Exactly. That was my initial impression too, especially when he compares the outrage about the trayvon martin case to our lack of response to the inner city "black men vs black men" stuff.
Fact is, those are two wildly different issues. The gang violence is tragic, but to a certain extent avoidable, plus there are laws in place to see that the culprits get sentences.
However, when just any vigilante/bully with a gun can stalk down and kill your sons with impunity, where can you go to avoid that? What can you do to avoid that?
racist site types often try to compare the two issues or use one to justify the other.
And I'll say it again: the outrage about the trayvon case was because they were initially just going to let zimmerman walk (and the fact that they are soon going to let him walk).
Also in florida, in November last year, a white man, Michael Dunn, shot and killed a black teen, Jordan Davis, over Davis playing loud rap music in his car. Where's the outrage over that? Things are pretty quiet, because everyone is cooly letting the law take its course.
The cops in this case weren't going to just let the killer walk, so there was no public outcry. Though he may walk in the future (Florida being what it is), the law is taking its course, just like when a black teen kills a white man.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57554897-504083/florida-teen-shot-to-death-by-man-after-dispute-over-loud-music-police-say/
The Trayvon Martin case is different. When we don't have equal protection under the law, ALL our children are at risk. Good kids, bad kids, gangstas, whatever. So there
should be outrage and outcry, more than you see for inner city gang-related killings.
Inner city culture may not protect us, but the law
is supposed to. Everyone should want the law to protect everyone, otherwise we have big mess
Michael Dunn, in bright orange, just like he's supposed to be: