Wednesday, July 24, 2013

Man in a Red Jumpsuit – Shan Edward Carter: A case for repeal of the death penalty in North Carolina


Word count: 538

(LINK to flog follows the comments below.)

In light of the recent “stand your ground self defense” acquittal of self-appointed vigilante George Zimmerman of Sanford, Florida, the capital conviction of Wilmington, North Carolina’s Shan Edward Carter takes on added significance. During the months of January and February 1997, word on the streets of the coastal city was that drug dealer Tyrone Baker was looking for those responsible for stealing from his apartment $40,000 in cash of his ill gotten gains. He openly expressed his intentions of terminating those responsible.

Damont “Eli” White, one of the trio of burglars responsible for pilfering Baker’s stash, was kidnapped off the street in broad daylight by Baker and later pistol-whipped to gain information about the others involved. Shan Carter, a small-time burglar and drug dealer whose crimes were committed while unarmed, and Kwada Temoney, who had a violent criminal past that included an armed bank robbery in which he fired his weapon, were White’s other two accomplices in the Baker heist.

When Tyrone Baker finally caught up with Carter and Temoney on a street corner dealing drugs, he flattened Temoney with a sucker punch, and walked toward Carter with his gun-hand concealed by a heavy coat draped over it. In fear for his life, Carter fired his gun twice with the intention of wounding him… and as Baker turned and retreated, Carter fired three additional rounds to keep Baker motivated and occupied with escape. Not intentionally trying to strike the fleeing man, one of the bullets ricocheted off the steering wheel of a parked car striking an 8 year-old boy in the head (he later died). It was hours later before Carter even was aware that he had struck the boy with his gunfire.

The accidental death of the young boy and the self-defense death of the drug dealer Baker are convictions upon which Shan Carter received death sentences. The North Carolina prosecutors, from outspoken Hanover County Senator Thom Goolsby’s district, are trying to put to death the African American who is innocent of the commission of a capital crime.

The following flog (which was produced more than a year ago) contains the prologue to Shan Carter’s story which will be presented in subsequent chapters on this blog site.

I have been working Carter’s case for nearly three years, however, my advocacy on his behalf was interrupted to help assist Duke Lacrosse victim/accuser Crystal Mangum in the serious trumped up charges against her. As her case winds down toward its conclusion, I will be presenting more about Mr. Carter’s case.


NOTICE: I am considering discontinuing the flogazine format as its files are excessively large… as more articles are added. If there is a large outpouring of those in favor of it, let me know and give it additional thought. Also, since I have been working nonstop on Mangum’s case since 2011, I will take a brief respite for a couple of weeks before heading down the homestretch with her scheduled trial in mid-November 2013. I anticipate my next posting on this blog site to be the mid to late part of August 2013.



Click on panel below to access flog.
Click on panel below to access Punish-O-meter

582 comments:

1 – 200 of 582   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

Been through this same tired rhetoric on his case many many times. One small time punk shoots another......and, in the process...and innocent child dies. Where do I sign up to push the plunger if they ever get around to lethally injecting this cretin?

Nifong Supporter said...


If you want to discuss self-defense, then that is precisely what Shan Carter did when he shot drug dealer Tyrone Baker! He did not stalk Baker, rather it was common knowledge in the community that Baker was going to terminate those individuals responsible for stealing $40,000 from his apartment. Baker made the threat repeatedly, and even kidnapped one of the burglars in order to get the identity of the other two (which included Carter).

Yet, when threateningly approached by Baker with his gun hand concealed under a heavy folded coat... and Shan backs up before pulling his gun and shooting him - the prosecutors decide to charge Carter with first degree murder, and he is convicted and sentenced to death. This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

The case for self defense in Carter's case far exceeds that for Zimmerman, which is dubious at best.


Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Been through this same tired rhetoric on his case many many times. One small time punk shoots another......and, in the process...and innocent child dies. Where do I sign up to push the plunger if they ever get around to lethally injecting this cretin?


You left out the fact that Carter shot Baker in self defense. Baker was stalking Carter and the entire community, including Carter, knew that. Zimmerman was the one who was stalking Trayvon Martin... not the other way around.

Anonymous said...

Nope...........wrong. So many differnces in the two cases.....even you, with your limited intellect, ought to be able to figure it out. not self defense....not even close. hope he rots in prison.

Anonymous said...

From the totally innocent 8 year old kids point of view - what charges, if any, do you think the person who shot the gun (in fear based self-defense) would be charged with if - say - the person was zimmerman who's stray bullet unintentionally killed the young child?

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Zimmerman was the one who was stalking Trayvon Martin... not the other way around."

There is no evidence that Geotge immerman was stalking Trayvon Martin.

Break the Conspiracy said...

Sidney: in light of the recent stand your ground acquittal...

As we know, SYG was not claimed as Zimmerman's defense. SYG eliminates a duty to retreat. Zimmerman claimed Martin was on top of him, punching and slamming his head on the sidewalk. If true, Zimmerman had no ability to retreat. With no ability to retreat, there can be no duty to do so.

I almost stopped reading as a result of a misstatement of this magnitude. I suggest you correct your mistake. Otherwise less supportive readers may be discouraged from viewing the flog.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

Your credibility has dropped from zero on a scale of 1 to 100 to minus 200. You can't even craft a credible delusion.

Two drug dealers get into a gun battle. What precipitated the gun battle was that drug dealer a stole money from drug dealer b. In the course of trying to kill or seriously injure b, a kills an innocent child. And you want b to get off with not guilty on the ground of self defense.

Does anyone wonder why Scott Holmes wants you to butt out of Crystal's case.

Walt said...

Sid wrote: " In fear for his life, Carter fired his gun twice with the intention of wounding him…"

At the very least that is Murder in the Second Degree. Second-degree murder, is the crime of murdering in "the heat of passion" or "sudden heat" which results from intense anger, fear, rage, or terror. Second-degree murder is a crime that falls in between first-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter.

In order to prove second-degree murder, the prosecution must produce evidence that the alleged criminal committed the homicide with malice. In the matter of second-degree murder, the presence of malice does not call for the intent to cause death, and the issue of premeditation does not have to be proven.

"... and as Baker turned and retreated, Carter fired three additional rounds to keep Baker motivated and occupied with escape. Not intentionally trying to strike the fleeing man, one of the bullets ricocheted off the steering wheel of a parked car striking an 8 year-old boy in the head (he later died). It was hours later before Carter even was aware that he had struck the boy with his gunfire."

That too, at the very least is Second Degree Murder. Second Degree murder can also be defined as a death that resulted from an assault that is likely to be deadly. This differs from first-degree murder, where the killing was intentional.

Taking Sid at his word, two second degree murders. One of them, again taking Sid at his word, of a totally innocent eight year old.

I see two questions here, first was the killing of Tyrone Baker excused by the then existing doctrine of self-defense? Second, is the death penalty appropriate.

Let me say that there is no defense to Second Degree Murder for the second killing, none what so ever.

Let's then turn to the Baker killing. Under the retreat doctrine as it existed then in NC law, I see no evidence that Carter retreated. Under our law as it existed at the time, this was not self-defense.

Last we turn to the issue of punishment. Is the death penalty appropriate? I have a hard time with trusting prosecutors in NC. They tend to lie, cheat and steal, remember Nifong. Sid has a track record of being less than forthcoming with the facts, much like his buddy Nifong. So, I am reluctant to say that Shan Carter should be put to death for the Baker murder.

But, I think a case can be made for that under Sid's rendition of the facts. What of the murder of Demitrius Greene? Under our doctrine of transferred intent or our felony murder rule, there is ample legal precedent to convict for murder in the second degree.

Further, I submit and will write at some future date about my submission, that there is ample evidence as well as law to support the convictions of Carter for murder in the first degree for especially Demetrius Greene, the completely and totally innocent eight year old boy as well as Baker.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

thank you, walt. I read this site at times in order to read YOUR posts and Lance's posts. That's it. At times, when the retired physician posts, I look for those comments, read and appreciate them as well. The dribble from harr, the trolls and mistral-recluse, et al.....is just sawdust.

Anonymous said...

ever wonder what all those other people you mention think about your ... er ... dribble???

basketball anyone?

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

Harrian views of crime:

If a black man does it, it is not a crime. It is only a crime if a white man does it.

If a black person accuses a white person of a crime, the white person must be presumed guilty, even if the accusation is proven to be false.

Anonymous said...

nope, poster, I could care less what other posters think of what I happen to write here......it's all basically opinion.....yours, mine, and others.......so, mine is worthless, essentially, and so is yours. Basketball? Absolutely........Go Duke!!!!!!!

Surely we have figured out by now that Mangum and Harr is related......sharing the same character genes. Victims, not accountable for their behavior, lying freely, and endlessly singing the same tired whine-song..."it's those evil white people who are the cause of all my troubles boogie".

Anonymous said...

ooops, grammar FAIL.....my major bad.... "Mangum and Harr ARE related.......

Anonymous said...

swish

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

KENHYDERAL:

Check this out:

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1628

This quotes statistics, the white population is about 5 times the black population. The number of Black on white crimes is 5 times the number of white on black crimes.

Look at it this way. In a group of 100,000 whites there are 5000 black on white crimes. In a group of 20,000 blacks there would have been 1000 white on black crimes.

Say a group of 1000 whites commits the white on black crimes. That is 1% of the white population. 1% of the black population would be 200. 5000 divided by 200 is 25. 1000 divided by 1000 is 1.

This is admittedly speculative. However can you come up with anything saying that white on black crime happens more often than black on white crime? Race baiters al and jesse say there is an epidemic of white on black crime.

The question is, can they back up their claims with data?

If they could, they would not be trying to turn people like Trayvon Martin, Tawana Brawley and Crystal Mangum into examples of white on black crime.

Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

Sid -- At just a quick glance, there are a number of issues with your "article":

As someone else pointed out, Zimmerman did not use the "Stand Your Ground" law as part of his defense. Therefore he cannot have a "stand your ground" acquittal.

Also, the NC "stand your ground" law applies to offenses committed on or after December 1, 2011.

Even Mr. Baker admits that it only "appeared" to him that Tyrone Baker was carrying a gun at the time of the shooting.

Forensic evidence confirmed that the bullets that struck Tyrone Baker and Demetrius Greene all came from the same gun. This proves that Carter's claim that the bullet that killed young Demetrius Greene came from Baker is a lie.

There WAS one truly innocent victim in this case, and it definitely isn't Shan Carter.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

KENHYDERAL:

Here is another way to look at interracial ctime based on the data from:

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1628

Say in the previously mentioned white and black groups, it was 1 interracial crime per person. In that case, there would be 5000 criminals in the black group, compared to 1000 in the white group.

I'd still like to see jesse and al back up their claims about white on black crime with hard data. So far they haven't.

What makes the data "hard" for them is that it does not support their claims.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

With regard to Shan Edward Carter, let me use Judge Judy as a source. If you can cite the fictional Perry Mason, I figure I can cite the very real Judge Judy.

