School Shootings and Students of Color

[Anti Federalist]

School Shootings and Students of Color

https://www.americanthinker.com/arti..._of_color.html

By Jack Cashill

To paraphrase Jeff Foxworthy, if you feel a shiver of excitement when “school shooting” trends on Twitter, you just might be woke. Last Wednesday, Erica -- a nurse and “humanist” -- proved her wokeness in spades.

“They’re already making excuses for the shooter ‘he got in a fight with someone,’” she tweeted. “Okay, but who chooses to shoot people? White males are a problem #TexasShooter #EnoughIsEnough.”

Although reluctant to admit as much, many on the Left welcome a school shooting. Perhaps more than any other event, a shooting reinforces their empty mishmash of a worldview. It allows them to flaunt their hatred both of guns and of their lily-white selves. For Erica, the Texas shooting was a twofer -- or at least it seemed to be.

Alas, the rush was short-lived. About 20 minutes after the original tweet, Erica tweeted back to her 405 followers, “Oh $#@!. He’s a POC.” For the record, Erica did not use asterisks, and “POC” is woke shorthand for “person of color.”

Had Big Media been even just a little bit honest about race and crime, Erica would not have embarrassed herself as she did. A well-informed Erica, upon hearing of a school shooting, might have tweeted, “Oh $#@!. He’s probably a POC.” In the real world, Erica, he almost always is.

The POC in question was 18-year-old Timothy Simpkin, a black student at Timberview High School in Arlington, Texas. Systemic racism had apparently failed to keep this young man down. He wore fancy clothes and drove a $35,000 car. Others allegedly bullied Simpkin because of his good fortune.

Weary of the bullying -- or so the story goes -- Simpkin shot and critically wounded a 15-year-old student, race unknown, and a 25-year-old man. Also injured in the panic that followed the shooting were a teenage girl and a pregnant teacher. Incredibly, Simpkin was released on a $75,000 bond and was home partying while the 15-year-old remained in a coma.

Simpkin was not an outlier. Less than a week prior, also in Texas, Dexter Kelsey, a former student at YES Prep Southwest Secondary School in Houston, shot and injured the school’s principal. Kelsey is black, the principal Hispanic. This case generated almost no media attention beyond Houston.

These news stories should have surprised no one. Based on the available evidence, it would seem that all of the 14 school shootings to date this school year involve a person of color. This year, too, as in most years, every incident took place in or around a public school.

Given that these cases usually involve minors -- one shooter was age 7 -- the evidence that the police and media provide does not always include names or photos. In a few of these cases, I have had to deduce the race of the shooter from the milieu of the shooting and the identity of the victims, bystanders, and witnesses. In thirteen of the cases, as best as I can figure, the shooter was black. In the fourteenth case, a fatal one out of Albuquerque, the accused 13-year-old shooter was, in fact, Hispanic and the 13-year-old victim black.

The Albuquerque shooting on August 13 was the first this school year. On August 18, in Orangeburg South Carolina, a 14-year-old opened fire in the high school parking lot, wounding three. On August 27, in Woodbridge, Virginia, a teenager shot and wounded two students in his high school parking lot. On September 1, a student at a Winston-Salem High School shot and killed another student. And the list goes on.

Erica might take comfort knowing that none of these 14 shootings resulted in mass casualties as occurred most notoriously at Columbine and Sandy Hook. Although white students were responsible in both those cases, white males have no monopoly even on the mass shooting subset of the larger phenomenon.

In November 2019, for instance, an Asian-American student named Nate Berhow shot five of his Santa Clarita, California, classmates before shooting and killing himself. In 2007, unforgettably, a Korean student shot 49 others at Virginia Tech, killing 32 during the most lethal school shooting in American History.

For all the disinformation the major media spreads, on no other subject are they as consistently and perversely wrong. Indeed, to even suggest that white males dominate school shootings makes no more sense than to suggest white males dominate the NBA.

