Our investigation is color blind and based on the facts and circumstances, not color. I know I can say that until I am blue in the face, but, as a white man in a uniform, I know it doesn't mean anything to anybody.
When you read this sort of absurdist inversion--white men with guns and the legal right to kill are the true victims--it's always worth examining the historical context, helpfully outlined here by Trymaine Lee.
Somewhat related, see my colleague James Fallows on the importance of not seeing Trayvon Martin as simply a "black" case:
...this case is obviously about race, and is important on those grounds. Race relations are after all the original and ongoing tension in U.S. history. But it is also about self-government, rule of law, equality before the law, accountability of power, and every other value that we contend is integral to the American ideal -- and also to "the America idea," exploration of which was the founding idea of the Atlantic Monthly back in 1857.
I just want to echo this sentiment and expand on it a bit. The approach here is not "either it's about race or it isn't." It's "this is about race along with..." From the outset, I sought to understand, not simply how the state of Florida's views young black men, but how its self-defense laws impact citizens, regardless of color.
Moreover, it's worth understanding that this movement toward an absurdly low threshold for self-defense claims is a national one, which is making headway in states where very few black people live. As is often the case, black people bear a spectacular burden for bad public policy. But the burden is never solely--and rarely even mostly--born by black people.
This article available online at: