Your refusal to acknowledge that Addie Green and leaders of the NAACP made completely unjustified racist remarks, to the counties' uniformed officers, no less, speaks volumes about how unbalanced reporting of racial matters has become. When black leaders, particularly Ms. Green who is an elected official, make comments about the police which imply they are no different than those who lynched blacks in Mississippi during the 1960s, and later adds the only thing they left at home were their sheets, or words to that effect, followed by a Vice President of the NAACP who called those same officers no different than members of the Klan, and dupes of David Duke, and your newspaper claims it was just a little heated emotion, with blame on both sides, I say "nonsense". Your newspaper has become racially tainted.

If any, and I mean any, white official,elected or otherwise, ever stood up in a public forum and used the N-word in an accusatory manner, your newspaper and everyone else would be demanding immediate resignation and full, unqualified, public apologies. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if charges of a hate crime were filed. But because these racists, who hurl deplorable racist remarks are black, your recommendation is to just overlook it all, and place some blame the other way as well.

The worst part of your bias is that it really insults the decent black members of our community, because in essence, what you are saying is don't pay much attention to what these black leaders are saying because, after all, they ARE black.

Max,

As you may have noticed in previous entries on this blog, I am certainly no fan of the Post's editorial page. In this case, though, I don't think I totally agree with your assessment. For a change, the Post made some pretty straightforward statements: They called Ms. Greene's claim that the quote was taken out of context "unpersuasive," and called her apology "ineffective" -- both of which were polite, but still basically accurate, I think. And, when she compared today's situation to lynchings of the past, they said flat out, "she's wrong." For the Post, that's pretty strong stuff, especially considering she's a Democrat. It's actually more than I expected (and about as much as we're likely to get).

Yes, they did their usual "plenty of blame to go around" dance, but it's gotten to the point where I hardly even notice that anymore. And while they omitted some of Ms. Greene's most outrageous comments, I don't think they let her off all that easy.

So while I understand your frustration, all in all, I'd say this editorial was a lot stronger than I expected from the Post. Or maybe I've just lowered my expectations too much.

I do have one question, though: Why is everyone so upset that a policeman used the phrase, "you people"? Why is that considered racist? I'm not trying to be argumentative here -- I honestly don't understand why that's so offensive. Could someone explain? Also, if "you people" is indeed offensive, then what phrase should someone use when addressing a group of a half-dozen people? "Ya'll"? "Youse guys"? Again, please don't anyone take offense -- I really don't understand this.

You people is racist to African Americans because when white people would refer to us in the early 60's people they would refer to us as "you people" better get out of here before you go to jail or the white sheriff would say I have always been nice to "you people". Would you like if I classifed you in a group of people who burned crosses on our lawns or beat and murdered our children.
This is what this short phrase reminds us of.
Something that no matter how long it has been the stain remains in our minds forever. I know unless you have walked in our shoes you can never no what it fees like to have been oppressed.
Please don't get me wrong I being an African American woman do not aggree with Ms. Greene. I think she spoke out of emotion and I think she needs to drop her pride and admit she was wrong. But on the other side of the coin intimidation is not the way to beat the situation. We all need to come to a common ground. We have an entire generation who is looking at the way we are handling this situation.
We need to teach our children to respect authority, do not drive without a licence. We need to be responsible adults and not give our children our keys to our cars if they don't have a licence. And be accountable for our actions and to stop playing the race card when things don't go the way we think they should. Please don't get me wrong we have come along way. But there is still a lot that could be done in the racial equallity area.

To Gary and classylady94, the term "you people", with origins as classylady94 related, became really galvanized in political correct speech when presidential candidate Ross Perot used the term in a speech to the NAACP, as best as I recall. He had no idea he was saying something insulting, but very few in the room heard anything he said after that. He was soundly criticized in the media, and apologized. If he was ever going to get a black vote (doubtful) he lost all chance after that meeting.

One of the many lessons learned during the Civil Rights Movement was that certain words and phrases could inflame all the hurt and anger from the past, so we, as a society, agreed that certain words or phrases would just not be used, even if no direct derision was intended. This, in fact, was the beginnning of what we now know as "politically correct speech". The most prominent word in this context, but certainly not the only one, was the N-word.(Note the news media and polite people still won't even say or write the word in its original form.)

As an aside, this is the reason so many people, particularly older white people, are really offended by much of Rap and Hip Hop. All that blood and sweat to reach a racial consensus, and now young (particularly black) people toss these "taboo" words around as easily as a simple greeting.

For all the above reasons, I agree with classylady94 until her final few sentences. I believe that Addie Green and the NAACP officials knew exactly what they were saying, and they knew exactly what the reaction would be - anger and resentment. Words such as Klan, sheet, and lynching are part of that vocabulary that incite hate and anger. And that is what they are trying to do - incite anger and hostility in the police force and the black community. That's why I don't think Addie Green should a get a "pass" here. She should resign.

Thanks, ClassyLady (by the way, from what you just wrote, I'd say that's a pretty good description). I appreciate the explanation, although I have to admit I'm still not sure I "get it." At any rate, that particular phrase isn't the real issue, so I won't get lost in it.

On the larger issue, I was very encouraged to read your comments about Ms. Greene's remarks. I think you described the situation perfectly. She obviously was speaking out of emotion -- understandable emotion -- and simply hadn't thought it through when she spoke. (Goodness knows, we've all done that at one time or another.) If she just came out and said so, I think most people could respect that.

Ms. Greene certainly has every right to criticize the back-and-forth way the Miller case was handled -- but surely she can understand that describing the police by using "white sheet" stereotypes is every bit as offensive to them as the phrase "you people" is to her.