You seem to think that Shan Carter should get a pass because he acted in self defense and did not intend to kill anyone with his bullets. Judge Judy would have asked, if you didn't want to defend yourself against a drug dealer, why did you steal his money? She would have asked, if you did not want to kill anyone, why were you firing your gun?

kenhyderal said...

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics".... Mark Twain

guiowen said...

Blogger kenhyderal said...

'"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics".... Mark Twain'

Well, why don't you analyze the data for us, explaining what is wrong with the statistics?

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"nds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics".... Mark Twain'

Well, why don't you analyze the data for us, explaining what is wrong with the statistics?"

Why don't you come up with statistics to show white on black crime exceeds black on white crime.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics".... Mark Twain'

Well, why don't you analyze the data for us, explaining what is wrong with the statistics?"

The individual who said that was not a statistician. Wanting to believe that is like wanting someone to believe that SIDNEY HARR, who never did a residency, never attained board certification in anything let alone pathology, is more capable than Dr. Nichols or Dr. Roberts to determine whether or not an autopsy report is falsified.

It seems you do not like statistics because they do not mesh with your blind, hypocritical, blatant unrepentant racism.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

What you seem to think is this.

A steals B's property. B tries to recover his property. A shoots B dead and then pleads he acted in self defense because he feared B would kill him.

A kills an innocent bystander during the confrontation. A pleads he should not be held criminally liable for the bystander's death because he did not intend tokill him.

You seem to think if A is black, those are valid defenses.

I bet you would not think that if A were white and the innocent bystander were black.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDEAL:

You again show ignorance of the principle He who asserts must prove.

If you assert that the statistics I presented are false, you must prove it for your statement to be valid.

You proclaim the statistics are false and then say if I can not disprove your allegation it must be true.

It is the same way you approached formed your hypothesis about the Crystal Mangum false rape allegations. Kilgo says that he had a friend on the Lacrosse team who witnessed an assault on Crystal at the Lacrosse party. You say that if no one can disprove Kilgo's allegation, it must be accepted as true.

That is the mind of a blind, hypocritical, intellectually dishonest blatant unrepentant racist.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

KENHYDERA:

Here is something for you to consider.

Seven of the ten victims of the DC Snipers(Black men John Muhammad and Lee Malvo) were white. Should that have justified someone like Rush Limbaugh from claiming this showed Whites are being stalked by Blacjk people? No.

If the shooters had been white and 7 of their 10 victims had been black. it is a sure thing that race baiter al and race baiter jesse would have made an issue of it.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

One thing wrong with inter racial crime statistics is that black on white hate crimes are not treated as hate crimes, e.g.Chris Newsome and Channon Christian.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

KENHYDERAL:

Check this out:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-juror-murder/story?id=19770659

"'That's where I felt confused, where if a person kills someone, then you get charged for it," Maddy(the only minority member of the jury) said. 'But as the law was read to me, if you have no proof that he killed him intentionally, you can't say he's guilty.'"

Even the only juror who believed George Zimmernman conceded there was no evidence George Zimmerman acted intentionally.

I ask you, if the prosecution could not introduce any evidence that George Zimmerman acted intentionally, Where do you two racists call it murder?

Your view is, when a white man is accused of a crime against a black man, he is denied civil rights and presumed guilty.

Great sense of Justice you two racists have.

I bet SIDNEY will now blog that Mrs. Rae Evans bought off the prosecutor to withhold evidence.

Maybe Kilgo has another anonymous friend who overheard George Zimmerman say he intended to kill Trayvon.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

SIDNEY HARR:

West Virginia Homicide Jury Instructions from http://myweb.wvnet.edu/~jelkins/adcrimlaw/2nd_degree.html

"A killing done impulsively without premeditation, but with malice aforethought
A killing that results from an act intended to cause serious bodily harm
A killing that results from an act that demonstrates the perpetrators depraved indifference to human life

Juror Maddy admitted that the prosecution presented no evidence of any of that.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

KENHYDERAL:

from http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0782/Sections/0782.04.html

"The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084."

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

KENHYDERAL:

Also from http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0782/Sections/0782.04.html(he 2012 Florida Statutes)

"(3) When a human being is killed during the perpetration of, or during the attempt to perpetrate, any:
(a) Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),
(b) Arson,
(c) Sexual battery,
(d) Robbery,
(e) Burglary,
(f) Kidnapping,
(g) Escape,
(h) Aggravated child abuse,
(i) Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
(j) Aircraft piracy,
(k) Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
(l) Carjacking,
(m) Home-invasion robbery,
(n) Aggravated stalking,
(o) Murder of another human being,
(p) Aggravated fleeing or eluding with serious bodily injury or death,
(q) Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person, or
(r) Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism,
by a person other than the person engaged in the perpetration of or in the attempt to perpetrate such felony, the person perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate such felony commits murder in the second degree, which constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084."

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

SIDNEY HARR:

Regarding my comment of July 25, 2013 at 12:27 PM

What the prosecution failed to present was any evidence that George Zimmerman "evinci[ed] a depraved mind regardless of human life".

SIDNEY might say he did. KENNY might say he did. SIDNEY says Shan Carter should get a pass for murder because he acted in self defense. KENNY says Crystal was raped because Kilgo was told by an unidentifiable anonymous source that she was.

Enough said.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Nope...........wrong. So many differnces in the two cases.....even you, with your limited intellect, ought to be able to figure it out. not self defense....not even close. hope he rots in prison.


He's not going to rot in prison... and the reason is not because he will be executed. Shan Carter is going to be freed. The soothsayer has spoken.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

KENHYDERAL:

My comment of July 25, 2013 at 12:29 PM is a situation not at all applicable to George Zimmerman.

He was not a person who was there involved in a felony which someone else was committing.

It all shows neither one of you are fit to sit on a Jury. You know nothing about crime, just about blind, hypocritical, blatant unrepentant racism.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"[Shan Carter]'s not going to rot in prison... and the reason is not because he will be executed. Shan Carter is going to be freed. The soothsayer has spoken."

Who???

No soothsayer has ever posted on this blog, except maybe the people who have posted that your frivolous lawsuit againt Duke would never fly.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
From the totally innocent 8 year old kids point of view - what charges, if any, do you think the person who shot the gun (in fear based self-defense) would be charged with if - say - the person was zimmerman who's stray bullet unintentionally killed the young child?


Prosecutors overcharged Carter with first degree murder in the young boy's death. The most serious charge they should have sought is manslaughter... regardless of whether the shooter was Carter or Zimmerman.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

Also from The 2012 Florida Statutes,
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes:/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0782/Sections/0782.04.html(
"(3) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person and makes a credible threat to that person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084."

Testimony from Prosecution witnesses and photographs of George Zimmerman's real injuries(as opposed to Crystal's imaginary injuries) show that Trayvon turned the confrontation violent, had George Zimmerman on the ground and was using enough force to possibly kill him. There was no aggravated stalking involved.

Nifong Supporter said...


Break the Conspiracy said...
Sidney: in light of the recent stand your ground acquittal...

As we know, SYG was not claimed as Zimmerman's defense. SYG eliminates a duty to retreat. Zimmerman claimed Martin was on top of him, punching and slamming his head on the sidewalk. If true, Zimmerman had no ability to retreat. With no ability to retreat, there can be no duty to do so.

I almost stopped reading as a result of a misstatement of this magnitude. I suggest you correct your mistake. Otherwise less supportive readers may be discouraged from viewing the flog.


Hey, Break.

As you know, I am no lawyer and don't pretend to be, so I appreciate the enlightenment provided by you, Walt, and other commenters. Why can't this be a learning experience for all.

I do make an effort to get the facts correct, but a lot of what I write is based on mainstream media accounts. And as you are aware, the media is very unreliable... for instance when it refers to Daye as being "fatally stabbed." That's from the Associated Press.

Thanks for elucidation on SYG... but surely you don't expect me to go to the original Flash file and make changes... that would be quite a job in itself.

But thanks for your comments... I'll try to be more atuned to legal nuances in the future.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Prosecutors overcharged Carter with first degree murder in the young boy's death. The most serious charge they should have sought is manslaughter... regardless of whether the shooter was Carter or Zimmerman."

Yet you say Carter acted in self defense when he shot the innocent 8 year old and George Zimmerman did not when Trayvon was pounding his head on the concrete.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Hey, Break.

As you know, I am no lawyer and don't pretend to be,"

You have made that abundantly clear on many occasions. Yet you feel capable of supervising Crystal's defense.

"so I appreciate the enlightenment provided by you, Walt, and other commenters."

No you don't.

"Why can't this be a learning experience for all."

Because rather than promulgate learning you promulgate your Racism.

"I do make an effort to get the facts correct, but a lot of what I write is based on mainstream media accounts. And as you are aware, the media is very unreliable..."

You say that because the media does not buy into your racism.

"for instance when it refers to Daye as being 'fatally stabbed.' That's from the Associated Press."

It is also from Dr. Nichols who, unlike you is trained and competent in the area of forensic pathology. Dr. Roberts seems to thunk Dr. Nichols is trained and competent-which is why you think she is not.

"Thanks for elucidation on SYG... but surely you don't expect me to go to the original Flash file and make changes... that would be quite a job in itself."

Even if it weren't quite a job you wouldn't have tried. You usually defend your errors rather than defend them.

"But thanks for your comments... I'll try to be more atuned to legal nuances in the future."

You are incapable of knowing what a nuance is, let alone becoming attuned to it.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

What you seem to think is this.

A steals B's property. B tries to recover his property. A shoots B dead and then pleads he acted in self defense because he feared B would kill him.

A kills an innocent bystander during the confrontation. A pleads he should not be held criminally liable for the bystander's death because he did not intend tokill him.

You seem to think if A is black, those are valid defenses.

I bet you would not think that if A were white and the innocent bystander were black.


Let's add clarification:
A steals $40,000 cash from B.
B is a hardened drug dealer from New York and publicly announces to the community his intent to kill those responsible for the theft (A).

B kidnaps and pistol-whips burglary accomplice C in order to find out the identities of A and D (the third burglar)

B finds A and D on the street corner, sucker punches D, knocking him to the ground, and then menacingly walks toward A with a coat draped over his gun hand, most likely concealing a weapon.

B believes A has a weapon, and based upon all of the above, believes it is the intent of B to kill him... so A shoots B in defense of his life.

Let me know if further elucidation is required.

Nifong Supporter said...


Oops. Next to last paragraph above should read "A believes B has a weapon..."

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
KENHYDERAL:

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics".... Mark Twain'

Well, why don't you analyze the data for us, explaining what is wrong with the statistics?"

The individual who said that was not a statistician. Wanting to believe that is like wanting someone to believe that SIDNEY HARR, who never did a residency, never attained board certification in anything let alone pathology, is more capable than Dr. Nichols or Dr. Roberts to determine whether or not an autopsy report is falsified.

It seems you do not like statistics because they do not mesh with your blind, hypocritical, blatant unrepentant racism.


I am not questioning the credentials of Drs. Nichols or Roberts. I'm not even questioning why Dr. Nichols produced a false and fraudulent autopsy report. The fact is that there are glaring discrepancies between findings in the autopsy report and the other medical records... and nothing to support the outlandish assertion that the stab wound was responsible for Daye's death.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Let's add clarification:
A steals $40,000 cash from B.
B is a hardened drug dealer from New York and publicly announces to the community his intent to kill those responsible for the theft (A).