Counting on the ignorance of the public, academics take race and crime disinformation to another level still. Consider this excerpt from a 2020 article by Joshua Gregory in the journal Children & Schools:

Even though nearly all school shootings are committed by white students, no etiological theory has contemplated the possibility that whiteness contributes in any meaningful way to the perpetration of school shootings…. The present article takes up the task of beginning to theorize the relationship between whiteness and school shootings, exploring the likelihood that whiteness acts as a moderator, leading whites, but not non-whites, to commit school shootings in response to similar antecedents.

To report that “nearly all school shootings are committed by white students” is Orwellian in its wrongness. Gregory, who is himself white, teaches in the Social Welfare program at UC-Berkeley. Not surprisingly, his work ”focuses on whiteness and neo-abolitionism (the abolition of whiteness), critical theory and philosophy, histories of whiteness and social welfare, and the integration of critical theories with social work praxis modalities and research methodologies.” Despite the Berkeley gig, this taxpayer-funded CRT propagandist is no more a scholar than Al Sharpton or AOC.

Denying reality has consequences. In their race-addled wisdom, officials of the Broward County, Florida, School District convinced themselves a few years back that the huge differential in arrests between white and black students had less to do with actual behavior than it did with institutional racism.

To minimize the arrest gap, the school district adopted a program that allowed school officials, not the police, to determine what acts deserved referral to the criminal justice system. To make the issue seem less stark, authorities cloaked the black/white crime disparity with EEOC boilerplate about "students of color.” This semantic game-playing opened the door for a young man named Nikolas de Jesus Cruz to continue his violent ways unchecked.

In February 2018, that violence culminated in the deadliest high school shooting in American history. Cruz shot 34 of his fellow students, killing 17. This shooting happened specifically because the school district designated Cruz as a POC.

Parkland was on you and your friends, Erica. Think about it before the next time you tweet.

[Anti Federalist]

Contrary to the Marxist media organs propaganda: the majority of ALL mass shootings, not just in schools, are not "angry white racists with assault weapons" but rather "coloreds lacking impulse control with handguns".

[jmdrake]

Contrary to the Marxist media organs propaganda: the majority of ALL mass shootings, not just in schools, are not "angry white racists with assault weapons" but rather "coloreds lacking impulse control with handguns".

None of the incidents in your article qualify any definition of "mass shooting" that I'm aware of. None had 4 or more victims.

https://crim.sas.upenn.edu/fact-chec...at-can-be-done

In the United States, there are several different, but common, definitions of mass shootings. The Congressional Research Service defines mass shootings, as multiple, firearm, homicide incidents, involving 4 or more victims at one or more locations close to one another. The FBI definition is essentially the same. Often there is a distinction made between private and public mass shootings (e.g., a school, place of worship, or a business establishment). Mass shootings undertaken by foreign terrorists are not included, no matter how many people die or where the shooting occurs.

These formulations are certainly workable, but the threshold of 4 or more deaths is arbitrary. There are also important exclusions. For example, if 10 people are shot but only 2 dies, the incident is not a mass shooting. Homicides by other means also are not counted. If 5 people are purposely run down and killed by an individual driving motor vehicle, the deaths do not count because a firearm is not involved. There also are inclusions that can seem curious because the motives of perpetrators are not considered when defining a mass shooting.

[Anti Federalist]

None of the incidents in your article qualify any definition of "mass shooting" that I'm aware of. None had 4 or more victims.

https://crim.sas.upenn.edu/fact-chec...at-can-be-done

In the United States, there are several different, but common, definitions of mass shootings. The Congressional Research Service defines mass shootings, as multiple, firearm, homicide incidents, involving 4 or more victims at one or more locations close to one another. The FBI definition is essentially the same. Often there is a distinction made between private and public mass shootings (e.g., a school, place of worship, or a business establishment). Mass shootings undertaken by foreign terrorists are not included, no matter how many people die or where the shooting occurs.

