leader here, and his rhetoric (one can insert any movement or present day leader here) as insinuating "your leader says....".

My friend instantly replied, "He doesn't speak for me Steve!" - "Why are you assuming that a black leader speaks for every black?" "He's not MY leader".

In that we can see where our heads go, and it's prejudice. Why would every black person think the same about an issue? It's absurd. See what we do there? As if Pat Robertson speaks for every conservative Christian.

And I know my BIL learned a lot about his thought process in that area.

My BIL, who had been on the job since he was 19, opened his heart and mind that day and told two black girls that quite possibly his profession had made him jaded. That he happened to work in a station that had a predominantly black population at the time and therefore of course he would run into criminals that happened to be black on a daily basis. And he said out loud, "You know after awhile, after being aggressively - both physically and verbally - attacked by the same population - it's a struggle to remain not slanted in my outlook. I know that is not right, but it is the truth."

And I know my friends got critical insight on how the job affects one's perception, even though you don't want it to.

1992.

 

[Planogirl]

They rarely, if ever, serve time or get found guilty of any charges even if it's blatant that they were in the wrong. And investigation? I don't hold police investigations against their own in high regard.

How do you think they should proceed when these things happen? Internal investigations can be questionable and people have been doubtful about grand juries and the Dept. of Justice. Who should investigate these events in your opinion?

 

[Planogirl]

Investigation of a crime that hasn't happened? Are we supplying crystal balls now?

I said from the beginning that stopping someone just based on race is wrong but that it comes from profiling. Profiling and using MORE than race is different.

My sons are white and both have been profiled, one due to his vehicle and the other because of his friends, the way he chose to dress and places he went so no not about race for me.

I also said changes are most definitly needed but throwing out the baby with the bathwater isnt going to work. Tying the hands of police officers doesn't protect anyone.

I was profiled due to my car. I got pulled over three times in a relatively short period of time and asked how long I'd had the car and where I'd been and so on. It felt weird but I understood that likely a car like mine was seen at the scene of a crime.

I dislike profiling of any kind. I understand the logic behind it but I think that it goes too far when it's only about how a person looks or dresses.

 

[manning]

It's actually closer to 50% not exactly a vast majority. Definitely a high rate but you also have to look at the underlying reasons men/boys join gangs. The education system is poor, the economic system has many poor blacks on the outside with no real way in. You find a kid 9, 10 years old and have him start making some money doing simple jobs and they got him.

Read this. your numbers are off.

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/chicago-75-murdered-are-black-71-murderers-are-black