B kidnaps and pistol-whips burglary accomplice C in order to find out the identities of A and D (the third burglar)

B finds A and D on the street corner, sucker punches D, knocking him to the ground, and then menacingly walks toward A with a coat draped over his gun hand, most likely concealing a weapon.

B believes A has a weapon, and based upon all of the above, believes it is the intent of B to kill him... so A shoots B in defense of his life.

Let me know if further elucidation is required."

The ultimate elucidation is that the incident never would have happened had Shan Carter robbed another drug dealer of that dealer's illegally obtained money.

Anonymous said...

Ok, harr.....the fellow who got in a scrap with a Raleigh detention center guard has died. Now, since the guard is black and the guy who died is black, are you going to continue your usual whine/.rant about how the guards are all racist pigs and want to whop up on the poor innocent black victims in the jail? You conveniently failed to note that the guard was black, didn't you......implying initially that this was white on black crime. When you got caught, you weaseled and squirmed. Now, the guy is dead and the BLACK guard is out on admin. leave. Speak up, harr..........how are you gonna twist this to make it another poor black victim done in at the hands of evil white people story?

Anonymous said...

two scumbag drug dealers .....one dead, one locked up for life (or dead, eventually, I hope).......great!!!! A completely innocent little boy.....dead. I guess this was the evil white oppressors at it again, huh, sidney?

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"I am not questioning the credentials of Drs. Nichols or Roberts."

Yes you are.

"I'm not even questioning why Dr. Nichols produced a false and fraudulent autopsy report."

You are assuming with no evidence to back you up that Dr. Nichols produced a fraudulent report.

"The fact is that there are glaring discrepancies between findings in the autopsy report and the other medical records..."

First establish what credentials you to say there were glaring discrepancies. Sayin a 5th grader could have seen the discrepancies does not give you credibility. It establishes only that you have no credibility.

"and nothing to support the outlandish assertion that the stab wound was responsible for Daye's death."

Yes there is, the opinion of trained, experienced, competent forensic pathologist Dr. Nichols.

Incidentally, if you can not establish a motive why Dr. Nichols would falsify an autopsy report, you again establish you have no credibility.

Anonymous said...

Correction:

SIDNEY HARR:

"Let's add clarification:
A steals $40,000 cash from B.
B is a hardened drug dealer from New York and publicly announces to the community his intent to kill those responsible for the theft (A).

B kidnaps and pistol-whips burglary accomplice C in order to find out the identities of A and D (the third burglar)

B finds A and D on the street corner, sucker punches D, knocking him to the ground, and then menacingly walks toward A with a coat draped over his gun hand, most likely concealing a weapon.

B believes A has a weapon, and based upon all of the above, believes it is the intent of B to kill him... so A shoots B in defense of his life.

Let me know if further elucidation is required."

The ultimate elucidation is that the incident never would have happened had Shan Carter not robbed another drug dealer of that dealer's illegally obtained money.

Anonymous said...

All this A and B crap is bull. Two scumbag drug dealers ....one dead, one in prison......who gives a damn? I 'm glad these asshats are off the streets. The ONLY tragedy is that a little child got killed. As far as I am concerned, that is completely enough to pursue the death penalty. You wanna whine and cry for your little baby-killing drug dealer, sidney? have at it, pal. what next? You gonna break down and boohoo over the next pedophile who comes along?

kenhyderal said...

Guiown said: "Well, why don't you analyze the data for us, explaining what is wrong with the statistics".................... The statistics may be correct, it's the faulty conclusion being drawn from them, that this phenomena demonstrates that there is black on white racism in America and that it's the most serious race and equality issue.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"The statistics may be correct, it's the faulty conclusion being drawn from them, that this phenomena demonstrates that there is black on white racism in America and that it's the most serious race and equality issue."

Your admission that the statistics are correct is your admission that black on white racism does exist. If Black people perpetrate most of the interracial crime and perpetrate it mostly on white people, how does that demonstrate that white on black racism is the more serious problem?

kenhyderal said...

Changes to the voting laws in Texas and North Carolina demonstrate institutional racism. Re-drawing Congressional boundaries to dilute the vote of African Americans is racism. Crime is crime and the race of the criminal and the victim are irrelevant but profiling people by race is racism. Administering Justice based on race is racism.

Anonymous said...

We have people of colors (and many different colors mixed together) from every continent, country, nation, territory, and providence in the world in the USA.

Why are they all classified as African Americans?

Anonymous said...

In the judicial system all inclusive in durham and duke - the environment is very racially charged and discrimination is the norm - and it does go both ways - and it is very obvious to most.

This extends outwards to the entire NC populace through duke - and is used as the basis for example for social policy for the entire USA in their chaos driven dreams - and in reality that is deadly and unjust to many.

It is so sickenly obvious in its moral decay and decline through the political influence of medical meddeling in the every facet of the lives of all citizens, of all ages and races and gender - that the brazen display of sheer disrespect for the rights of so many as a norm of being known as leaders in their fields of expertise - (which actually says a lot about them from the perspective of their ability to lead the depravity and racist manipulation as well as all other facists of society) - for their benefit only.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"Crime is crime and the race of the criminal and the victim are irrelevant..."

So that is why race baiter al and race baiter jesse stir up racial hatreds over non crimes, like the tawana brawley false rape, the Crystal Mangum false rape, the traffic accident which precipitated the black on white riots in Crown Heights?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Anonymous July 26, 2013 at 12:33 AM

"We have people of colors (and many different colors mixed together) from every continent, country, nation, territory, and providence in the world in the USA.

Why are they all classified as African Americans?"

They aren't. They are classed as white, hispanic, black, asian, mixed race.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous July 26, 2013 at 12:58 AM

In the judicial system all inclusive in durham and duke - the environment is very racially charged and discrimination is the norm - and it does go both ways - and it is very obvious to most.

Compare the treatment of black on white rapist Michael Jermaine Burch and falsely accused White rapists Reade Seligman, Colin Finnerty, and David Evans.

To me that says that a white man, even a white man falsely accused, of a crime against a black person is treated much more harshly.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

Your take on Shan Carter is truly revealing. He is a black man who, in the course of criminal activity for which he was responsible, killed an innocent bystander, a child. And you blog that he should get a pass because he is black.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

You are dodging real issues. You do admit that black people commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes, that they victimize white people more often than white people victimize blacks. You do not want to explain the significance of that.

Anonymous said...

do you really think you can use the duke case as an example of how white people are treated more harshly in durham - as this case was a political event of the most bizarre magnitude that it would take a similar case - like the zimmerman case - to compare it to to see if there is racism against whites in these political lets make racist news events (as mentioned)?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Anonymous July 26, 2013 at 4:57 AM


do you really think you can use the duke case as an example of how white people are treated more harshly in durham - as this case was a political event of the most bizarre magnitude that it would take a similar case - like the zimmerman case - to compare it to to see if there is racism against whites in these political lets make racist news events (as mentioned)?

A juror says that the jury believed George Zimmerman got away for murder. Same Juror admitted the State could not present any evidence to prove the crime. It is another iteration of, if the evidence does not fit the metanarrative, discard the evidence and believe the metanarrative.

That, like the Duke phony rape case, is a graphic example of how white people charged with crimes against black people are singled out for harsher treatment.

Did anyone ever blog that theDC snipers-they were black and 7 of their 1o victims were white-should be denied due process? No.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous July 26, 2013 at 4:57 AM

Check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Ferguson_%28mass_murderer%29

Black man Colin Ferguson went on a shooting rampage on a train, killing and wounding a number of white people.

Race baiter al and race baiter jesse argued that this should not be used as an excuse to demonize black people.

Race baiter al and race baiter jesse have HAVE USED things like the phony tawana brawley rape case, the phony crystal mangum rape case, and the George Zimmerman case, which was no where near the magnitude of the Colin Ferguson case, as excuses to demonize white people.

That is racist hypocrisy of the first order, not to mention an indication that black race baiters like al and jesse believe white people do not deserve due process when accused of crimes against black people, even when falsely accused.

Anonymous said...

So basically that anyone's race is being used as a means to incite race-baiting politics is actually making the crime victim into not only a victim of the crime, but also an equally victimized person of race-baiting politics which is an obvious racist act at the hands of those who incite and perpetrate and endorse the race-baiting politics.

Racism may or may not enter the picture until the case becomes part of the 'judicial system'

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

Your take on Shan Carter is truly revealing. He is a black man who, in the course of criminal activity for which he was responsible, killed an innocent bystander, a child. And you blog that he should get a pass because he is black.


It is not a crime to defend oneself against someone who has threatened to kill him... regardless of what activity he is involved in. The death of the boy was a tragic accident.

Would you have a drunk driver (criminal act) who accidentally killed a child with his car sentenced to death?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Correction:

SIDNEY HARR:

"Let's add clarification:
A steals $40,000 cash from B.
B is a hardened drug dealer from New York and publicly announces to the community his intent to kill those responsible for the theft (A).

B kidnaps and pistol-whips burglary accomplice C in order to find out the identities of A and D (the third burglar)

B finds A and D on the street corner, sucker punches D, knocking him to the ground, and then menacingly walks toward A with a coat draped over his gun hand, most likely concealing a weapon.

B believes A has a weapon, and based upon all of the above, believes it is the intent of B to kill him... so A shoots B in defense of his life.

Let me know if further elucidation is required."

The ultimate elucidation is that the incident never would have happened had Shan Carter not robbed another drug dealer of that dealer's illegally obtained money.


That's true... and Trayvon Martin would be alive if George Zimmerman would not have profiled and stalked him.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Ok, harr.....the fellow who got in a scrap with a Raleigh detention center guard has died. Now, since the guard is black and the guy who died is black, are you going to continue your usual whine/.rant about how the guards are all racist pigs and want to whop up on the poor innocent black victims in the jail? You conveniently failed to note that the guard was black, didn't you......implying initially that this was white on black crime. When you got caught, you weaseled and squirmed. Now, the guy is dead and the BLACK guard is out on admin. leave. Speak up, harr..........how are you gonna twist this to make it another poor black victim done in at the hands of evil white people story?


Why are you insisting on bringing up the race card? I never knew the race of the guard until after I posted the flog, and frankly, the guard's race was/is irrelevant.

The guard should never have assaulted the inmate, and surely he shouldn't have slammed his head into the concrete floor.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous July 26, 2013 at 5:39 AM

"Racism may or may not enter the picture until the case becomes part of the 'judicial system'"

Racism was part of the tawana Brawley non crime, of the crystal mangum non crimre before they ever got into the judicial system.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"It is not a crime to defend oneself against someone who has threatened to kill him... regardless of what activity he is involved in. The death of the boy was a tragic accident."

If you really believed that, you would not have been advocating against George Zimmerman. It is obvious, from evidence the prosecution witnesses presented, that George Zimmermab shot Trayvon Martin while Trayvon Martin was on top of him pounding his head on the pavement.

"Would you have a drunk driver (criminal act) who accidentally killed a child with his car sentenced to death?"

