Whoa! And why does this judge still have a job?

[huedell]

It was a racist statement, The Judge had to recuse himself and a new judge excepted the plea deal. The cop agreed that, that was fine for what the accused Actually Did.

If that's what actually happened as a RESULT of the judge's "white boy"
statement, then I think that is a sad state of affairs...totally PC bull in my
humble opinion.... no matter what that cop says...cop was was most likely trying to cover his OWN butt in appearing to be a (gag) "racist"...
gimme a break.

[Zemo]

The cop has everything to say, as he has to testify under oath. Police reports are embellished. The guy may have done nothing more than resist arrest without violence, which is a misdemeanor.

On the other hand, a southern white judge says " you black boys been gettin off to easy"

omg Jessie Jackson would be on his door step with cnn the next morning.

[huedell]

The cop has everything to say, as he has to testify under oath. Police reports are embellished. The guy may have done nothing more than resist arrest without violence, which is a misdemeanor.

you can testify under oath... and twist the truth...or LIGHTEN the lie
and still "technically" be telling the truth. I'm not buying this... as far as
I'm concerned this is "PC" gone wild.

On the other hand, a southern white judge says " you black boys been gettin off to easy"

omg Jessie Jackson would be on his door step with cnn the next morning.

I hope I've made it clear in my previous posts that Jesse, Al, the ghost of Malcom X and a Billion Man March could attack CNN with pitchforks
and hand grenades and it still wouldn't change my mind that
they were being too sensitive to the WRONG aspect of this scenario.

[generic]

I've been following the comments here since yesterday. I also read the article in question. It sounds like a lot of people here didn't read the article. The judge didn't call the defendant a "white boy." He said that the plea offered was, "a ridiculous plea that only goes to white boys." Did you guys even read this part:

In court, Williams [the judge in question] told Assistant District Attorney Brian Catanzarite that he "for some reason comes up with I think ridiculous pleas whenever it's a young white guy," according to The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. "I'm just telling you what my observation is. If this had been a black kid who did the same thing, we wouldn't be talking about three months' probation."

The judge is accusing the defendant's lawyer of using different pleas for people based on their skin color. I don't see anywhere in the article anything that indicates racism on the part of the judge. I do agree that if a white judge made the same comment about black boys, people would freak out in that case too and I think those people would be just as wrong to do so. Maybe the judge was being racist. I don't know. I wasn't there. But I don't agree with this statement:

"white boy" is racist.

I think it CAN be racist, but it depends on the context. If you're working at a gas station and a young, male, caucasian robs you, when a police officer asks you to describe the person who robbed the store, you can't say that he was a "white boy" without being racist?

If the judge is racist, then yeah, it's a problem. However, based on the information that I've read, it sounds like the lawyer my be racist and no one is jumping all over him.

[huedell]

generic... I took it for granted that everyone SHOULD get the vibe I was
getting from the article/scenario, if not literally thinking about the
term "white boy(s)" and how it was used, but essentially we're saying the
same thing, and I will add that I think it's sad that everyone is so touchy
with "race" and "word use" that they'd actually call for this wise judge's JOB
in a scenario like this.. just sad.

[Brazoo]

generic - The judge wasn't angry with the defendant's lawyer - he was upset with the Assistant D.A., he's the one who came up with or accepted the plea.

Zemo - sorry man, I'm not going to loose sleep because a judge didn't think 3 months probation was a strong enough sentence for a dude who fought with a cop, and that's the bottom line.

"boy" was not in the context of disrespecting him racially, he was talking about his young age - he also compared him to a "black kid". It's on the border, at best, and either way I still can't get excited about it because we're still talking about a dumbass who fought with cop.

It's also very hard for me to get worked up about claims of reverse racism where the stakes aren't even that high - it's not like the Judge wanted to throw the book at him - just thought 3 months probation was light for the crime - and frankly, it seems light to me too.

The article still doesn't provide enough info for me to know for sure if the judge or the A.D.A. is wrong.

I'm concerned with intolerance no matter what the form - but I can't imagine this is even a blip on the radar compared to the bias against non-whites in the legal system.

[LonnieFisher]

Commenting on the color of someones skin is for sure a racist comment. Plain and simple. Used derogatory it's even worse.

[huedell]

Commenting on the color of someones skin is for sure a racist comment. Plain and simple. Used derogatory it's even worse.

I don't know how to type this w/out it "reading patronizing" but what you're going on about has virtually nothing to do with the scenario that this article is about.

If you want an agreement that "racist epithets are bad" ... I don't think
anyone here'd disagree with you. we're a pretty courteous community

Commenting on the color of someones skin is for sure a racist comment.

That is false... and it's also the height of oversensitive statement.

If I simply say you are "black" or "white" or "brown" or whatever...it's "not racist" ... now THAT'S plain and simple.

lonnie...I wouldn't even care to comment this much on your posts, but it's
stances like yours that unnecessarily escalate tension when there just
doesn't have to be any.

[Brazoo]

If you want an agreement that "racist epithets are bad" ... I don't think
anyone here'd disagree with you. we're a pretty courteous community

I agree with this, and I don't think anyone here on either side is being racist on this board.

I also agree with the notion that the legal system should be as fair as possible - and that's the point I think we're all agreeing with here.

If - and, this is a big IF because the article doesn't explore this issue in depth - the judge has a legitimate beef with the Assistant D.A. because he is bending the rules for white offenders then I think the judge should be able to comment on it, and I certainly agree that he has the right to throw out a plea he doesn't agree with. I'm not nuts about the way he worded it - but the point he's making is the important thing here - to me.

This is a fairly minor offense compared to other criminal trials you'd ordinarily find in the news - so the bigger picture to me is that this is an unusual case, which is why the media focused on it. Unusual cases make better stories. If the sensationalization of the judges wording is going to take away from investigation of a usual bias against black offenders then I think that's a shame. At least both sides should be investigated, in my opinion.

Discussing this further will be fairly political - and I don't really want to bend the forum's rules by speaking about it too much.

This is interesting discussion though - I'm really glad everyone here can discuss this with such diverse opinions in such a cool way!

[Zemo]

I agree 3 months probation is a slap for fighting with a cop, but when the cop agrees to the deal, it just makes me think he overwrote the police report.