At the same time, though, as much as I understand the police officers' point, I have to wonder what they hoped to accomplish by showing up in force at her news conference. All they did was force Ms. Greene into a position where she couldn't back down -- even if she wanted to. They just made it harder for things to be resolved. Worse, I now read that the police union is planning some sort of demonstration on Friday. What in the world are they thinking? Police, of all people, ought to know that standing around shouting and waving signs just makes things worse. With any luck, the whole thing will be rained out.

All I can say is thank goodness for Tropical Storm Katrina. Maybe a good storm is what we need to get everybody to stop looking for things to be angry about, and to start working together on something.

Gary, you ask the question why the police officers responded so strongly to Ms. Green's original comments about running from or otherwise not trusting and respecting the police. The answer is simple. It is their lives that are stake. When people don't respect the authority of the police (it's interesting that Ms. Green complains she, as a county commisioner, is not getting proper "respect" from the very police she vilifies) they are put in the sort of position that officer Congoni was put in - having to make split second decisions about life and death, with the requisite consequences. That is why they take this so seriously. In the vast majority of cases, they make the right decisions. In this case, they did not. Unfortunately, Ms. Green responded by implying they were Klan with lynching on their minds.

I disagree that Ms.Green was justified in her emotional response to the grand jury decision. The inquest was something Kirsher didn't have to do, but at the time he thought it would help difuse emotions. Everyone knew the findings of the inquest were not legally binding, nor even carried the weight of a grand jury. The judge allowed testimony and other procedural irregularities that she well knew would not be allowed in any trial.
Then, FDLE completed its investigation and found no probable cause for criminal charges. So Kirsher turned it over to a grand jury. Kirsher also made it clear, even before the inquest, that historically officers are not criminally charged unless there is evidence of criminal intent. No such evidence was ever produced, in any of the legal venues, including the inquest.

The legal system did everything correctly in this case, and no evidence of racism or criminal intent was found or produced. Ms. Green and others have a right to be disappointed, but they do have a right to be "outraged", to the point of making viscious, harmful, and reckless racial statements.

I stand by my opinion that she should resign.

Max,

I understand your point. Only one small quibble: You wrote, "I disagree that Ms. Greene was justified in her emotional response."

I never said that her response was justified. I said her emotion was understandable. That's very different.

I'm not trying to split hairs here, I think there's an important difference. I can understand why she feels the emotion she does. But I certainly don't agree with the way she responded to that emotion, nor do I think her response was justified.

Just wanted to be clear. Thanks.

Well, what the heck, Max. Since no one else is responding, here's one more small quibble with your last post: I wasn't questioning "why police officers responded so strongly" to Ms. Greene's comments. I was questioning what they hoped to accomplish.

Again, to me at least, there's a big difference. I understand why they felt so strongly. I just don't see how their approach will accomplish anything. And I certainly don't think it will get the results you and they want.

Ms. Greene will never resign under pressure. I think it's unrealistic to expect that she will. I also don't think she will apologize, or admit any error, or even admit a lapse in judgment, as long as people are angrily confronting her. The more people shout, the more she's going to resist. That's just human nature.

(I'm speaking from experience here, as someone who has put my foot in my mouth more than once, and then resisted taking it out much longer than I should have out of sheer stubbornness.)

I think the Post's headline is right (now there's a phrase I never thought I'd type!): There's "nothing useful" in this confrontation. It's time for everyone to keep still and let emotions cool.

Yes, I know, that includes me. So I'll give it a try now. Again, I just wanted to clarify. Thanks.

Fine. I trust you and others will remember your advice the next time this situation arises (and it will) with the racial roles reversed.

How can an anyone in this day and age make racist comments like this woman did, and get away with it? It is appalling. If she doesn't completely take back her statements or resign, then in my opinion, she is getting away with it. In other words, we are letting her go about her merry way, conducting government business in a racist manner.
Why do we hold leaders in the world of sports to a higher standard than we do our elected officials? How many baseball or other team officials were asked to resign or incur fines for statements that were pale compared to Ms. Greene's?
If nothing is done to reprimand her, the message is that this is acceptable.
Some earlier comments here suggest that she let these statements slip out in an emotional state. That may be the case, but if so, I fail to understand why she doesn't recant them. I think that she is not being stubborn, but that she actually thinks she is correct in what she says. That is what scares me the most. I fear that this woman (and this statement is personal for Ms. Greene and in no way is for all black people in the world) is not capable of thinking straight. That alone should be cause for dismissal, shouldn't it?

With regard to the "Commissioner Greene , Police Officers , Jerrod Miller" dispute , I believe that Frank Cerabino's column in Sunday's PB Post summed it up quite well . While all involved raise vaild points and the killing of ANY human being is tragic , it seems that there are a series of "wrongs" committed here by ALL parties involved . Few news items address/emphasise the facts that Mr. Miller was , in fact , driving erratically without a valid license , fleeing from a police officer who'd stopped him or how/why he obtained the vehicle . That two men have stepped forward , after the fact , to claim paternity , speaks volumes as to why this youth may have been troubled in the first place . As is the case , I believe , with most of these type situations , a sense of personal responsiblity is lacking : although some guidance can be offered by teachers/guidance counselors , these character traits are mostly laid down prior to the onset of a child's schooling career ; consequently it is responsible guardianship in these early years that sets the course of a child's future . Please note that I am a firm believer that "non-traditional" parents/guardians can perform equally as well at this task .
Respectfully ,
Robert Bono , WPB