My thoughts on racism after the Zimmerman trial

The purpose of this post is not to debate the Zimmerman trial. So please, I'm not looking for any rage on my page. Okay? However, all the raging and debating I have seen has finally brought me to writing this. Also, I was inspired by a fellow on Facebook. Time to bring this to light.

Racism is wrong.

Now that I've said that, let me point out that it's wrong no matter who it's against. It's time to get past the idea that the color of a person's skin makes them what they are. It's time to get past the idea that color is a reason to condemn. If you stop and actually think about it, what you really don't like about anyone is their behavior. It's time to cut away the link of race to behavior.

To me, the color of your skin is nothing more than a means of physical identification. That's it, that's all. I prefer not to mix the color of your skin with your culture either. Let's go with Black Culture for a second. What is that? And better yet, which one? African Culture? Hip Hop Culture? Yes, I've had people tell me that Hip Hop is a Black Culture, so I'm only quoting them (and they were African American people too, so argue with them). The point is, that if you just say Black Culture, you could be referring to several ways of thinking on several ways of life. I've seen this first hand. Isn't it interesting that in all the persons of any one color of skin across the whole planet, there are still dozens of cultures? Hundreds even. That's why I don't care to use the color of your skin to associate with your culture.

When it comes right down to it, it's the cultures that clash, not the color of skin. Behaviors and beliefs clash, not the color of skin.

Here's what we all are above all. We are the Human Race. We are a species. Once you look past the color of skin; we all have the same types of organs. We are inter-mixable. A man of any color can make a baby with a woman of any color. We all get the same diseases, have the same emotional capabilities, and can commit the same atrocities. So, when the most powerful forces in the universe don't discriminate, whey do we? I'll tell you why.

Because the human race has a lot to learn to accept itself as a species of intellects instead of just a bunch of colors.

Here's another thought for you: Polar bears are white and Kodiaks are brown. Neither of them give a damn. BOTH of them will KILL you no matter what color YOU are. You see, while we use color to identify them for science; all we really need to remember is their behavior. In the case of bears, we need to remember that, no matter what color they are, we need to stay the hell away from them or risk getting mauled.

I can even take it to the inanimate. If I pick up two rocks that are the same size and weight, but are different colors, and I throw them at you; can you tell me which one hurt more? Probably not, but I've just assaulted you with rocks. That's a behavior that lands me in jail, regardless of why I did it.

I'm all for abolishing racism. Unfortunately, if you go at it too hard, you can become a racist yourself. It's a vicious double edge sword that will poison you if you aren't careful. So I'm going to make a risky example:

If you go around saying: I hate all  you white supremacists. That's a racist comment. As soon as you interject color as the basis of your anger or hatred, it's racist. What you really hate, is the behavior of some people in profiling others based on color. Behavior, people, that's what the deal is. Remember that or risk being a hypocrite. I also don't think they should be called "white" supremacists, just racial supremacists. Take the color right out of the equation and the wind right out of their sails.

So, there it is. My thoughts on racism as spurred by the riots and rage. (Come on, looting a Wal-Mart? Really?). Also spurred by people hating on each other on Facebook. What are you really achieving with that? Nothing.

Autism and the law: is Autism an excuse?

I recently had this question presented to me and it's an interesting one. Advocates opinions will vary, but I will try to explain to you how it is and isn't an excuse.

First of all, when dealing with any disorder of a person who commits a crime, the most important factor is their active knowledge of right from wrong.

If that knowledge is questionable, the person can be put through psychological assessment to determine their competency to stand trial. Even that doesn't guarantee that this person will just be set free back into society, depending on the charges at hand.

That's the second most important issue (or arguably equal in some cases), the offense that has been committed.

Third gets into the details of how the offense took place. Did the persons medical condition cause a situation that was out of their control? That is and has been an applicable defense in cases before.

Example of knowledge of right and wrong: The case of Nick Dubin, the doctor and advocate arrested for downloading child pornography. In the police reports, Dr. Dubin is reported to have admitted he knew it was wrong to do what he did. That admittance (coupled with the fact that he's highly intelligent with a doctorate degree) may be held as evidence that he knew right from wrong. Therefore, autism is not a defense against the crime at hand.

An opposite example could be the case of Zakh Price in Arkansas and other kids like him. Reports indicate he was being restrained and lashed out, kicking the principal. There are many cases like this across the country. Some of these children are being charged with assault. The problem is that their condition may have caused a situation beyond the child's control. A child with a sensory disorder (like with autism), is susceptible to sensory overload. If they are pressured too much, they will be forced into a fight or flight frame of consciousness and could lash out in attempt to get away from the extra sensory issues that are triggering them. Some cases have been dismissed and therefore, autism is an applicable defense.

There are many dynamics in cases and criminal offenses that may take precedence in deciding all of these factors. I should point out that this is the same, however, in any kind of court case. That's why we have courtrooms instead of lynch mobs.

What gets most advocates in an uproar, isn't the fact that someone with autism got arrested and they should just be let off because they're autistic. It's how the arrest occurred, the details and what they were arrested for. In most cases (that advocates care about), the person arrested can be shown to be have been mishandled. There have been cases where a person was arrested for "disturbing the peace" and "resisting arrest" and they turned out to have been severely autistic, otherwise mentally challenged, or even having an all out seizure. One case showed a man arrested for those two things and later proven to have been having a seizure from an allergic reaction. These are cases of clear failures in the legal system at the police level. These are the cases that raise hackles and sensitivities everywhere. It's a scale of unfair treatment that we want to see corrected. The only way to correct it is with education.

So, no, advocates do want a free ride for criminals. And that also should not be compared to wanting autistics accepted for being able to live life like anyone else or allowed to live life with equal rights as anyone else. We should also beware of anyone who tries to create stigma against all advocates or all autistics based on one advocate opinion or one person who commits a crime claiming to have autism.

So I leave you with this, 1) get all facts.
2) If you commit a crime and demonstrate that you knew it was wrong, you will likely be prosecuted no matter what conditions you live with.