My intrepid associate opinion editor Amy Lazenby penned a thoughtful, strongly worded column this morning in which she basically called me a race baiter. Which I’m guessing isn’t too far away from calling me a full-fledged racist.
First, let’s look at what Lazenby had to say …
For starters, she wrote …
Recently this website’s founding editor has published several articles focused on race. One such racial theme has centered on a “thug” culture. This culture has supposedly run amok as black judges let black defendants out on bail for the sole reason that they are black – with absolutely no evidence that race played a factor in those decisions nor any consideration given to the fact that white judges across the state do the same thing with white (and black) defendants. That unsubstantiated charge is the same kind of race baiting that this website has consistently spoken out against when it comes from so-called liberal “race pimps” who use unsubstantiated charges of racism to advance a political agenda from the left.
Lazenby also opined that …
Conservative pundits who race bait are not actually trying to solve a problem; they’re not trying to address root causes. They want to create today a mythological gangster akin to Ronald Reagan’s notorious “welfare queen,” of the 80?s – a young black man who roams the streets of America’s cities with his friends, locked and loaded and ready to rob and shoot you or rape your wife or daughter.
Well, well …
Look, I don’t have to defend this website’s credibility when it comes to race-related issues because it’s a matter of public record. And should anyone choose to examine that record, they’ll quickly discover FITS has repeatedly exposed and consistently condemned race-based discrimination over the last six years – publishing dozens of exposes on the subject (including one just last week).
This website has also pulled no punches when it comes to calling out real race baiters … both white and black.
The editorial position of this website has always been that race-based discrimination perpetrated against anyone is morally wrong – not to mention inconsistent with the values of individual liberty and free market economics that form the cornerstones of my political ideology.
(For more on this editorial position, click here …)
Here’s the thing, though: Whereas most mainstream media outlets are quick to condemn racism perpetrated by whites, they are reticent – if not altogether incapable – of calling out black leaders when they display similar narrow-mindedness. That’s the difference between FITS and the other outlets: This website calls out everybody. Equally. Which I thought was the whole point …
Anyway, our story on the “thug life” judges was indeed strongly worded – but when people are dying due to judicial incompetence, strong words are required. If some people want to call that “race baiting,” they are welcome to do so.
My website’s consistent record on the subject is clear …
Will Folks
Founding Editor
72 comments
Well, it’s pretty obvious you are probably a baiter…a master bater.
I’m going to start referring to you as “Massa Bater”.
I’ll probably be called racist.
Well, it’s pretty obvious you are probably a baiter…a master bater.
I’m going to start referring to you as “Massa Bater”.
I’ll probably be called racist.
I believe she told you to grow up and start talking about some real issues instead of pointing fingers – whichever way you point them. Now we know where the “everyone’s got to grow up sometime” business came from in your intro to the new site. Lazenby’s had an effect on our founding editor. Not a bad thing.
I believe she told you to grow up and start talking about some real issues instead of pointing fingers – whichever way you point them. Now we know where the “everyone’s got to grow up sometime” business came from in your intro to the new site. Lazenby’s had an effect on our founding editor. Not a bad thing.
She is right and you were wrong and while you make some cogent points about the race issue, they do not refute her central claim because you dodge around her central claim.
Yes, thugs of any stripe running around is bad all around.
Judges being soft on them is bad, all around.
But you decided one black thug ws let out by a black judge because of their shared race.
But it is a completely unsubstantiated claim. Great hypothesis. But ot is born up by nothing. So it is just you running off at the keyboard because you want to keep some of your ignorant redneck friends happy.
If it is true, it is a helluva story. But lacking any offer of proof, it is just bullshit.
You talked in your column on the revived site how it is time to grow up, right?
Well, here is aperfect example of another way that you can become more responsible. The situation is horrible, just on what you can establish from the records.
If you have an idea why, keep it to your self ONLY until you can prove it. Otherwise,, keep it to yourself. Freedom of speech is ill-served by people who think it means you can say ANYTHING, regardless of truth or fact, without consequence.
Well I will agree with that comment. 2X4’s and all.
She is right and you were wrong and while you make some cogent points about the race issue, they do not refute her central claim because you dodge around her central claim.