These formulations are certainly workable, but the threshold of 4 or more deaths is arbitrary. There are also important exclusions. For example, if 10 people are shot but only 2 dies, the incident is not a mass shooting. Homicides by other means also are not counted. If 5 people are purposely run down and killed by an individual driving motor vehicle, the deaths do not count because a firearm is not involved. There also are inclusions that can seem curious because the motives of perpetrators are not considered when defining a mass shooting.

You are right, none of the incidents listed in the OP can be defined as a mass shooting, and that is the definition that I have used: four or more people shot, not necessarily killed and not including the shooter.

I was playing "pile on".

The headline and the OP only mention "school shootings", not "mass" school shootings, I wanted to point out that, for past years and this year as well, the majority of mass shooting incidents as well as school shootings, have not been carried out by angry white racists with assault weapons but by angry, mostly gangbanging, colored people with handguns.

This fact is so destructive to the Marxist media organ's propaganda line that they now deliberately delay or delete entirely, as much as they can, pictures or names of suspects of color.

[TheCount]

This article works really hard to reach its conclusions.

[Anti Federalist]

This article works really hard to reach its conclusions.

That's what good writing does.

Works very hard to make a clear conclusion so that even a chowderhead like you can't $#@! it up.

Here's what the universal narrative in government and the media organs says:

Even though nearly all school shootings are committed by white students, no etiological theory has contemplated the possibility that whiteness contributes in any meaningful way to the perpetration of school shootings…. The present article takes up the task of beginning to theorize the relationship between whiteness and school shootings, exploring the likelihood that whiteness acts as a moderator, leading whites, but not non-whites, to commit school shootings in response to similar antecedents.

The reality is:

Whites do not commit a majority of school shootings.

Whites do not commit a majority of mass school shootings.

Whites do not commit a majority of all mass shootings.

The majority of all shootings, all school shootings and all mass shootings are carried out by colored people.

The worst mass school shooting in the US was carried out by a Korean.

[Anti Federalist]

Media bury mass shooting because the shooter was black (but so were his victims)

https://libertyunyielding.com/2021/1...e-his-victims/

By Liam Bissainthe October 17, 2021

The black radio host Charles Love points out that most of the media buried a mass school shooting in Texas because the shooter was black. But the victims were also black. Writing in Newsweek, he says this is part of a growing problem: ignoring black-on-black violence, out of political correctness, even though that harms black people.

“Many progressive prosecutors are reluctant to prosecute violent offenders, often under the guise of minimizing racial disparities in the criminal justice system. This in spite of the fact that the majority of the victims of these violent criminals are black,” he observes. “While the Left and its elected officials may think they are protecting black people [by ignoring black on black crime], what they are actually doing is deeming our deaths less important.”

Contrary to what the Left thinks, there is nothing compassionate or modern about minimizing black crime. That’s what the criminal-justice system did about black-on-black killings during the Jim Crow era of segregation. It often ignored or minimized them, because it didn’t care if black people died.

This vicious mindset was summarized by a Southern police chief, who infamously said: “If a niggger kills a white man, that’s murder. If a white man kills a niggger, that’s justifiable homicide. If a niggger kills a niggger, that’s one less niggger.” (See Popular Justice: A History of Lynching in America, pg. 116).

He said this in the 19th Century, but racist white classmates repeated this saying to me in the 1970s, laughing as they said it (claiming it was a “joke”).

Short sentences for violent crimes committed by blacks against blacks were the norm under Jim Crow, and reformers once sought to end that. A young black lawyer in Missouri, Theodore McMillian, successfully fought to end the evil local practice of letting blacks who kill other black people serve just a year in jail. He later became the first African American to serve on the Missouri Court of Appeals, and the first African American to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Giving violent criminals lower sentences because they are black will harm black people most, because black criminals commit their crimes mostly against other black people. Crime is heavily black-on-black, and black victims of violence crimes mostly identify their assailant as black. As the Bureau of Justice Statistics explains, most crimes are committed mostly between members of the same racial group, and this is true for “rape or sexual assault,” “simple assault,” “aggravated assault,” and indeed, “all types of violent crime except robbery.” (See Race and Hispanic Origin of Victims and Offenders, 2012-2015.) Between 2010 and 2013, “92 percent of blacks who were murdered were killed by other blacks,” according to PolitiFact. According to FBI data, 89 percent of blacks who were murdered in 2018 were killed by black offenders.