No. The driver was not involved in criminal activity. In response to that question, was race baiter al justified in fomenting violent action against white people in response to the accidental killing of a black child?

In any event that scenario is irrelevant. Shan Carter killed the child while he was voluntarily involved in criminal activity. Or are you going to claim he was coerced into stealing the money in the first place, or coerced into dealing drugs?

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"That's true... and Trayvon Martin would be alive if George Zimmerman would not have profiled and stalked him."

Another straw fisherman holding up a red herring.

That George Zimmerman profiled Trayvon Martin is a myth created when MSNBC, part of the mainstream media which you claim is anti black, edited the 911 call recording to make it look like George Zimmerman was profiling Trayvon Martin.

George Zimmwerman WAS defending himself. Shan Carter was engaging in violent criminal activity which was a result of his own actions.

Another example of your racism-the justice system should bend over backwards to give a black man a pass for criminal activity but should ignore facts and presume a white defendant charged with a crime against a black man guilty of said crime.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Why are you insisting on bringing up the race card? I never knew the race of the guard until after I posted the flog, and frankly, the guard's race was/is irrelevant."

So why did you publish a graphic showing a hulking white guard beating on a small helpless black inmate?

"The guard should never have assaulted the inmate, and surely he shouldn't have slammed his head into the concrete floor."

If you believe that, why do you believe that Trayvon Martin was justified in slamming George Zimmerman's head against a hard pavement?

The physical evidence of George Zimmerman's injuries is real, not imaginary like the evidence of Crystal's alleged injuries.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

KENHYDERAL:

You castigate the main stream media. What about these incidents.

MSNBC has admitted it edited the tape of George Zimmerman's 911 call to make the situation look like George Zimmerman was profiling Trayvon Martin because Trayvon was black.

ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC all report a story this way, that a juror on the Trayvon Martin case says the jury believes George Zimmerman got away with murder. The true story is the juror did say that she believed George Zimmerman did get away with murder. She also conceded that the Prosecution could not make a case for Murder. This means it had no evidence to present that the incident was a murder.

I say again, it is another iteration of this: if the facts do not support the metanarrative, ignore the facts and go with the metanarrative.

Anonymous said...

One more.

I read on line that Michelle Obama told 60 Minutes that Barack Obama could have been killed just going into a gas station.

This is true.

What is also true, which Mrs. Obama does not say is, based on crime statistics over several years, if Mr. Obama had been shot dead going into a DC gas station, most likely the perpetrator would have been neither a white man, nor an hispanic man, nor a neighborhood watchman but another black man.

Ignoring that on the part of the President and the First Lady is black on white racism on the part of the President and his wife.

Anonymous said...

I think using the term African American is racist. For one thing, all African's are not persons of color, so right away they are negated from existance by equating African with person of color.

Next, not all persons of color are from Africa as place of origin before arriving in USA.

Finally, if you believe the theory that all humans have the same DNA linking back to the first humonoids in Africa, then all Americans are essentially African Americans.

Walt said...

Kenhyderal wrote: "Re-drawing Congressional boundaries to dilute the vote of African Americans is racism."

Except that is not what was done in NC. Instead, congressional district boundaries were drawn to maximize the vote of African-Americans. For example, districts 1 and 12 in NC.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

Anonymous July 26, 2013 at 9:37 AM

If we all share DNA which is from the Neanderthals, would that make us all Neanderthals?

The earliest humanoids would not have had the same DNA as modernHomo Sapiens.

Human DNA is 98% the same as Chimpanzee DNA. By your reasoning it would be proper to call us all Chimps rather than African Americans.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous July 26, 2013 at 9:37 AM:

Check this out:

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100912040440AASnRdD

"The word "homonid" is more scientifically relevant than "humanoid". A homonid is a primate of the family Hominidae, the oldest known of which is Sahelanthropus

and this:

http://anthro.palomar.edu/hominid/australo_1.htm tchadensis dated at between 6 and 7 million years old.

"he immediate ancestors of humans were members of the genus Australopithecus click this icon to hear the preceding term pronounced. The australopithecines click this icon to hear the preceding term pronounced (or australopiths) were intermediate between apes and people. Both australopithecines and humans are biologically similar enough to be classified as members of the same biological tribe--the Hominini click this icon to hear the preceding term pronounced. All people, past and present, along with the australopithecines are hominins click this icon to hear the preceding term pronounced. We share in common not only the fact that we evolved from the same ape ancestors in Africa but that both genera are habitually bipedal click this icon to hear the preceding term pronounced, or two-footed, upright walkers."

The earliest homonids fromAfrica were not human.

Anonymous said...

no of course not
???

Anonymous said...

Anonymous July 26, 2013 at 9:37 AM:

Check this out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#Divergence_of_the_human_clade_from_other_Great_Apes

Homo Sapiens emerged long after the earliest homonids emerged in Africa. There were multiple evolutionary phases between the earliest homonids and Homo sapiens.

Anonymous said...

well then the term would be better described as homo sapien Americans

which - essentially then - from what is taught as current understanding - all americans are homo sampien (African) Americans if the humonids evolved into homo sapiens on the continent known as Africa

i'll have to read more as you suggest

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

After watching your flog, I again say, Shan Carter shot and killed an innocent child because of his engagement in criminal activity and you are arguing that the NC Justice
system should give him a pass for it.

Your flog shows unequivocally Tyrone Baker was retreating and making no threat to Shan Carter when Shan Carter fired the bullets which killed Tyrone Baker and the innocent child.

You are really one perverted individual.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HAR:

Your flog showed that Shan Carter was dealing drugs. It shows Tyrone Baker retreated after Shan Carter fired the first shot. I say again, Shan fired the fatal bullets while Tyrone Baker was retreating.

Why don't you ask your so called friend Professor Coleman whether or not your flog showed that Shan Carter acted in self defense when he fired the fatal bullets?

One question unanswered was whether or not Shan Carter had a permit to carry a firearm. Why do you avoid that question?

If Shan Carter did not have a firearm, he killed Tyrone Baker and the innocent 8 year old boy with an illegal firearm. That hardly qualifies him for self defense.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"...word on the streets of the coastal city was that drug dealer Tyrone Baker was looking for those responsible for stealing from his apartment $40,000 in cash of his ill gotten gains".

Something else you do not mention is, if Shan Carter feared for his life, why did he not go to the police, confess his part in the robbery and give them the money. He might have wound up incarcerated but he would have been at a lot less risk from Tyrone Baker, and no one would have died.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Tyrone Baker... walked toward Carter with his gun-hand concealed by a heavy coat draped over it."

So Shan Carter did not know whether or not Tyrone Baker actually did have a gun in his hand.

In fear for his life, Carter fired his gun twice with the intention of wounding him… and as Baker turned and retreated".

That would indicate Tyrone Baker did not have a gun. If he had a gun, would he not have drawn it and fired back at Shan Baker?

In any event, you document that Shan Cartrer did fire the bullets at Tyrone Baker and killed him and the 8 year old innocent boy while Baker was retreating.

I am not a lawyer, but I think firing at a fleeing individual who is probably unarmed does not add up to self defense.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Not intentionally trying to strike the fleeing man, one of the bullets ricocheted off the steering wheel of a parked car striking an 8 year-old boy in the head (he later died). It was hours later before Carter even was aware that he had struck the boy with his gunfire."

Again, you try to gloss over that there was no indication, after the first gunshot, that Tyrone Baker was armed. If he was unarmed and fleeing, Shan Carter can not claim self defense when he fired those three shots at Tyrone Baker.

The death of the innocent 8 year old boy adds up to a death caused by Shan Martin illegally firing a gun at someone.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

I think, to make a case for justifiable homicide, Shan Carter would have had to prove that Tyrone Baker had a gun and was threatening to use it. Have you done that.

You admit Tyrone Baker was fleeing Shan Carter, not firing a gun at him.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

Consider this from one of my earlier posts:

"Something else you do not mention is, if Shan Carter feared for his life, why did he not go to the police, confess his part in the robbery and give them the money. He might have wound up incarcerated but he would have been at a lot less risk from Tyrone Baker, and no one would have died."

Was it because Shan Martin would have had to confess to a crime? Do you believe that crime is not a crime when a black man commits it?

It seems so.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

Why did you not mention this:

From: http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/sc/opinions/2003/479-01-1.htm

At the time of the incident, Shan Carter was a convicted felon who was barred from possessing a firearm.

So he shot and killed Tyrone Baker, who you have not proven was armed, with an illegal firearm.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

Please explain why Shan Martin should not be criminally liable for the death of the 8 year old when he was committing a crime by being in possession of the firearm with which he fired the fatal shot.

He did not intend to kill Demetrius Green? Is that your defense?

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

From the same URL:

"Defendant first became aware of Baker's presence when Baker attacked Temony, knocking him to the ground. Baker then approached defendant menacingly, with a jacket slung over his arm, concealing his hand. According to eyewitnesses, Baker wasunarmed(sic)."

So Shan Carter fired at an unarmed man with a firearm in his illegal possession while the man was fleeing.

Why did you never mention that in your flog.

Walt said...

Sid wrote: "The death of the boy was a tragic accident."

First and foremost, "the boy" had a name, Demitrius Greene. He was eight years old in 1997 and completely and totally innocent.

Second, Greene's death was no accident. It was the result of a deliberate cold blooded killing with malice aforethought. I argued above that at the very least Greene's killing was Murder in the Second Degree. But, I believe the state more than proved sufficient facts and the law supports the conviction of Murder in the First Degree.

The doctrine of transferred intent provides that when a defendant intends to harm one victim (in this case Baker), but ends up harming another (in this case Greene), the defendant’s criminal liability is determined with respect to his intent and conduct towards the first victim (in this case Baker). State v. Davis, 349 N.C. 1, 27 (1998) (quoting State v. Wynn, 278 N.C. 513, 519 (1971). If [Greene] is killed, the defendant is guilty or innocent exactly as if the fatal act had killed [Baker]. Id. (quoting Wynn, 278 N.C. at 519). As it is sometimes said, “intent follows the bullet.” Id. St. v. Wynn, 278 N.C. at 519. Thus, under the doctrine, it does not matter whether Carter intended to injure Greene; the defendant need only act with the required intent toward Baker.

Sid, as is his custom, omits some facts that are crucial. Baker was the initial aggressor. He approched Carter and punched one of Carter's cohorts. (Sid admits this more or less.) Then Carter brandished his weapon and shot Baker at least twice. As Baker was running away (retreating) Carter assumed the offense and pursued Baker. Carter fired three more times. Carter admitted on the witness stand:  “I didn't want to shoot first, I wanted to go ahead ․ and do what I had to do before [Baker] did it to me.   So I went ahead and pulled my gun out and I shot at him.” According to Carter's own sworn testimony: “[Baker] ran and I went behind him shooting at him.” Combine that with the fact that the previously unarmed Carter [as Sid avers above] went out and armed himself and you have the evidence for Murder I. The transferred intent doctrine provides the law to convict Carter of Greene's murder.

Even with my unease about the death penalty in North Carolina and my well found unease with North Carolina prosecutors, Carter himself provides ample evidence to support his conviction and sentence to death.

