Updates for Friday, December 9th [2005]
Savin' Tookie
DEAR SIRS & MADAMS,
It has been several days since I last wrote you, and I hope my letter finds you well. Julius is now staying with me and Daniel, but has been unresponsive and paranoid of his surroundings. He spent the first two days of his visit checking for wiretaps and hidden cameras, which leaves me a bit concerned for his mental state. In the meantime, Daniel and his friend James Roosevelt the Fourth have been discussing yet another public activity they choose to attend...
James: Some college friends from my Ethnic Diversity class are driving down to California tomorrow to be a part of a big demonstration for the clemency of Stanley "Tookie" Williams.
Me: You mean, the murderer everyone talks about?
James: Yeah, on FOX News they might talk about him being a murderer. Everyone knows that the prosecutor was a big racist. Why, he compared Tookie to a Bengal tiger, and the ghetto to "the wild". Don't you see the racist connotations in that?
Me: Well, I can understand your position, but wasn't Tookie a massive body-builder who savagely murdered at least four people in cold blood? He was something of the size and aggressiveness of a, well, Bengal tiger. Likewise, in this "rap" music I hear so much about, most people talk about the ghetto unfavorably, as if it were a, well, jungle. So, I fail to see what was inadequate statement.
James: What is inadequate about it is that the prosecutor didn't want black people on the jury. He took three blacks off the jury. He framed Tookie!
Me: According to my understanding of the situation, he didn't want black people on the jury because he feared fellow black citizens would acquit. Perhaps this fear was unjustified, but I know in my time, it wasn't unreasonable to think that a jury of whites would acquit a white man of crimes against other races, and presumably a jury of blacks would do the same for his fellow man. If the black man is truly a free person today, I would not suppose that this would mean that the only "fair" trials are the ones tried by a jury of black brethren. The idea of equality is that your peers should judge you fairly even if you are not their race. Are you saying the white people on the jury were racist for convicting Tookie?
James: Yes! Of course! All white people are biased. There was only one black person on the jury! How is that fair?
Me: What of the evidence? Stanley Williams was a gangster general in the Crips gang, which by all accounts was one of the biggest bands of hooligans in his territory. Do you believe he was not the person who killed the white man and the family of Taiwanese immigrants in 1979?
James: I'm not saying he didn't do it, who knows who did it? I'm just saying you can't trust white people, and you don't understand the plight of the black man.
Me: James, you're white, I don't think you do either.
Daniel: Well, all I know is that if Snoop is behind it, that murder was the case that they gave Tookie, then he's innocent! Gin and juice, baby.
Me: Do you even know what you are talking about? I looked this up, that Snoop gentlemen is a member of the Crips as well. I tend to enjoy research into the current events of the day. The victims in the Tookie murder spree were all murdered with the same sawed-off shotgun that Tookie owned, and there were several witnesses.
James: The witnesses were all just lesser gang members trying to get a deal on their own sentences by ratting out Tookie. I have a friend who looked into it, he is a member of the Nation of Islam, he told me all sorts of messed up things about the situation. He said that the snitches who ratted out Tookie were race traitors, that Tookie is innocent because his crimes were the fault of the white supremacy in this nation, that the whole thing was an elaborate frame-up by the government.
Me: He was a violent leader of a street gang, which was responsible for crime sprees lasting over 30 years. His accomplices said he bragged about killing white people, and mocked his victims by laughing about the gurgling sounds they made while dying. The forensics proved the murders were committed with his gun.
Daniel: Yeah dude, but that doesn't matter. He was nominated for the Nobel Prize! I've never been nominated for a Nobel Prize. How can we execute somebody that was once nominated for a Nobel Prize? Plus, he wrote some children's books, and found god. He redeemed himself, dude.
Me: He never renounced his gang membership and is still a member, he refused to cooperate with authorities to protect fellow Crips, and he only apologized for forming the gang because of "black on black" violence. He shows no remorse for the murders, does not acknowledge or explain his involvement with the murders, and thinks that because he "found god" in a solitary confinement cell that he is now at liberty to walk free from his punishment... is that the sign of a responsible member of society?