Yes, thugs of any stripe running around is bad all around.
Judges being soft on them is bad, all around.
But you decided one black thug ws let out by a black judge because of their shared race.
But it is a completely unsubstantiated claim. Great hypothesis. But ot is born up by nothing. So it is just you running off at the keyboard because you want to keep some of your ignorant redneck friends happy.
If it is true, it is a helluva story. But lacking any offer of proof, it is just bullshit.
You talked in your column on the revived site how it is time to grow up, right?
Well, here is aperfect example of another way that you can become more responsible. The situation is horrible, just on what you can establish from the records.
If you have an idea why, keep it to your self ONLY until you can prove it. Otherwise,, keep it to yourself. Freedom of speech is ill-served by people who think it means you can say ANYTHING, regardless of truth or fact, without consequence.
Well I will agree with that comment. 2X4’s and all.
Fits, do you understand how long it takes for a trial in General Sessions Court to be heard? I mean we’re talking about two to three years in most cases. Because someone has been charged with a violent crime does not mean that they are guilty of those crimes. Are we to lock up every person charged with a violent crime, even if they are innocent, and condemn them to spend three years in prison? The answer is no. Bail goes hand in hand with a person’s presumption of innocence. Does that mean that on occasion, criminals, even violent criminals, get to walk the streets? Yes, but that is the price of living in a free society, one it seems all too many are willing to give up. One would think a libertarian would understand this.
I disagree. Were there fewer BS ‘crimes’ to be dealt with by the courts (traffic BS, pot or any other drug possession, prostitution, more civil BS than can be spoken in a lifetime), there would be more than sufficient judges available to clear the back log and actually do their job. Gubmint needs to get back to its core function and leave off on all the other BS.
I would have thought you had more familiarity with the legal system than what you just stated. Ever heard of magistrates? They handle most of what you mentioned. The real courts and judges handle the rest.
The backlog is due to the fact that prosecutors set the trial docket. Cases only go to trial if and when the prosecutor wants it to. SC is the only backwards ass state that does it that way. Other states have deadlines for when cases must be tried
Another good reason. Probably more out there. My point was the moronic laws, not the morons themselves.
Good Point tolljamz.
If it takes 2-3 years to try someone for a violent crime, that denotes an entirely separate problem that should be dealt with. It shouldn’t be used as an excuse to not hold people who have been accused of violent crimes, especially when the evidence is heavily stacked in the favor of the prosecution.
The very beginning of the Sixth Amendment:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial
If a criminal Defendant is being investigated for a crime, he has to be directly indicted by a Grand Jury. These proceedings are secret, largely non-adversarial and generally are limited to the State’s presentation of evidence, so of course in these cases the evidence is heavily stacked in the Solicitor’s favor. The damn process is non-adversarial. In cases where there are no direct indictments, Defendants are usually hauled in front of a magistrate for bond within a short time after arrest. Unless this person has a criminal attorney on retainer, they are unrepresented and often unable to defend themselves. In these proceedings, Magistrates generally don’t concern themselves with the weight of the evidence for purposes of bond. Instead, they will tell the Defendant that he has a right to request a preliminary hearing to challenge the sufficiency of an arrest. While this may seem like an opportunity to be heard, these preliminary hearings are more like kangaroo courts where arrests are rubber stamped. Until the adversarial process begins, there will always be evidence heavily stacked in favor of the Solicitor. Attorneys can request bond modification, but in situations where a person is charged with a violent crime, that attorney’s duty should solely be on the getting his client acquitted. Judges, particularly those interested in due process, understand that these processes are insufficient safeguards for the innocent, which is why they continually set bail for Defendants charged with violent crimes, rightfully so I might add.
Fits, do you understand how long it takes for a trial in General Sessions Court to be heard? I mean we’re talking about two to three years in most cases. Because someone has been charged with a violent crime does not mean that they are guilty of those crimes. Are we to lock up every person charged with a violent crime, even if they are innocent, and condemn them to spend three years in prison? The answer is no. Bail goes hand in hand with a person’s presumption of innocence. Does that mean that on occasion, criminals, even violent criminals, get to walk the streets? Yes, but that is the price of living in a free society, one it seems all too many are willing to give up. One would think a libertarian would understand this.