As Charles Love recounts in Newsweek, biased journalism resulted in the

news coverage—or rather, lack thereof—of a school shooting in Arlington, Texas. Last Wednesday, news broke in the morning of a school shooting. A teenage boy fired several shots inside Timberview High School, injuring four people and fleeing the scene. You might have expected the news coverage to follow a familiar pattern after a school mass shooting, starting with the non-stop coverage of the events as they unfold…followed by a demand by every anti-gun politician who can get him or herself on the airwaves for more stringent gun control. Finally, the president himself would be asked to comment.

But this shooting did not follow the script. Fox News carried the coverage live, but by and large, the other 24-hour news channels did not, despite the active shooter being on the run and a manhunt underway for his capture.

Of course, I can’t know for sure why the news channels abdicated their usual hysterical, wall-to-wall coverage of mass shootings in this instance. But I can tell you what my immediate suspicion was at the absence of coverage: The shooter is going to turn out to be black. And indeed, when they apprehended him, the shooter was black….the only thing that the liberal media is more attached to than its opposition to guns is its support of woke identity politics. And this was simply the only thing that could have trumped the mass shooting narrative…this is how a mass shooting in a Texas school and the ensuing manhunt came to be erased: It was coded as black on black crime, which meant that the media couldn’t report on it, lest they contribute to something they abhor. Rather than report the news honestly, they ignored it.

In fact, crime overall is handled this way. While local news stations across the country report vicious crimes and shootings, often with innocent victims, there has been almost a taboo imposed by liberal national news media outlets on the murder surge, and this despite the historic numbers of murdered children….Amid growing gun violence in majority black neighborhoods, many progressive prosecutors are reluctant to prosecute violent offenders, often under the guise of minimizing racial disparities in the criminal justice system. This in spite of the fact that the majority of the victims of these violent criminals are black.

Recently, Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot and a group of city council members urged Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx to reconsider her office’s decision not to charge several men for a mid-morning shootout that took place in the Austin neighborhood. At 10:30 in the morning, a group of known gang members shot into the home of a rival gang who returned fire. More than 70 shell casing were found at the scene. Though the incident was caught on tape and witnessed by Chicago police officers, Foxx’s office claimed charges were dropped because the shootout involved “mutual combatants.”

While the Left and its elected officials may think they are protecting black people with actions like these, what they are actually doing is deeming our deaths less important. By not covering crimes perpetrated against us, you are betraying the victims of our community and implicitly condoning these crimes.

Progressives claim that racism in the criminal justice system is the cause of “mass incarceration” and the fact that blacks comprise a higher fraction of the prison population than the general population.

But racism isn’t the cause of these things. Back when society was much more racist, prisons were less heavily black. Because society didn’t do much to protect black people from black criminals by incarcerating them. Prisons were mostly white in the mid-20th Century, just before the Supreme Court declared segregation unconstitutional.

Even today, black murderers are less likely to be convicted and imprisoned than white murderers. Police clearance rates are already disturbingly low for murders committed against blacks. Chicago solves only 47 percent of cases when a murder victim is white, 33 percent when a victim is Hispanic, and a wretched 22 percent of cases when the victim is black, according to NPR.

To be sure, people incarcerated for murder are more heavily black than the general U.S. population. But that’s because people who commit murder are disproportionately black. As the American Journal of Preventive Medicine has pointed out, “Homicide rates have consistently been at least ten times higher for blacks aged 10-34 years compared with whites in the same age group between 1995 and 2015.” But blacks are not incarcerated for murder at ten times the white rate. According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, 53.3% of all people arrested for murder and non-negligent manslaughter were black. (By contrast, about 13% of all Americans are black).