Walt-in-Durham

kenhyderal said...

Walt @9:50 said: " Except that is not what was done in NC. Instead, congressional district boundaries were drawn to maximize the vote of African-Americans. For example, districts 1 and 12 in NC.............
http://turnncblue.org/gerry.html (click on quick facts to go for a synopsis)

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

Let's sum up. Shan Carter burglarized Tyrone Baker's apartment in the first place. Shan Carter shot Tyrone Baker with a firearm of which he was not in legal possession. After Tyrone Baker fled, Shan Carter fired three nmore shots a Tyrone Baker, one of which killed him, one of which killed 8 year old Demetrius Green.

You say Shan Carter should get off on self defense, because you concealed inculpatory evidence.

You say the killing of Demetrius Green was unintentional. How about you try criminal disregard for human life.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"Walt @9:50 said: ' Except that is not what was done in NC. Instead, congressional district boundaries were drawn to maximize the vote of African-Americans. For example, districts 1 and 12 in NC.............
http://turnncblue.org/gerry.html (click on quick facts to go for a synopsis)"

What oes that have to do with the real issue of black on white racism, e.g. attempts on the part of race baiter al to stir upblack on white animosity over the Tawana Brawley hoax, the Crystal Mangum hoax, the situation in Crown Heights?

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

From the same URL:

"Defendant testified that he pointed his gun towards the ground and intended only to force Baker away so that defendant could get to his car and leave. Defendant also testified that he did not intend to kill Baker and did not know at the time of the shooting whether any of the bullets actually hit Baker. After defendant fired the first shot, Baker turned and ran around the corner, moving down 10th Street. According to defendant, “'[Baker] ran and I went behind him shooting at him.'”

If Shan Carter intended only to fire at Tyrone Baker to drive him off and then get in his car to escape, why did he not do so.

If he ran after Tyrone Baker(who was unarmed) and continued firing at him(with a firearm of which he was in illegal possession) was that exactly getting into his car and fleeing? No.

That was an indication he intended to harm Tyrone Baker. His intent to harm Tyrone Baker, as Walt has pointed out, caused the death of Demetrius Green.

Another iteration of, ignore the facts and go with the metanarrative.

Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

Kenhyderal said
"Walt @9:50 said: " Except that is not what was done in NC. Instead, congressional district boundaries were drawn to maximize the vote of African-Americans. For example, districts 1 and 12 in NC.............
http://turnncblue.org/gerry.html (click on quick facts to go for a synopsis)


Kenhyderal -- the quick facts state in part:
"...focus of the redistricting was to “pack” African-American voters into three districts: the 1st, 4th, and 12th. The 4th and 12th are grotesquely drawn districts that combine African-American communities from multiple urban areas..."

Aren't these 2 statements saying basically the same thing? If you "pack" African-American voters into specific districts, aren't you going to maximize the African American vote in those districts?

Break the Conspiracy said...

Sidney: That's true... and Trayvon Martin would be alive if George Zimmerman would not have profiled and stalked him.

That's true...

Zimmerman claimed he profiled Martin due to his behavior and dress in response to recent break-ins. Even if Zimmerman has profiled due to race (behavior to which Jesse Jackson has admitted), such activity is legal.

Zimmerman followed Martin to see where he was going. Your use of the word "stalking" is deliberately pejorative. Although the dispatcher told Zimmerman he didn't need to do that, such activity is legal.

...and Travon Martin would be alive if Travon Martin had not sucker punched Zimmerman, gotten on top of Zimmerman, continued to punch Zimmerman and slammed Zimmerman's head into the concrete sidewalk.

Anonymous said...

If anybody was the racist, it was Martin. Zimmerman did not say nigger. He said Black, and only when he was asked by the person on the phone. It was Martin who called Zimmerman a "cracka assed cracka" and by the way, it was Martin who made a death threat against Zimmerman, saying, "You gonna die tonight".
And it was Martin who threw the first punch, jumped on Zimmerman and it was Martin who beat on Zimmerman. In other words, Martin got just a little bit more than he was expecting to get from that "creepy cracka assed cracka". And, now, we are cannonizing Martin, the sweet choir boy and making Zimmerman the "spike" from hell. By the way, it is the blacks in Florida who call Zimmerman and "spike"...which is an ugly mix of spic and kike. You just can't stand the truth, can you sidney....

Anonymous said...

Break the Conspiracy:

I still believe the impression that George Zimmerman profiled Trayvon Martin happened because NBC edited a recording of George Zimmerman's 911 call to make it sound as if George Zimmerman was profiling Trayvon Martin.

Anonymous said...

With regard to Trayvon Martin's Mother:

She is grieving over her son's death. Her statements indicate she believes black teens are stalked by white men.

The hard data indicates, when a black teen male is shot and killed on the street, most likely the killer will be neither a white man nor an hispanic man nor a neigbborhood watchman but another black man.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

Why did you try to distort the Shan Martin case into self defense?

I say again the facts YOU presented show clearly Shan Carter fired the shots which killed Tyrone Baker and Demetrius Green while Tyrone Baker was retreating from the confrontation. That does not add up to self defense.

You never mentioned that Tyrone Baker was unarmed. You never mentioned that Shan Carter was in illegal possession of a firearm.

Let's review. Shan Carter was publicly making drug deals, illegally packing a firearm when the incident happened, in spite of knowledge that Tyrone Baker was determined to recover his money.

That does not say that Shan Carter was trying to avoid a confrontation with Tyrone Carter. It suggests that Shan Carter's mindset was, if Tyrone tries to get his money back I am going to blow him away.

Self Defense?

Hardly.

Anonymous said...

More on Juror Maddy:

The best comment on her came from Today, this AM. I can not remember the exact words. The gist was, the prosecutor has to present facts to make a case for Murder 2. The case has to be decided on the facts.

The facts the prosecution presented showed that Trayvon Martin did attack George Zimmerman. The photographs showed that George Zimmerman was injured in the conflict. The lacerations on his head are consistent with his head being bashed against the sidewalk. I say again, if SIDNEY does not believe that bashing a man's head against concrete is not potentially lethal, he has no business calling himself a physician.

I also say again, the juror's statement was another iteration of the fallacy, that if the facts do not fit the metanarrative, forget the facts and rely on the metanarrative. That is not justice. That is just another variety of lynching.

Anonymous said...

Appeals Decision

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

Click on the link:

Appeals Decision

provided by Anonymous July 27, 2013 at 7:46 AM.

It will take you to http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/sc/opinions/2003/479-01-1.htm

Before he had burglarized Tyrone Baker's apartment, Shan Carter burglarized the home of on Keith Lamont Richardson. Richardson had learned Shan Carter had burglarized his home and confronted him. Shan Carter drew a weapon, his possession of which was illegal, and fired multiple rounds at Richardson and wounded him.

Further, a man named Louis Tyson was assaulted and shot in his home. When Shan Carter was arrested, in a motel room, evidence was found in that room linking him to the shooting of Louis Tyson.

Why did you not mention these incidents in your flog?

Do you really think you can with impunity distort facts and get away with it?

The obvious answer is yes.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

According to news reports, George Zimmerman rescued a family from a traffic incident. The family is now in hiding, fearing retaliation from the black community.

After the Colin Ferguson rampage, race baiter al was urging the white population not to use the Colin Ferguson rampage as an excuse for hostility against the black community.

Is race baiter al urging the black community not to use George Zimmerman as an excuse for hostility against the rescued family. Well, I have not seen any evidence that he is.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

You call race baiter al someone who takes the fight for justice right to the purveyors of injustice.

Google the name Perry McKinnon. You will find evidence that race baiter al knew early on that Tawana Brawley and her family were lying. Knowing they were lying, race baiter al then falsely accused Steven Pagones of raping Tawana.

Fine example of race baiter al taking the fight for justice to the purveyors of injustice, don't you think?

Anonymous said...

I am personally sick of sidney harr and his lying racist crap. Stuff it, bro.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

KENHYDERAL:

Check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_St._Patrick's_Day_beating

Did race baiter al or race baiter jesse or president obama comment on this particular black on white crime in which a white tourist was knocked to the ground, robbed and stripped by a group of black perpetrators.

No they did not.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

KENHYDERAL:

Check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beating_of_Chrissy_Lee_Polis

Two black girls savagely beat a trans gender white woman for using the women's rest room in a MacDonalds.

Did race baiter al or race baiter jesse or President Obama comment on this?

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

KENHYDERAL:

The 4 men who beat up the tourist in Baltimore on Saint Patrick's day in 2012-did they have more in common with Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman?

According to the news on the web, the man was intoxicated when he was assaulted and beaten. Do you suppose that the people who beat him might have profiled him as an easy mark and then stalked him?

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

KENHYDERAL:

Check this out:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/12/why-is-joshua-chellew-less-important-than-trayvon-martin/

Did the men who killed Joshua Heath Chellew have more in common with Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman?

Did any white clergyman call for hostility towards black people over the death of Joshua Heath Chellew? No.

Did race baiter al and race baiter jesse call for hostility towards white people over the death of Trayvon Martin? Yes.

Anonymous said...

Appeal Brunson

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"It is not a crime to defend oneself against someone who has threatened to kill him... regardless of what activity he is involved in. The death of the boy was a tragic accident."

If you really believed that, you would not have been advocating against George Zimmerman. It is obvious, from evidence the prosecution witnesses presented, that George Zimmermab shot Trayvon Martin while Trayvon Martin was on top of him pounding his head on the pavement.

"Would you have a drunk driver (criminal act) who accidentally killed a child with his car sentenced to death?"

No. The driver was not involved in criminal activity. In response to that question, was race baiter al justified in fomenting violent action against white people in response to the accidental killing of a black child?

In any event that scenario is irrelevant. Shan Carter killed the child while he was voluntarily involved in criminal activity. Or are you going to claim he was coerced into stealing the money in the first place, or coerced into dealing drugs?


Am I expected to believe what I'm reading? You say that driving drunk is not a crime...? I respectfully beg to differ with you. Ask Walt what he thinks about whether or not driving drunk is a crime.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
I think using the term African American is racist. For one thing, all African's are not persons of color, so right away they are negated from existance by equating African with person of color.

Next, not all persons of color are from Africa as place of origin before arriving in USA.

Finally, if you believe the theory that all humans have the same DNA linking back to the first humonoids in Africa, then all Americans are essentially African Americans.


Interesting, but what term would you use instead of "African American" to refer to someone we currently refer to as "African American"? Then, would that term be considered racist?

Nifong Supporter said...


Walt said...
Kenhyderal wrote: "Re-drawing Congressional boundaries to dilute the vote of African Americans is racism."

Except that is not what was done in NC. Instead, congressional district boundaries were drawn to maximize the vote of African-Americans. For example, districts 1 and 12 in NC.

Walt-in-Durham


Exactly, Walt, which has the effect of concentrating black influence into fewer districts. That is the problem. Why not draw sensible boundaries that are reasonable instead of one that is all over the place in an attempt to place pockets of high concentrations of African Americans into one district?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Anonymous July 26, 2013 at 9:37 AM:

Check this out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#Divergence_of_the_human_clade_from_other_Great_Apes

Homo Sapiens emerged long after the earliest homonids emerged in Africa. There were multiple evolutionary phases between the earliest homonids and Homo sapiens.