I disagree. Were there fewer BS ‘crimes’ to be dealt with by the courts (traffic BS, pot or any other drug possession, prostitution, more civil BS than can be spoken in a lifetime), there would be more than sufficient judges available to clear the back log and actually do their job. Gubmint needs to get back to its core function and leave off on all the other BS.
I would have thought you had more familiarity with the legal system than what you just stated. Ever heard of magistrates? They handle most of what you mentioned. The real courts and judges handle the rest.
The backlog is due to the fact that prosecutors set the trial docket. Cases only go to trial if and when the prosecutor wants it to. SC is the only backwards ass state that does it that way. Other states have deadlines for when cases must be tried
Another good reason. Probably more out there. My point was the moronic laws, not the morons themselves.
Good Point tolljamz.
If it takes 2-3 years to try someone for a violent crime, that denotes an entirely separate problem that should be dealt with. It shouldn’t be used as an excuse to not hold people who have been accused of violent crimes, especially when the evidence is heavily stacked in the favor of the prosecution.
The very beginning of the Sixth Amendment:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial
If a criminal Defendant is being investigated for a crime, he has to be directly indicted by a Grand Jury. These proceedings are secret, largely non-adversarial and generally are limited to the State’s presentation of evidence, so of course in these cases the evidence is heavily stacked in the Solicitor’s favor. The damn process is non-adversarial. In cases where there are no direct indictments, Defendants are usually hauled in front of a magistrate for bond within a short time after arrest. Unless this person has a criminal attorney on retainer, they are unrepresented and often unable to defend themselves. In these proceedings, Magistrates generally don’t concern themselves with the weight of the evidence for purposes of bond. Instead, they will tell the Defendant that he has a right to request a preliminary hearing to challenge the sufficiency of an arrest. While this may seem like an opportunity to be heard, these preliminary hearings are more like kangaroo courts where arrests are rubber stamped. Until the adversarial process begins, there will always be evidence heavily stacked in favor of the Solicitor. Attorneys can request bond modification, but in situations where a person is charged with a violent crime, that attorney’s duty should solely be on the getting his client acquitted. Judges, particularly those interested in due process, understand that these processes are insufficient safeguards for the innocent, which is why they continually set bail for Defendants charged with violent crimes, rightfully so I might add.
Will you should know by now that Mrs. Laz is always right.
Will you should know by now that Mrs. Laz is always right.
Amy is a misguided malcontent. Ever hear of bond issues to expand county detention centers? I would wager judges bond out to ease over crowding. There is another boomer generation growing up and being arrested. Money appropriated to police departments goes for wages and benefits, not more jail space. Now that we are getting tough on bonding out arrested individuals, how many people can you put in a one rack cell? 3? As the population increases, and throw in 20 million Mexican immigrants, coupled with increased arrests, jail space is used up to the point of unsafe conditions. Amy is simply an idiot.
You are obviously a sad, angry man who probably kicks his neighbor’s dog. Also, do you have a website with contributors to show us? Would love to review and critique it. Or are you just another BIgT, an anonymous commenter on other people’s work/sites who just doesn’t have the balls to put his own stuff out there for public criticism.
Why in the world should a judge ever consider jail overcrowding?
If a single one does, he needs to be off the bench yesterday.
His JOB is to evaluate bond eligibility based on flight risk and threat to the community and he shouldn’t be concerned about anything at the local jail. How absurd.
Amy is a misguided malcontent. Ever hear of bond issues to expand county detention centers? I would wager judges bond out to ease over crowding. There is another boomer generation growing up and being arrested. Money appropriated to police departments goes for wages and benefits, not more jail space. Now that we are getting tough on bonding out arrested individuals, how many people can you put in a one rack cell? 3? Do the math. As the population increases, and throw in 20 million Mexican immigrants, coupled with increased arrests, jail space is used up to the point of unsafe conditions. Amy is simply an idiot. You are an idiot for giving her a forum to spew her bovine sewage embedded with her convoluted opinions, showcase her obvious lack of research skills, void of critical thinking, and poor writing skills. Does she represent the “pop culture” in your business model? You are also an idiot for authorizing two website resets in 7 months.
