I think George Zimmerman is Florida’s newest version of Casey Anthony.

Dr. J:
 
First of all, I find it unsurprising that you automatically assume that because I don’t consider those people “Democratic Party operatives” that I must magically consider them Republicans; setting aside the fact that you obviously don’t know what a political operative actually is (apparently considering it a blanket term all supporters of a particular viewpoint, or at least those of a certain notability), the fact that you insist on living in a world where everything is perfectly and neatly bifurcated into conveniently sound-bite friendly dichotomous viewpoints that have absolutely no bearing on reality is frankly a little sad.

Yes QT, I do.  And IP, all those people I listed, including the one you had to look up who BTW just completed a free fundraiser performance for Obama in Hollywood, have had strong opinions that the shooting in Sanford was all about race and a hate crime.  They are also all Democrats and have all actively and vigorously campaigned for left wing Democrat candidates all over the country, if you don’t believe it, look it up, they ain’t Republicans.

Dr. J – do you think Ted Nugent is a racist and/or a right wing Republican Party operative?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxsxuo5sNTM

(oh, and I truly encourage all readers of this site to listen to the entire clip – it is filled with transparency and truth)

Um, yes, Dr. J, any intelligent human being willing to spend more than ten seconds thinking rather than parroting a half-formed sound-bite-based narrative would have to disagree.  The idea that any of those people or organizations, but especially The New Black Panthers, Spike Lee, and CeeLo are “left wing Democratic Party operatives” is not only bizarre, but borders on paranoid conspiracy theory (I actually had to look up who the last one even was, which should give you an indication of how ludicrously unrelated to actual politics your last statement really was), and your assumption that you know the motives of people who you actively refuse to listen to at all – which is your typical method of political debate – is remarkably arrogant.

IP, I was really not sure of what you were saying, it was bit too Byzantine and convoluted to understand.  I was just saying that “if” you think we were having a conversation about race….  Anyway, I think there are racists of all political views, left, right, and center, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Socialist, etc.  What I was saying is that Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, The New Black Panthers, Spike Lee, CeeLo, etc. are left wing Democratic Party operatives.  Would you disagree?  I was saying they do not want to do anything except divide the country based on race, they don’t want a conversation about race or even a conversation about a conversation.  Would you disagree?

Therein lies my point Dr. J (at least about your contributions specifically); you are quite prepared to automatically accuse anyone on the left of racism (or any number of other sins, some remarkably anachronistic), but you are unwilling to level the same charges at anyone on the right.  Furthermore, reread what I actually wrote: 
 
…we are not particularly willing to have a conversation about race relations so much as we are having a conversation about whether we should have a conversation about race relations…
 
You accuse me of saying we are having a conversation about race relations when we clearly aren’t, when that is obviously not what I said; I specifically said that we aren’t having that conversation.  All we’re doing is having a conversation about whether or not we should have that conversation.  Your knee-jerk assumption that people believe what you say they believe and not what they say they believe is exactly the problem I’m talking about; you are willing to denigrate my supposed position when my actual position is really quite similar to your own, at least on that point.

Glad you finally weighed in IP, but if you think all this talk about the incident is a “conversation” about race, it is obviously something that is not constructive, not helpful to our society, and not going to do anything except drive us all further apart as Americans.  And of course that is exactly the motive of the Al Sharptons of the world, and his political allies.  So mission accomplished for the left.

I have been intentionally avoiding commenting on this particular discussion because I do my best to avoid any conversation in which the discussion is more or less guaranteed to be distilled down to simplistic labels.  However, there comes a point when something (quite possibly my ego) won’t allow me to ignore the situation any longer.  I neither know nor would I presume to analyze the racial views of Messrs. Zimmerman and Martin; the views of former have been thus far mired in controversy and will henceforth likely be needlessly scripted, and the views of the latter will, regrettably, be forever inscrutable.  Nor am I willing to ascribe motives of racism to Dr. Swickard; I do, however, see the above column as symptomatic of a greater disease in our society: a fervent desire to avoid conversations about race in this country, to the point where we see people like Dr. J, who are willing to make the bizarre implication that the only racists are those having the conversation about race and who are equally willing to denigrate the conversation by blaming a victim no longer alive to defend himself and dismissing all further commentary; it is easier to create racist motives on behalf of either the perpetrator or the victim in the absence of evidence than it is to analyze ourselves and realize that our reaction to the situation is, itself, the demonstration of racial discord.
 