Guys, and gals, I love your commentary contributions. That is what makes this blog site so great. It covers all aspects of civilization and humanity... from cultural, and social issues to philosophy and anthropology.

Thank you all.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Am I expected to believe what I'm reading? You say that driving drunk is not a crime...? I respectfully beg to differ with you. Ask Walt what he thinks about whether or not driving drunk is a crime."

You got me. Drunk driving is a crime. Killing the child is a crime.

However, under your logic, if the driver did not intend to kill the child he should not be charged with criminal responsibility for doing so.

Now, how about YOU ask Walt this. How does firing on someone who is retreating from you self defense?

Anonymous said...

Did white people in NC run the streets, spit on black people, tear up black owned businesses, kick black driver's vehicles, shout obscenities, set fires, defecate in the street in front of black people.....when two black scumbags murdered Eve Carson? Tell us all about how these two poor victimized black pukes were just the helpless little boys, all sad and deprived, because of the evil white people who MADE them shoot Carson....come on, sidney....go for it. Tell us all about poor Lovette, the black asshat who, along with his bro, shot Carson several times, and threw her out of her stolen car, into a ditch. poor Lovette, all victimized by white people.

Anonymous said...

Keep on lying, sidney........

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Exactly, Walt, which has the effect of concentrating black influence into fewer districts. That is the problem. Why not draw sensible boundaries that are reasonable instead of one that is all over the place in an attempt to place pockets of high concentrations of African Americans into one district?"

Since African Americans are 1/6 of the population, dispersing them all throughout the country would mean they would be in districts in which they would have no political power.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"Tyrone Baker... walked toward Carter with his gun-hand concealed by a heavy coat draped over it."

So Shan Carter did not know whether or not Tyrone Baker actually did have a gun in his hand.

In fear for his life, Carter fired his gun twice with the intention of wounding him… and as Baker turned and retreated".

That would indicate Tyrone Baker did not have a gun. If he had a gun, would he not have drawn it and fired back at Shan Baker?

In any event, you document that Shan Cartrer did fire the bullets at Tyrone Baker and killed him and the 8 year old innocent boy while Baker was retreating.

I am not a lawyer, but I think firing at a fleeing individual who is probably unarmed does not add up to self defense.


What is important in this case is that Shan believed that Tyrone Baker had a weapon concealed under his coat.

An important fact also is that a friend of Baker's, Renee Barnes, saw the incident, ran to Baker's side as he lied in the street, scooped up his coat and whatever it concealed, and left the scene before the police arrived just minutes later. This was tampering with evidence... something for which she was never charged.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Guys, and gals, I love your commentary contributions. That is what makes this blog site so great. It covers all aspects of civilization and humanity... from cultural, and social issues to philosophy and anthropology."

Including my posts in which I point out that you have distorted the story of Shan Carter?

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"What is important in this case is that Shan believed that Tyrone Baker had a weapon concealed under his coat."

What is more important that when Tyrone Baker clued Shan Carter that he was not armed(he ran away from Shan Carter rather than returning fire), Shan Carpenter chased him and continued firing at him.

"An important fact also is that a friend of Baker's, Renee Barnes, saw the incident, ran to Baker's side as he lied in the street, scooped up his coat and whatever it concealed, and left the scene before the police arrived just minutes later. This was tampering with evidence... something for which she was never charged."

Irrelevant, since, as you have documented, Tyrone Baker was running away from Chan Carter, not attacking him. Ask a lawyer, but I say at that point Tyrone Baker was not presenting a threat to Shan Carter. What does Professor Coleman say about that?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

After watching your flog, I again say, Shan Carter shot and killed an innocent child because of his engagement in criminal activity and you are arguing that the NC Justice
system should give him a pass for it.

Your flog shows unequivocally Tyrone Baker was retreating and making no threat to Shan Carter when Shan Carter fired the bullets which killed Tyrone Baker and the innocent child.

You are really one perverted individual.


You misrepresent my statements. Shan's first two initial shots were fired when Tyrone Baker was advancing towards him. The final three shots which were fired to scare Baker off and keep him retreating were fired in his general direction and without the intention of hitting him... which they did not.

Unfortunately one of the bullets fired in Baker's direction, to keep him motivated to flee, did stike the young boy. A freakish and tragic accident.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"What is important in this case is that Shan believed that Tyrone Baker had a weapon concealed under his coat."

What is more important that when Tyrone Baker clued Shan Carter that he was not armed(he ran away from Shan Carter rather than returning fire), Shan Carpenter chased him and continued firing at him.

"An important fact also is that a friend of Baker's, Renee Barnes, saw the incident, ran to Baker's side as he lied in the street, scooped up his coat and whatever it concealed, and left the scene before the police arrived just minutes later. This was tampering with evidence... something for which she was never charged."

Irrelevant, since, as you have documented, Tyrone Baker was running away from Chan Carter, not attacking him. Ask a lawyer, but I say at that point Tyrone Baker was not presenting a threat to Shan Carter. What does Professor Coleman say about that?


As I repeatedly stated, the bullets that struck Baker were the first two fired, and they were fired while Baker was walking towards Carter. Entry-exit wounds confirm this. He was not struck with bullets when he was fleeing with his back towards Carter.

Comprende... or is further elucidation required?

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

A followup to my comment of July 27, 2013 at 12:48 PM.

In the Shan Carter case, you did document that Shan Carter was firing at Tyrone Baker while Tyrone Baker was retreating. You do argue because Shan Carter did not know he had shot a child and did not intend to kill the child, he was not criminally liable.

In the hypothetical drunk driver case, if one were to apply your Shan Carter logic, if he did not know he had killed the child and had not intended to kill the child, then he should not be charged with a crime for killing the child.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

Why did you try to distort the Shan Martin case into self defense?

I say again the facts YOU presented show clearly Shan Carter fired the shots which killed Tyrone Baker and Demetrius Green while Tyrone Baker was retreating from the confrontation. That does not add up to self defense.

You never mentioned that Tyrone Baker was unarmed. You never mentioned that Shan Carter was in illegal possession of a firearm.

Let's review. Shan Carter was publicly making drug deals, illegally packing a firearm when the incident happened, in spite of knowledge that Tyrone Baker was determined to recover his money.

That does not say that Shan Carter was trying to avoid a confrontation with Tyrone Carter. It suggests that Shan Carter's mindset was, if Tyrone tries to get his money back I am going to blow him away.

Self Defense?

Hardly.


Let me make it clear that word on the street was that Baker intended to kill those responsible for stealing his money, not have them re-pay it.

Furthermore, it has not been proven that Baker was unarmed. Shan believed he was... and so would a reasonable person under the circumstances.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"As I repeatedly stated, the bullets that struck Baker were the first two fired, and they were fired while Baker was walking towards Carter. Entry-exit wounds confirm this. He was not struck with bullets when he was fleeing with his back towards Carter.

Comprende... or is further elucidation required?"

From:http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/sc/opinions/2003/479-01-1.htm

"As Baker ran down 10th Street, DEFENDANT FOLLOWED HIM AROUND THE COrNER, CONTINUING TO FIRE BETWEEN FOUR AND SIX SHOTS(emphasis added). At some point, Baker ran in front of or near the Greene car in an attempt to cross 10th Street. DURING THE COURSE OF THE SHOOTING, TWO OF THE BULLETS FROM DEFENDANT'S REVOLVER STRUCK BAKER, ONE IN THE LEG AND ONE IN THE TORSO. BAKER STAGGERED ACROSS THE STREET, COLLAPSED IN A GRASSY AREA NEAR THE SIDEWALK, AND DIED SHORTLY THEREAFTER(emphasis added).

How's that for elucidation?

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Let me make it clear that word on the street was that Baker intended to kill those responsible for stealing his money, not have them re-pay it."

So why did Shan Carter not go to the police if he feared for his life? He would have been arrested and incarcerated, but there would have been no violent confrontation, and the death of Demetrius Green would have been avoided.

"Furthermore, it has not been proven that Baker was unarmed. Shan believed he was... and so would a reasonable person under the circumstances."

However, Shan Carter brandished his gun, fired, and Tyrone Baker fled. That would indicate Tyrone Baker was not armed. In any event, firing on a person who is fleeing the scene does not make it self defense. Just ask Professor Coleman.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY ARR:

Check this out:

http://highcaliberdefense.com/CourseMaterial/UseOfDeadlyForce.aspx

"Shooting an aggressor who is RUNNING FROM YOU(emphasis added), stealing something from your home or car, TELLING YOU THAT THEY ARE GOING TO KILL YOU THE NEXT TIME THEY SEE YOU(emphasis added) or beating your mailbox silly with a bat is not enough to convince a jury that you were justified using deadly force. Shooting under these conditions will likely have you
doing jail time.

How's that for elucidation?

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

Check this out:

http://www.personaldefensesolutions.net/Article-JudiciousUse.htm:

"IF WE ARE NOT INNOCENT OF PROVOKING A CONFRONTATION(emphasis added), or we are not being immediately threatened with deadly force, we cannot use deadly force in response.

Was Shan Carter innocent of provoking a confrontation after he broke into Tyrone Baker's apartment and stole tens of thousands of dollars?

How's that for elucidation?

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

Check this out:

http://definitions.uslegal.com/u/use-of-deadly-force/:

"Deadly force is generally defined as physical force which, under the circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury."

And:

"Deadly force is that force which could reasonably be expected to cause death or grave bodily harm."

Have you been enlightened. If you believe one can fire multiple rounds in a scenario where other human beings are present and not cause death or serious bodily harm, you are not.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

Check this out:

From http://www.crimefilenews.com/2010/10/justifiable-use-of-deadly-force-by.html:

"If you are attacked by someone with a weapon or multiple attackers (even if they are unarmed) you may use any weapon to halt the assault. The same is true if your attacker is unarmed but there is an obvious disparity in size or strength and a reasonable person would believe this assailant could inflict permanent injury or death upon you.

THE USE OF FORCE MUST END THE MOMENT THE ATTACKERS CEASE, SURRENDER OR FLEE(emphasis added). You do not shoot to warn, wound or kill. You only shoot to stop the crime.

In other words, once Shan Carter decided to keep firing at Tyrone Baker after he fled, even if his motive was to keep Tyrone Baker fleeing, it was no longer self defense.

How's that for elucidation?

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

Check this out:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090726180731AAutmiA:

"...some states aren't 'stand your ground' and they actually require that you flee from danger."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law:

North Carolina does not have a stand your ground law. When Tyrone Baker approached Shan Martin, Shan Martin's legal obligation was to flee, not open fire with an illegslly obtained weapon.

How's that for elucidation?

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

Correction:

North Carolina does have a stand your groung law.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

From:

http://www.beaufortobserver.net/Articles-NEWS-and-COMMENTARY-c-2013-07-15-267856.112112-When-is-it-legal-to-use-deadly-force-in-selfdefense.html

"[A] person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat in any place he or she has the LAWFUL RIGHT to be..."