To the extent that racism persists in the criminal justice system, it could make black people less likely to cooperate with the police, less likely to report crimes against other people — and murders of black people by blacks could go unpunished as a result. That would mean fewer black offenders in jail, not more.

For non-homicide crimes, though, the victims themselves can call the police, and they do, at similar rates for blacks and whites. And police nowadays usually investigate these crimes in a racially fair way. A 2021 study by the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics found that although blacks are arrested for serious nonfatal violent crimes at more than twice the rate of people in general, this is not due to racism. Instead, arrests are correctly “proportional” to the actual crime rate, and to the crimes actually reported to the police, which often are committed by black offenders. As it found, in 2018, “White and black people were arrested proportionate to their involvement in serious nonfatal violent crime overall and proportionate to their involvement in serious nonfatal violent crime reported to police.” (See Allen J. Beck, Race and Ethnicity of Violent Crime Offenders and Arrestees, 2018).

In short, violent crimes by black offenders are not being overreported; nor are they being underreported, at least as to nonfatal violent crimes.

Most of the people in state prison are there for violent crimes, not things like drugs. Only 4% of people in state prison are there for drug possession. And drug possession is often discovered only after an offender is arrested for something else. The lawyer and former federal court clerk Ted Frank says that “nobody gets arrested for marijuana possession. They get arrested for other things and have the marijuana charge tacked on after they’re searched.” So racial bias in the war on drugs is not the reason why blacks are overrepresented in prison. The higher black crime rate is the reason.

This doesn’t mean there’s no racism in the criminal justice system. Recent research shows statistically-measurable racial bias in police stops — the phenomenon of “Driving While Black,” which might explain as many as 10% of all police stops of black motorists. Prominent African-Americans such as Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) have been stopped repeatedly when a similarly-situated white person would not. I’ve been stopped in such circumstances, too. This may be a reason to pass legislation that restricts police from stopping motorists for trivial reasons. In some cases, it may also be a good reason to bring a class-action lawsuit for racial discrimination.

[acptulsa]

“While the Left and its elected officials may think they are protecting black people [by ignoring black on black crime], what they are actually doing is deeming our deaths less important.”

What makes him think the powers that be and their lapdog media don't feel that way?

The media hated on Trump to get people to vote for him. The media loves on blacks to convince them, and to convince liberals, that the powers that be are allowing murderers to run loose among them because they love them and want them to be happy. The media tells everyone if they take the "vaccine" they're smart, understand science, and will be the last people standing, even though anyone who does understand science and really is smart enough to read a chart knows better.

The Ministry of Truth is serving the Empire of Lies the only way it can be served--by serving up lies. And it's not just spin any more. It's baldfaced lies.

The self-appointed Lords of Depopulation have no more use for the three generations of welfare babies. They voted for bigger government, demanded bigger government, and got bigger government. And now bigger government has them. It has them, and has no use for them.

[TheCount]

That's what good writing does.

Works very hard to make a clear conclusion so that even a chowderhead like you can't $#@! it up.

It works very hard to build a foundation of sand through omission and outright falsehood, then reach conclusions that are entirely unsupported.

For example: Nikolas Cruz did not kill any of his fellow students. He had been expelled from that school a year prior. The school had referred his behavior to the police and had requested that he receive an involuntary psychological examination and be committed as a threat to himself and others. It was the state that denied that... y'know, the notoriously woke Florida state government.

The actual story of Parkland is that an 18-year old adult with seemingly severe mental health and behavioral problems bought himself a gun and then went to a school and shot it up. Depending how how you define 'school shooting' it might not even be a school shooting at all.



Not that any of this should be entirely surprising for a blog post that's entirely based upon a literal nobody's tweet with 16 likes.