Dr. Swickard, on the other hand, rather than have the conversation, readily accepts whichever explanation allows him to achieve this goal, even if the explanation in question unfairly prejudges both the victim and the alleged perpetrator, not to mention pretty much every person with the temerity to discuss the incident in question.  He is even willing to ignore any and all evidence that might (not even that which necessarily does) contradict his preexisting beliefs, because to do so acknowledges that the uncomplicated and brief explanation is not automatically the superior one.  He managed to write a commentary that was remarkably ageist in its implications, and even accused people willing to expand their minds beyond merely his single absolutist explanation of being the ones who actually live in a black-and-white world.  Dr. Swickard’s largest weakness appears to lie in his remarkably handicapped abilities for self-reflection.  Considering that he grew up in the same place and time as many members of my family, I can guarantee that his statement that he “grew up without racism” is actually explained by the second part of the same sentence; it is indeed blindness, because the idea that Alamogordo in the ’60′s was without racism is, in a word, paradoxical.  Dr. Swickard, just because you are willing to ignore racism does not mean it automatically doesn’t exist, and I think you also have a serious age bias that you should reconsider.
 
There is another remarkable aspect to this story and our reaction to it; while we are not particularly willing to have a conversation about race relations so much as we are having a conversation about whether we should have a conversation about race relations, we are equally steadfast in our avoidance of a conversation about vigilantism; we are not so much having the conversation about whether vigilante-protection laws are a good idea or not so much as we are having a conversation about whether we should be having that conversation as well.
 
Also, stever, did you just call the most prominent national conversation of the past month an “echo chamber”?  Your talent for ignoring facts that you find discomforting are the perfect demonstration of what I’m talking about.

There was a national uproar.

Inside the echo chamber perhaps but nationally?  

Michael, just because people find your argument lacking any sort of logic doesn’t mean they are racists or think everyone is racists. 

A young man was shot to death and the killer went free. There was a national uproar.

And you have sided yourself with the killer.

Just saying, “I have black friends” isn’t a defense against racism.

It makes my heart heavy that you have a Ph.D. and yet are unable to rationally evaluate a set of statements and judge what’s likely to be true. I had thought that evaluating evidence was part of every Ph.D. program.  Apparently not.
 
When you can tell us why you believe the shooter’s story, and what you think the kid did wrong, get back to us.
 
In the mean time it’s perfectly clear that you have invented a story which fits your prejudices and baseless beliefs, and that you’re sticking with it no matter what the evidence may show. The idea that both parties are at fault is a very nice, comforting notion. It lets you off the hook for doing the hard work of discerning the truth. But that’s simply intellectual laziness, and a preference for comfort over reality. It makes my heart heavy.
 
I’m most of the way through Daniel Kahneman’s recent book, “Thinking Fast and Slow”. I strongly recommend it to you – you might learn something about truth, observation, and common fallacies. The Albuquerque & Bernalillo County libraries have a large number of copies. I was #75 on the hold list, and got it last week. So do think about reading it.
 
Hundreds of young people have used boldness when caution would have served them better.
 
That’s true. But hundreds also have been the comparatively blameless victims of another’s poor judgment or poor impulse control. Unless you can give us some rational basis for believing that this was an instance of the one rather than the other, all you’ve got is wish fulfillment masquerading as reason.

To all who have responded. You may believe in the worst of humanity, that every interaction is tied to racism and hatred. I cannot. I have worked with young people most of my adult life and have covered as a newsman so many stories where it was youth being bold and not taking a step back. Hundreds of young people have used boldness when caution would have served them better.
 
I grew up without racism and so it may be my blindness. I hope not. There have been people who were around me who have racism in their hearts and they are no longer because I do not tolerate it.
 
Those in these posts who are invested in a society that is black and white, it makes my heart heavy to think of the burden you must have when you push racism to the front this way. My prayers are with you.

MS – According to the time stamp at the convenience story TM left at 6:35 p.m. and the confrontation was at 7:20 p.m. The walk between the store and home was ten minutes. What could TM have done? Not punched GZ in the nose and then jumped on him according to the police report. The NY Times story has several accounts and you are selecting the one that makes GZ guilty… why? You ask why I believe the police report; tell me why you do not.
 
You ask why I believe the police report; tell me why you do not.
 
I disbelieve the police report because it’s lousy evidence. It’s all hearsay. The police officers weren’t there, didn’t see what happened. All they can do is repeat what others tell them. Except, to the extent that they are reporting things they themselves saw (e.g. the location of the body, etc.) I’ll give them about as much credence as I give other witnesses.
 
But the shooter’s statements do not somehow magically become totally credible simply because they’re repeated in a police report. I believe that the police report is probably true in reporting what GZ said, I just don’t necessarily believe that what GZ said was the truth.
 
Tell me why you believe that “punched GZ in the nose and then jumped on him ” when the ONLY evidence we have that that’s what happened is GZ’s statement – and GZ has good and powerful reasons to distort the truth. We have the injuries to GZ, but those are equally consistent with GZ jumping the kid, and the kid thinking he’s being mugged and trying to get away.
 
The NY Times story has several accounts and you are selecting the one that makes GZ guilty… why?
 