Did Shan Carter have any legal right to be on the street dealing illegal drugs?

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

Check this out:

Also from http://www.beaufortobserver.net/Articles-NEWS-and-COMMENTARY-c-2013-07-15-267856.112112-When-is-it-legal-to-use-deadly-force-in-selfdefense.html

"...if the person has RETREATED or has stopped the threatening behavior, the use of deadly force may no longer be justified because the threat is no longer considered imminent."

Are you enlightened?

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine#States_with_a_Stand-your-ground_Law:

A person is justified to use force in self defense if "...He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another."

However, this applies only when "...a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat in any place he or she has the lawful right to be".

Again I ask, did Shan Carter have a legal right to be on the street selling illegal drugs.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

The next time you get to the library let me know if you need more enlightenment or elucidation about what constitutes self defense.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

Why don't you try to convince someone that Shan Carter, convicted felon, had a legal right to be on the street packing an illegal concealed firearm.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

True to form, you lie about the cases of Shan Carterm, corrupt DA NIFONG and George Zimmerman(who did not stalk Trayvon Martin and who shot Trayvon Martin when Martin was trying to smash his head into jelly).

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

With this latest deception you are trying to pull, why would anyone accept you as an expert on self defense?

Anonymous said...

sidney harr is a lying racist idiot. period. Fake doctor, Fake lawyer. Fake, period.

Anonymous said...

Blogger Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
I think using the term African American is racist. For one thing, all African's are not persons of color, so right away they are negated from existance by equating African with person of color.

Next, not all persons of color are from Africa as place of origin before arriving in USA.

Finally, if you believe the theory that all humans have the same DNA linking back to the first humonoids in Africa, then all Americans are essentially African Americans.

^^^^
Interesting, but what term would you use instead of "African American" to refer to someone we currently refer to as "African American"? Then, would that term be considered racist?

^^^^

i personally would just call them americans as i haven't the ability to query each and every one and ask them where for are thy from?

anyway - i think if you just called them americans (which is also a racial profile in the sense of the absolute meaning of race) - then right away you cut out the ADDED discrimination and extend inclusiveness into the realm of being a person of this great nation of ours - all races, etc., united under one justice system and creed of freedom and equality for all


Anonymous said...

What exactly does jury of your peers mean?

How strictly is this followed in jury selection?

What is the criteria to determine is someone is a 'peer' or not?

Where are these rules outlined and explained?

In response to Dr. Harr's question about the Carter case:

What would a jury of his peers say?

What did the jury say?

What was the criteria for determining 'peer' in the selection of his jury of peers?

Other than that - what did the parents of the child want as justice - and what would the persons whom were killed want as justice?

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

Check out this from a Canadian source:

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/56618

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

On the issue of profiling:

Racial profiling laws, they apply to law enforcement officers. George Zimmerman was not a law enforcement officer.

There is no evidence George Zimmerman profiled Trayvon Martn. If he did, it was not criminal. It was no more criminal than was your unwarranted profiling Lacrosse players as out of control hooligans

Walt said...

Sid wrote: "Exactly, Walt, which has the effect of concentrating black influence into fewer districts. That is the problem. Why not draw sensible boundaries that are reasonable instead of one that is all over the place in an attempt to place pockets of high concentrations of African Americans into one district?"

Because the Justice Department enforcing the Voting Rights Act wants African Americans to be elected to congress. The method is to make majority-minority districts. Otherwise, the thinking goes, if African Americans were evenly distributed throughout every congressional district they would never elect an African American to congress as African Americans constitute approximately 21.3% of the population of North Carolina.

Walt-in-Durham

Walt said...

Sid wrote: "As I repeatedly stated, the bullets that struck Baker were the first two fired, and they were fired while Baker was walking towards Carter. Entry-exit wounds confirm this. He was not struck with bullets when he was fleeing with his back towards Carter."

That is why I submitted that Baker's killing was Murder II. However, young Demitrius Greene was killed by one of the three shots fired by Carter when Baker began to flee. That was Murder I.

"Comprende... or is further elucidation required?"

It is Sid who has the comprehension problem.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

Isn't that an entirely racist view on voting - that blacks will vote for blacks - and whites will vote for whites.

Do these majority minority districts receive any additional tax revenue to insure their education systems are on par with other districts?

If not, you will have less educated minorities voting - so is the theory than that the less educated minorities will vote for their own minority political figure?

Knowing NC as those in control probably strive for it to be - those districts will be kept 'down' and segregated in ways NC is infamous for.

Anonymous said...

Amazing, isn't it! A scumbag drug dealer shoot another scumbag drug dealer.....and, ooops, shoots and KILLS and innocent little boy. And, sidney, king of the scumbags, wants to whine about the murderer's lot in life. Wow, harr, you've found a new hide-hole under a new rock.

Anonymous said...

Sidney,

For some reason, you were not able to respond to Break's comment. I have copied it below.


Sidney: That's true... and Trayvon Martin would be alive if George Zimmerman would not have profiled and stalked him.

That's true...

Zimmerman claimed he profiled Martin due to his behavior and dress in response to recent break-ins. Even if Zimmerman has profiled due to race (behavior to which Jesse Jackson has admitted), such activity is legal.

Zimmerman followed Martin to see where he was going. Your use of the word "stalking" is deliberately pejorative. Although the dispatcher told Zimmerman he didn't need to do that, such activity is legal.

...and Travon Martin would be alive if Travon Martin had not sucker punched Zimmerman, gotten on top of Zimmerman, continued to punch Zimmerman and slammed Zimmerman's head into the concrete sidewalk.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous @ 4:43 said: "Check out this from a Canadian source:

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/56618 ............Just so that readers have some context. Bruce Walker is a Canadian version of Ann Coulter

Anonymous said...

kennyhyderal,

Thank you for your insightful comment.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"Just so that readers have some context. Bruce Walker is a Canadian version of Ann Coulter".

Really?

According to you Canada has no Ann Coulters.

My how you change your tune when a Canadian author does not buy into your blind, blatant, unrepentant hypocritical racism.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

At least Ann Couter and Bruce Walker are not dumb enough to believe Crystal Mangum was raped.

Walt said...

Anonymous at 7:08 AM wrote: "Isn't that an entirely racist view on voting - that blacks will vote for blacks - and whites will vote for whites."

That would be Lani Guinier's position. Even though her nomination to head the Justice Department's voting rights act enforcement ultimately failed, her theories did dominate the Justice Department for years.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

regarding the punishment-meter:

George Zimmerman was in a place in which he had a legal right to be. He was not performing any illegal activity. Specifically, there is no evidence he was stalking Trayvon Martin, no evidence he intended to kill Trayvon Martin. The killing happened after Trayvon Martin attacked him, using deadly force. Slamming a man's head against the concrete is deadly force.

Shan Carter was on the street dealing drugs and illegally in possession of a firearm. When he was confronted by tyrone Baker, he drew his firearm and fired at him. Tyrone Baker fled. Shan Carter pursued him, continued to fire at him and killed him. In the process, he killed an 8 year old boy who was not threatening him at all.

According to SIDNEY, George Zimmerman should have been convicted of murder. Shan Carter should have gotten off because he acted in self defense.

And SIDNEY tells the world he is a fighter for justice.

HUH!!!???

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous @ 9:50 said: "According to you Canada has no Ann Coulters"..........Oh we have them, of course, but thank God they have no constituency of any consequence. People that think that way, have zero chance of ever getting elected to any political office, unlike the Tea Party" There they are considered the "lunatic fringe".

Anonymous said...

I hope the man in the red jumpsuit will become the man on the gurney.....that would suit me fine......

Anonymous said...

kennyhyderal,

Thank you for your insightful comment.

I am sure that we can all agree that those who believe government has grown too large and invasive are indeed lunatics.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"Oh we have them, of course, but thank God they have no constituency of any consequence. People that think that way, have zero chance of ever getting elected to any political office, unlike the Tea Party' There they are considered the 'lunatic fringe'."

This coming from a certifiable lunatic.

Anonymous said...

In the settlement agreements with duke by the lacrosse players - did they mention and settle the harm down by the political race-baiting of blacks in that case (similar to the zimmerman/martin case and others like it)?

Was that a part of the complaint against Durham city by the duke students?

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous @ 4:21 said: "I am sure that we can all agree that those who believe government has grown too large and invasive are indeed lunatics........... Huh?? All agree?? In the U.S.A. there is almost zero consensus on anything proposed, no matter how rational and beneficial it is. There is a large minority stuck in the 18th Century obstructing any chance at joining the civilized world.

Anonymous said...

There is a large minority stuck in the 18th Century obstructing any chance at joining the civilized world.

Can you explain that statement better in terms of what you actually are referring to. If it is a minority - how can they obstruct the majority?

Anonymous said...

With the recent arrests that number over 900 in the past few months at the Raleigh NC General Assembly protesting a variety of things and led in part by the NAACP heads of this state - the issues are still not clear as to all the reasons for the continued protests.

In this geographical area - a website could have been put together very quickly to organize and inform the public of the EXACT complaints and arguments - and thus garnered far more support from those who are still left scratching their heads (like McCory for instance who admits he hasn't even read the bills in full that are being protested yet). I mean - since the bills do change - not knowing last minute changes is excusable - but so is this same lack of knowledge in the general public.

Anyway, NC sucks because of Duke leading the way like they do.

Anonymous said...

The UNC basketball idiot, P. J. Hairstorn has been suspended indefinitely....THIS time for driving 93mph in a 60mph zone. OK, Harr, did the big bad evil white people make this creep drive like this, endangering others? Oh, of course, I guess the big bad evil white people faked his speeding, set him up and cited him falsely. Yep, sure, .........

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"Huh?? All agree?? In the U.S.A. there is almost zero consensus on anything proposed, no matter how rational and beneficial it is. There is a large minority stuck in the 18th Century obstructing any chance at joining the civilized world."

There is concensus that Crystal was not raped.

There is concensus that al is the most virulent race baiter in US history.

There is concensus among racist black people that George Zimmerman should be lynched.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

Regarding PJ Hairston:

Would driving 93mph in a 60mph zone be considered dangerous to life and limb.

Force which is dangerous to life and limb is defined as deadly force.

Anonymous2 said...

kennyhyderal,

Thank you for your insightful comment.

Once again you prove wrong those who unfairly call you a troll. A troll would interject or respond to a subject (like the Tea Party) that is largely irrelevant to the subject of this thread. A troll would limit himself to ad hominem attacks (like the lunatic fringe). A troll would rely on vague innuendo (like stuck in the 18th century) to attack others.

As always, you stay on subject, relying on precise arguments, backed by facts.

Thank you again for your insight.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

KENHYDERAL:

Some thoughts about profiling:

First check this out: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20130729_Zimmerman_case_hurt_media_s_image.html

This will take you to an article which will detail how the mainstream media, using lies and distortion, profiled George Zimmerman as a racist killer.

Corrupt DA NIFONG knowingly, falsely profiled innocent caucasian members of the Duke Lacrosse team as racist rapists.

Race baiter al knowingly, falsely profiled Steven Pagones as a racist rapist in the Tawana Brawley hoax.