[TheCount]

Writing in Newsweek, he says this is part of a growing problem: ignoring black-on-black violence, out of political correctness, even though that harms black people.

It's not ignored out of political correctness, it's ignored because the American people do not care about black gun violence so long as the victims of that violence are also black.


If it were actually about political correctness, then in the past you would have seen greater media emphasis on black-on-black violence which then decreased over time as America got more politically correct. Is that what has happened? No. Instead, it's largely a steady state.


Why does a white boy who shoots up his school get so much attention? For the same reason that a kidnapped white girl gets so much attention. Media that can sell a "this could happen to you in your middle-class neighborhood" narrative gets the most clicks, the most newspaper sales, the most viewers.

This is why it's also not any white boy or girl who's victimhood or criminal behavior that gets attention. It's got to be a certain type of white person in a certain type of place. Suburban, middle class or better white kid is what sells. That's why news stories about school shooters talk about how the boy was so smart, got good grades, was in the boy scouts, blah blah blah. It's supposed to sell the fear of "this could happen at your kids' school."

Even today, black murderers are less likely to be convicted and imprisoned than white murderers.

Figured that I should respond to the 13/50 section since you bolded it.

Just like the previous article, this is pure deceit. The writer heavily implies by what they have before and after this segment that somehow these murderers are going free due to favorable bias. But of course everyone, especially the writer, knows that isn't the case. These murderers are not being convicted and imprisoned because they are not being identified and arrested. And the writer knows why:

To the extent that racism persists in the criminal justice system, it could make black people less likely to cooperate with the police, less likely to report crimes against other people — and murders of black people by blacks could go unpunished as a result. That would mean fewer black offenders in jail, not more.

[Anti Federalist]

It works very hard to build a foundation of sand through omission and outright falsehood, then reach conclusions that are entirely unsupported

Assuming a "mass shooting" is any single incident where four or more people are shot, not including the shooter, regardless of whether their wounds are fatal or not, assuming that, are the majority of mass shootings committed by whites or coloreds?

[phill4paul]

It's not ignored out of political correctness, it's ignored because the American people do not care about black gun violence so long as the victims of that violence are also black.


If it were actually about political correctness, then in the past you would have seen greater media emphasis on black-on-black violence which then decreased over time as America got more politically correct. Is that what has happened? No. Instead, it's largely a steady state.


Why does a white boy who shoots up his school get so much attention? For the same reason that a kidnapped white girl gets so much attention. Media that can sell a "this could happen to you in your middle-class neighborhood" narrative gets the most clicks, the most newspaper sales, the most viewers.

This is why it's also not any white boy or girl who's victimhood or criminal behavior that gets attention. It's got to be a certain type of white person in a certain type of place. Suburban, middle class or better white kid is what sells. That's why news stories about school shooters talk about how the boy was so smart, got good grades, was in the boy scouts, blah blah blah. It's supposed to sell the fear of "this could happen at your kids' school."





Figured that I should respond to the 13/50 section since you bolded it.

Just like the previous article, this is pure deceit. The writer heavily implies by what they have before and after this segment that somehow these murderers are going free due to favorable bias. But of course everyone, especially the writer, knows that isn't the case. These murderers are not being convicted and imprisoned because they are not being identified and arrested. And the writer knows why:

N.igger.s killing n.igger.s and n.igger.s killing crackers and n.igger.s killing slant eyes.

Evidence is clear, n.igger.s be killing in overwhelming numbers compared to population percentage. Ain't crackers. Ain't pigs. N.igger.s need to be called out and check their $#@!.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Depending how how you define 'school shooting' it might not even be a school shooting at all.

So a shooting at school is not a school shooting?

Why does a white boy who shoots up his school get so much attention? It's supposed to sell the fear of "this could happen at your kids' school."

If that's the case, then wouldn't black on white violence sell even more fear?

These murderers are not being convicted and imprisoned because they are not being identified and arrested.

But academics tell me that blacks are most likely to have contact with police and the criminal justice system.






`