You are obviously a sad, angry man who probably kicks his neighbor’s dog. Also, do you have a website with contributors to show us? Would love to review and critique it. Or are you just another BIgT, an anonymous commenter on other people’s work/sites who just doesn’t have the balls to put his own stuff out there for public criticism.
Why in the world should a judge ever consider jail overcrowding?
If a single one does, he needs to be off the bench yesterday.
His JOB is to evaluate bond eligibility based on flight risk and threat to the community and he shouldn’t be concerned about anything at the local jail. How absurd.
I do like it when you use ebonics to emulate people who want to get on health exchanges provided for in the AHA. Nothing suggestive there. Except that the only people that support the legislation are illiterate black folks mooching off the government.
Not so. Many older docs are against and many younger are for. I think that’s kind of an age (immaturity) issue more than race.
Older people in general are more racist than younger people because they grew up in more racist times. Nothing surprising there. Younger people are more exposed to minorities these days and have more real-world experience and are less xenophobic. Seems to me that is maturity.
Kinda racist of you to suggest Ebonics is only spoken by illiterate black folks.
I do like it when you use ebonics to emulate people who want to get on health exchanges provided for in the AHA. Nothing suggestive there. Except that the only people that support the legislation are illiterate black folks mooching off the government.
Not so. Many older docs are against and many younger are for. I think that’s kind of an age (immaturity) issue more than race.
Older people in general are more racist than younger people because they grew up in more racist times. Nothing surprising there. Younger people are more exposed to minorities these days and have more real-world experience and are less xenophobic. Seems to me that is maturity.
Kinda racist of you to suggest Ebonics is only spoken by illiterate black folks.
I hate the term “thug”. I really can’t remember when it first replaced the n-word but
that why it exists.
Mark this down: it will be marginalized and discarded after misuse and abuse and we will be stuck with a worse term .
Example: “You called him the ….T-word!!” Damn !
Agreed,, I’ve already moved on to a self-created term…. “Ghettoid”. hahahaha
Miami gusanos do tend to be bigots.
The word thug has its origins in an Indian (dots, not feathers) group called the Thuggee. The existed from at least the 1300s until the British eradicated them in the late 1800s. They were violent assassins who would join a caravan of travelers, gain their confidence, and then murder them in their sleep.
I hate the term “thug”. I really can’t remember when it first replaced the n-word but
that why it exists.
Mark this down: it will be marginalized and discarded after misuse and abuse and we will be stuck with a worse term .
Example: “You called him the ….T-word!!” Damn !
Agreed,, I’ve already moved on to a self-created term…. “Ghettoid”. hahahaha
Miami gusanos do tend to be bigots.
The word thug has its origins in an Indian (dots, not feathers) group called the Thuggee. The existed from at least the 1300s until the British eradicated them in the late 1800s. They were violent assassins who would join a caravan of travelers, gain their confidence, and then murder them in their sleep.
Amy, I think you’re right. Though, if anybody is a race-baiter, it’s Matt Drudge. Don’t feel to bad, Will.
Amy, I think you’re right. Though, if anybody is a race-baiter, it’s Matt Drudge. Don’t feel too bad, Will.
Oh, come on. The only time you “call out” bigotry or racism by whites is when you want to embarrass someone on a personal level and point out what you allege to be hypocrisy.
When you talk about the Steve Benjamin, Jim Clyburn, Columbia PD (an apparent annex of RCSO), you use vile, blatantly racist terms to attack them on their race rather than their actions.
Get some insight into yourself. Like Rand Paul and his little Confederate friend. you are a the racist of the kind the once GOP keeps saying it wants to repudiate, but it can’t because it’s at its core.
True enough; he only calls out white bigots when it’s someone with whom he has a political ax to grind.
Wait wait. What terms are ‘blatantly racist’ that Sic has used in reference to any non caucasian.
Frank, since they are probably words and terms that you use on such a regular basis that you have become inured to what they are and what they mean and their implications, I’m not going to waste my time.
