Selling His Gun
One of the differences between a murder and a lynching is souvenirs. One aspect of southern hospitality was that souvenirs (toes, testicles, fingers, etc.) were free. The ring leaders had day jobs and everyone took plenty of pictures. If you’d like to see some go to http://www.withoutsanctuary.org. But the farther south you get in Florida, the more Northern the people get. So yeah certain unemployed child killers need to get paid. No surprises there.
The folks who are disgusted by this particular act most likely just haven’t been following the news. Their disgust will ebb as quickly as it peaked and will ultimately amount to nothing. The others do not understand the difference between a murder and a lynching. They also don’t understand who the responsible party is, and it’s not the thuggish killer who ran out of crowdsourcing funds.
See, in order for a murder to be a lynching it must be both public and receive the blessing of the community. The blessing of the community was bestowed in this case by the jury.
Sure, the lawyers involved have blood on their hands too. The prosecution should have articulated what I am articulating now, and the defense lawyers should not have taken the case. The judge should have made different rulings during discovery. But if we believed attorneys were competent then all procedures would be presented to a judge and if we believed the law was nothing more than a formula computers could render just verdicts.
Without the juries (trial or grand) being unable to find a crime in an unarmed child being stalked and shot to death by grown men of larger size, the modern lynching would be impossible. Nobody ever talks about the members of the jury. The killers themselves get a lot of praise, and in the beginning a large amount of money, but they also get a lot of condemnation and their ability to find future employment is compromised.
This is not so for members of the jury. They get anonymity. They get “thank you for your service.” They go back to their lives without the rest of us having the benefit of having seen their faces plastered all across all forms of media. They get to say “the prosecution just didn’t prove their case” or “there was reasonable doubt.”
With no reprisals.
Now, as insidious as the jurors on the Emmett Till jury were, we can at least HOPE one of them for a moment CONSIDERED doing the right thing, but that thought disappeared as soon as it was hatched because they didn’t want the Klan on their doorstep. And the Klan WOULD have been on their doorstep. Moreover, they at least had murderers with the decency to deny they committed the crime instead of pretending like an unarmed child was a threat.
Not at all. Because progress isn’t linear. And it never will be. The worst criminals are never the ones you can see. They are always your peers.