Daniel: This is coming from SOMEONE who supported slavery.
Me: I didn't support slavery, I've explained this a million times, I thought releasing uneducated slaves into public was no solution to the problem of slavery. To have a peaceful society where black men are equal to white men, you must have a society that does not grant special favor or benefit to those of one race over another, or strive to institutionalize their differences in culture. If that is the way the world is, setting the slave free is a pointless endeavor.
James: What are we talking about? You support slavery, like, the Confederacy or something? I don't get it.
Me: Uh...
Daniel: Er... it's a long story.
Me: To sum it up, all I'm saying is that if the black man wants to be free, he should not think cheap excuses will allow his barbarism to be forgiven any quicker than it would if he were a white man committing such acts. I doubt if he was one of these white "skinheads", who killed a black man and then being reported to have said he killed him "because he was black and I'm killing all black people", and shortly thereafter killing an entire family of immigrants, then after being caught refused to show remorse and refused to give information on his Nazi companions for fear of being a "snitch"... the same people protesting tomorrow would be calling for the man's blood, whether he "found god" and wrote children's books or not.
Daniel: Just nevermind man, we gotta go out.
James: Your friend here, he has some problems.
I do not feel I will be accompanying them on their trip tomorrow.
- TH. Jefferson
Editor's Notes:
Stanley "Tookie" Williams is a vicious murderer. To think that this co-founder of the Crips wasn't capable of murder in 1979 is simply naive. That was what gangs did, and still do. Stanley never renounced his gang affiliations, never cooperated with police, and never admitted to any culpability in any crimes. He claims to have renounced his past, but at the same time, he still maintains active Crips contacts and remains a figurehead of his own gang. His only apologies have been to the black community, he feels he owes the rest of America no apology - not even the family of Albert Owens and the Yang family. He owned the firearm involved in all four of the murders he was convicted of and that he bragged to friends about committing the murders after the fact. Yet, Tookie claims no responsibility for these actions whatsoever.
The dishonesty of members in the black community in supporting Tookie is blatant. Challenging his trial on racial grounds, they make no intellectual effort to actually find cause for support of the man's innocence. It is the underlying assumption of his supporters that he is not guilty because he is a black man convicted by a mostly white jury. Well, that is a faulty assumption. The evidence in this case is overwhelming. When cornered, Jesse Jackson refused to come to an assertion as to whether or not Tookie was guilty as if it was a non-issue... then he diverted the topic to the suggestion that only black people could judge on a jury of a black defendant. Have we really come to a world where "civil rights" activists believe in segregated juries?
We all know Tookie is guilty of murdering at least four people, and in the Albert Owens murder he bragged about killing Owens because he was white and because he was seeking to kill white people. After all, that's exactly what he told one of his accomplices after they left the crime scene where Albert Owens was executed. If the situations were reversed and this was a white racist who killed a black person and a family of immigrants, there'd be no question what the presumptions would lay. However, society accepts this absurdity because Tookie is a minority and not the majority.
In the meantime, Tookie's example goes to serve as the worst for American society - it shows potential gang members that the authorities in the system will protect them if they align themselves with the right black people. It engenders the race divide by making an absurdity of something as simple as executing a mass murderer. Particularly ignorant are the rich white liberals, namely entertainers, who rally to Tookie's cause because they believe it makes them more ethnically diverse. What it in fact makes you is an ignorant segregationist who excuses the racially vitriolic actions of a murderer, a person who deserves the death penalty for his actions and has only ever instituted "reform" to "redeem" himself for his past actions to the extent that it will actually get him support for his clemency.
There will still be naive people who think Tookie somehow "redeemed" himself in prison, or that he was "wrongfully" convicted. I think it is fairly obvious that these people are wackjobs and take their stances for mostly racist reasons. I believe the evidence against Tookie is strong and it is downright ridiculous to suggest that he deserves anything less than the death penalty.