How come you opponents of profiling do not object to that kind of profiling?

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

Check this out:

http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/canada-is-still-racist

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

How about this:

http://restructure.wordpress.com/2009/01/09/canadians-tolerate-white-racism-against-blacks-even-in-toronto/

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

Check yhis out:

http://www.thecoast.ca/halifax/hidden-racism/Content?oid=1072189

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

How about this;

http://sharenews.com/white-washing-anti-black-racism/

"It is no secret that racial profiling, especially of African Canadian male youth, is a practice of the various Canadian police forces, in spite of denial by police. The incidents are numerous, with several cases ending with African Canadian men being killed by police who are rarely held accountable."

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

Then there is this:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/crommunist/2012/01/11/racism-in-canada-the-myth-and-the-reality/

Anonymous said...

“There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps then turn around and see somebody white and feel relieved.” – Jesse Jackson

Anonymous said...

Put it this way - nifong and duke officials knew exactly what they were doing and why they were doing it.

Did you notice that comments were added to the on-line newspapers at the exact time that the lacrosse case began? This allowed for the mass race-baiting that ensued. Those comments may or may not have been bonified sincere comments - they could have been hyped and typed to promote the cause.

Then duke acts like people owe them for their pain and suffering in the terms of massive goverment spending and in the way they treat EVERYONE basically - grown men acting like babies (i've personally seen that from persons who persume to hold duke power over others) - it is sickening to say the least.

Maybe this will be a very harsh statement for a man to stomach who falls into that category - but a little growing up - and hey - not too hard to climb out of the crib they place themselves in with their corrupt unethical ways they feel justified is their right in their self-serving victimhood - when most adults (and many children) understand fully the game they are playing, why they are playing it, and why they will ultimately lose because they are playing it.

It is very sickening to see so much corruption in this state - and also watch so many people be victimized at one time while the perpetrators grin on and totally ignore the rights and voices of the many and the true victims of the game, which is basically everyone but them (as usual).

That is why NC sucks. The corrupt politics NEVER stop.

kenhyderal said...

@ Sarcastic Anonymous2 5:17 AM...... How come you hold me to a higher standard then you do for any of the other posters here?

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

Consider this.

If a white man called black athletes farm animals, would black Professor Houston Baker call it white on black racism. Yes he would.

Did Houston Baker refer to white athletes as farm animals. Yes he did.

Do you think this is an example of black on white racism? Probably no.

Why? Because in some academic ivory tower university, some sociology professor said that Black on white racism does not exist.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAl:

I did some google searches, population of Canada, population of the United States, White on Black racism in Canada, White on Black racism in the USA.

The results: The population of the US is approximately 9 times greater than the population of Canada. The search on Canadian white on black racism returned about 35 million hits in a bit more than 0.3 seconds. The search on US black on white racism returned almost 60 million hits in 0.4 seconds.

The ratio of 60 million to 35 million is less than 2 to 1. What this shows, I do not pretend to know. However, what it DOES NOT show is that white on black racism is not a problem in Canada. Proportionally it MAY be a problem as big as if not bigger than the same problem in the US.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"@ Sarcastic Anonymous2 5:17 AM...... How come you hold me to a higher standard then you do for any of the other posters here?"

Good question. You have consistently shown you are not capable of meeting any higher standard.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

SIDNEY HARR:

Check out these pages from the appropriately named Liestoppers:

http://s1.zetaboards.com/Liestoppers_meeting/topic/5193290/1/

This does not show that the media was biased in favor of the Duke Lacrosse defendants.

And: http://s1.zetaboards.com/Liestoppers_meeting/topic/2834015/1/

This do not show corrupt DA NIFONG as a crusader for justice.

Anonymous said...

If you think NC sucks, please do us all a favor and move to New York or Wisconsin or California or Canada. You take up oxygen needed by others and we are all certain you would be happy in the frozen-socialist land.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous @ 2:36 AM said: "Can you explain that statement better in terms of what you actually are referring to. If it is a minority - how can they obstruct the majority?".......... That's because the American System, an 18th Century creation, is distinctly un-democratic. For example, their archaic Electoral College; their bi-cameral legislature where an elected Senate, an inherently un-democratic construct, has equal power to a House of Representatives; rampant gerrymandering to distort the democratic concept of one person one vote; filibuster rules to thwart the democratic concept of 50% plus one rules; unfair election rules designed to manipulate the results and restrict the vote; campaign financing that allows money to taint the process; a politicized Supreme Court; a two Party political system that makes additional political ideas and choices difficult, if not impossible etc. etc. ; I could go on and on.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"That's because the American System, an 18th Century creation, is distinctly un-democratic. For example, their archaic Electoral College; their bi-cameral legislature where an elected Senate, an inherently un-democratic construct, has equal power to a House of Representatives; rampant gerrymandering to distort the democratic concept of one person one vote; filibuster rules to thwart the democratic concept of 50% plus one rules; unfair election rules designed to manipulate the results and restrict the vote; campaign financing that allows money to taint the process; a politicized Supreme Court; a two Party political system that makes additional political ideas and choices difficult, if not impossible etc. etc. ; I could go on and on."

Yes you could. It would mean only that you resent the USA, probably because it is better than Canada.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous @10:02 said: "Yes you could. It would mean only that you resent the USA, probably because it is better than Canada"........ In what respect?

Anonymous said...

On the subject of racial profiling, one thing was a big part of the Duke rape hoax, the statement, mainly from black spokesmen, that rich powerful white men have always desired to exploit black women.

Statistics on interracial rape say t is not so.

It was an a=example of Blacks unfairly and falsely profiling white men.

Would KENHYDERAL white on black raciakl profiling was racist? Yes. Would KENHYDERAL say this black on white profiling was racist? Probably not.

KENHYDERAL has read that Sociologists in academic ivory towers have declared that black on white racism does not exist.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous @10:02 said: "Yes you could. It would mean only that you resent the USA, probably because it is better than Canada"........ In what respect?"

In each and every respect, although you do not want to admit it.

Just like you do not want to admit that Black on white racism exists, just like you do not want to admit that Canada, to a large extent, is a racist country.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous@ 10:15 said: "Canada, to a large extent, is a racist country" Boy are you ever deluded. I think you will find, "to a large extent", most people will disagree with that assertion even in the USA

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:
"Anonymous@ 10:15 said: 'Canada, to a large extent, is a racist country' Boy are you ever deluded. I think you will find, 'to a large extent', most people will disagree with that assertion even in the USA".

No I wouldn't.

And I have found a lot of publications on the web by Canadian Authors who do say Canada is a racist country.

I would say you are a perfect example why Canadian Authors would say Canada is a racist country.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

You call yourself "Nifong Supporter".

Yoy say you admire DA NIFONG's courage and ethics.

If so, being a Nifong supporter is like being an athletic supporter for a eunuch.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

If you think NC sucks, please do us all a favor and move to New York or Wisconsin or California or Canada. You take up oxygen needed by others and we are all certain you would be happy in the frozen-socialist land.

July 29, 2013 at 9:27 AM

If you think I should move because NC sucks then you play the game that mccory and his crew and duke play. they think they can destroy nc and make people leave because the state is 'theirs' in their minds. i can protest as much as anyone else thankyou. but - hey - send me the mega bucks it takes to move - and i'll be happily on my way - to a location of my choosing - thanks.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

Your punishment meter rating of P.J. Hairston follows your usual script, the same script from your treatment of Reginald Daye, the same script from your attempt to exonerate convicted felon, double murderer Shan Carter.

Lie, distort, misrepresent, and claim if a black person does it, it is not a crime.

And you call yourself a purveyor of truth and justice.

Anonymous said...

We could care less how much you criticize NC. That is your choice. Have at it. who gives a rip. You just might be happier in the frozen north or in some place where you would feel all warm and fuzzy and where you could spend hours each day spouting your opinions.....

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

Hypothetical situation:

PJ Hairston, while tearing along I85 at 95mph, strikes and kills someone who is on the shoulder, say because that person's vehicle is disabled. PJ does not stop because he does not realize he struck someone.

Based on your distorted account of what Shan Carter did, you would say PJ was not guilty of a crime because he did not realize he had struck the person and had not intended to strike and kill that person in the first place.

Suppose it had been a white person driving at 93mph striking and killing a black person. Would you argue that white person, if he did not know he had struck another person and had not intended to do so, would not be guilty of a crime? I think not.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

SIDNEY HARR:

Check this out:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/07/did_george_zimmerman_get_away_with_murder_no_juror_b29_is_being_framed.html

It is an account of what "Maddy(juror b29)" really said.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

KENHYDERAL:

From http://superfastlinkbuilding.com/martin-shooting-truth-distorted-by-social-media/

"To begin with, the photographs that represent Martin and Zimmerman in the public eye are deceptive at best. Even though photos exist of Zimmerman smiling and wearing a suit and tie, the only photo gracing TV screens is that of a thug-like, frowning Zimmerman wearing an orange jumpsuit.

The photos used to identify the 17-year-old Martin are far from recent, showing a clean-cut, beaming 13-year-old boy. Media outlets have access to recent photos of Martin that he used to represent himself on Twitter, but refuse to show them to the public. In the photos, Martin is wearing a wife-beater-style shirt, sporting gold teeth and a decent-sized tattoo on his arm, and making an obscene gesture to the camera."

An example of how the media falsely profiled George Zimmerman.

Anonymous said...

KENHYDERAL:

SIDNEY HARR:

From the same url:

"Listening to Zimmerman’s full, unedited 911 call, it sounds as if he was not entirely sure that Martin was black. When asked by the operator whether Martin was white, black or Hispanic, Zimmerman hesitated for a second before saying, “He looks black.” Only later in the call, after Martin begins to apprach Zimmerman, does he confirm that Martin is black."

How the media falsely profiled George Zimmerman as a racist killer.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

KENHYDERAL:

From http://cameronreddy.com/how-the-media-distorted-the-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-situation/

"It was reported on CNN that Zimmerman was heard describing Martin as a “f***ing coon.” But later enhancement of the audio showed that Zimmerman was actually commenting on the unseasonably cold Florida weather, saying “f***ing cold.” CNN has since retracted their allegation of a racial slur."

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

KENHYDERAL:

Check this out:

From http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUSBRE83O18H20120425

"[George Zimmerman] comes from a deeply Catholic background and was taught in his early years to do right by those less fortunate. He was raised in a RACIALLY INTEGRATED HOUSEHOLD(emphasis added) and himself has BLACK(emphasis added) roots through an AFRO-PERUVIAN(emphasis added) great-grandfather - the father of the maternal grandmother who helped raise him.

A criminal justice student who aspired to become a judge, Zimmerman also concerned himself with the safety of his neighbors after a series of break-ins committed by young AFRICAN-AMERICAN MEN(emphasis added)."

And:

"'Let's talk about the elephant in the room. I'm black, OK?" the woman said, declining to be identified because she anticipated backlash due to her race. She leaned in to look a reporter directly in the eyes. "There were black boys robbing houses in this neighborhood," she said. "That's why George was suspicious of Trayvon Martin.'"

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 582   Newer› Newest»