Although I agree profoundly that Judges Alison Lee and Gist-Benjamin have shown themselves to be so totally ignorant of the definitions of “violent” and what constitutes a “threat to the community” that everything they have EVER done from the bench needs to be reviewed, that entire post was one of the most racist screeds that has ever flown over the www and would qualify a “blatantly racist” to most people. God, I hope.
Dude(ette?) You clearly have no problem wasting time. What are the terms? Seriously. I’m interested. If Sid is a racist I’ll run for the hills.
Oh, come on. The only time you “call out” bigotry or racism by whites is when you want to embarrass someone on a personal level and point out what you allege to be hypocrisy.
When you talk about Steve Benjamin, Jim Clyburn, Columbia PD, you use vile, blatantly racist terms to attack them on their race rather than their actions.
Get some insight into yourself. Like Rand Paul and his little Confederate friend. you are a racist of the kind the once GOP keeps saying it wants to repudiate, but it can’t because people like you are at its core.
True enough; he only calls out white bigots when it’s someone with whom he has a political ax to grind.
Wait wait. What terms are ‘blatantly racist’ that Sic has used in reference to any non caucasian.
Frank, since they are probably words and terms that you use on such a regular basis that you have become inured to what they are and what they mean and their implications, I’m not going to waste my time.
Although I agree profoundly that Judges Alison Lee and Gist-Benjamin have shown themselves to be so totally ignorant of the definitions of “violent” and what constitutes a “threat to the community” that everything they have EVER done from the bench needs to be reviewed, that entire post was one of the most racist screeds that has ever flown over the www and would qualify a “blatantly racist” to most people. God, I hope.
Dude(ette?) You clearly have no problem wasting time. What are the terms? Seriously. I’m interested. If Sid is a racist I’ll run for the hills.
My opinion is that Will went too far in the article about the thug-culture judges, but Amy’s piece was yet another white-guilt drive piece that blames “institutional racism” for all the evils that young black men suffer.
The race baiting is much stronger on the left side (I am not on the right, BTW). While this type of race baiting may lead to a few columns in the news that rile up some white racists, the recent race baiting on the left — via Sharpton and Jackson — led to an innocent man being charged with trumped-up charges and labelled as an enemy and murderer.
My opinion is that Will went too far in the article about the thug-culture judges, but Amy’s piece was yet another white-guilt drive piece that blames “institutional racism” for all the evils that young black men suffer.
The race baiting is much stronger on the left side (I am not on the right, BTW). While this type of race baiting may lead to a few columns in the news that rile up some white racists, the recent race baiting on the left — via Sharpton and Jackson — led to an innocent man being charged with trumped-up charges and labelled as an enemy and murderer.
A lot of words, yet no explanation for the race-baiting (your words) slant of those stories.
Lazenby is right, you’re wrong. Good job bigfooting her piece, though, reducing the chance that many people will see it.
Both offered opinions. Neither was right or wrong.
A lot of words, yet no explanation for the race-baiting (your words) slant of those stories.
Lazenby is right, you’re wrong. Good job bigfooting her piece, though, reducing the chance that many people will see it.
Both offered opinions. Neither was right or wrong.
Suggesting that black judges intend to promote “thug life” among black criminals is pretty much race-baiting, isn’t it Will?
Not even particularly subtle.
Suggesting that black judges intend to promote “thug life” among black criminals is pretty much race-baiting, isn’t it Will?
Not even particularly subtle.
And if you were concerned about whether people thought your website was home to race-baiting, then why in the world did you allow that Mande gal to write those crazy things having to do with race?
And if you were concerned about whether people thought your website was home to race-baiting, then why in the world did you allow that Mande gal to write those crazy things having to do with race?
Will-
I doubt you ever set foot in Judge Lee’s courtroom before you accused her off being a “thug life” judge. Since your article provided ZERO facts upon which you based that opinion, I can imagine that you only considered her race and the defendants race. And that is racist.
Will-
I doubt you ever set foot in Judge Lee’s courtroom before you accused her off being a “thug life” judge. Since your article provided ZERO facts upon which you based that opinion, I can imagine that you only considered her race and the defendants race. And that is racist.