Wrong. You are simply not paying attention.
 
I cited the NYT as the source for my claim for what the aerial photograph showed. I cited it so that you, and others, could go look at the aerial photograph and see what you think it showed.  If you wish to claim that there are some other aerial photographs that show something else, point me towards them.
 
What I’m mostly believing is the transcript of the 911 call, which I cited in my first comment. I don’t claim that everything said on a 911 call is necessarily true, but when the 911 tape shows the shooter saying the kid is running away, I believe that’s what he thought he was seeing.
 
According to the time stamp at the convenience story TM left at 6:35 p.m. and the confrontation was at 7:20 p.m. The walk between the store and home was ten minutes.
 
I hadn’t seen that, and you again fail to cite a source, but I’ll believe your claim for the moment.
 
So what? Are you saying that if he’d gone straight home from the store he wouldn’t have encountered the shooter? That’s silly. You might as well argue that it’s his fault because he didn’t go visit some other relative, or didn’t decide to have a glass of water instead of going to the store for a soda, or whatever. I don’t see that whatever he was doing before the shooter saw him makes the slightest difference. My best guess is that he was talking to his girlfriend on the phone and didn’t want to go home while he was talking (privacy, you know) but that’s just a guess and I don’t see it makes any difference. I don’t know what the phones show about the duration of that call, so I may well be wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNI5CA5jijw

Swickard - please pay attention to the evidence which exists, quit perpetuating your combative fantasies and please please stop whipping up your uninformed, misleading and insane excuses. After you view and listen to the above link, please reconsider your stance and consider an apology.

People who wittingly or unwittingly defend racists ultimately teach racism and perpetuate it’s destructive power.

Mr. Swickard claims that the police report supports his theory that “boldness” alone led to this unfortunate incident, and not racism to any degree. Personally, I wouldn’t want to link the strength of an argument to what is, at best, a glaringly incomplete police report. Seems to be a shaky foundation. Even assuming the Sanford police department documented and investigated the incident perfectly, its report is still missing the perspective of Trayvon Martin, the only other party involved. The police report might be official, as Mr. Swickard writes, but that doesn’t mean its an accurate or whole representation of what happened that night.
Zimmerman seems to be the main source of the police report. It’s unlikely that he or anybody else would deliberately paint themselves as racist, or even admit that what happened was motivated by their own personal prejudices. So, of course the official police report will be skewed toward Zimmerman’s perception of the incident, and/or what he wants the police to believe. That means an out-of-control fight in which one party feared for his life and justifiably (in his mind, at least) shot and killed the other party.
A couple weeks ago, the Tampa Bay Times explored the Stand Your Ground law, and the difference between what the legislators intended and how the courts are interpreting it. To me many of the cases described in the article are largely (but not totally) the result of errors of boldness, as Mr. Swickard describes. And there certainly some of that may have contributed, even heavily, to the Martin killing. But just because “boldness” may have contributed to the incident, doesn’t prevent race, or many other factors, from doing the same thing. To me, Mr. Swickard’s explanation is a gross oversimplification of the incident. And it almost feels like he went out of his way to deny any possible racial element.
 

I do not know what exactly happened and none of the responders here knows for certain other than there is a police report, the only official document we have as to what happened. It is the reason that charges were not filed in this case until political pressure required them to be filed. I may be wrong or right, but what I have written is about how young people get into situations out of boldness, rather than racial hatred. The police report supports the theory that it was not racial.
 
Otis says: “… an unarmed 17-year old who is chased down by an armed 28 year old who outweighs him by 40lbs cannot possibly be assumed to have done anything wrong. What actions could a 17 year old who is unarmed possibly take against an armed person who is following him against police instructions that would in any way be considered “wrong”?” Otis further says, “It’s just a bizarre attempt to explain what, to most, is a clearly unwarranted death of a young man by an armed aggressor.”
 
Otis: what you say is not supported by the police report. The police report say this adult size 17 year-old approaches GZ from the rear while he is walking back to his pickup, confronts him and then knocks him to the ground and is on top of GZ striking his head on the ground.
 
MS – According to the time stamp at the convenience story TM left at 6:35 p.m. and the confrontation was at 7:20 p.m. The walk between the store and home was ten minutes. What could TM have done? Not punched GZ in the nose and then jumped on him according to the police report. The NY Times story has several accounts and you are selecting the one that makes GZ guilty… why? You ask why I believe the police report; tell me why you do not.
 
Qui Tam says: “… that is the thing about you blood thirsty republicans who illegally invade soverign sic Nations at the expence sic of Patriotic souls…not only do you not live in reality you manifest your fantasies into realities in which people die.” Me, a blood thirsty Republican – not so, I am not even a Republican nor am I blood thirsty. You are saying I invaded another nation? Not so, I have not been in the command structure of our nation. I caused people to die? Not so. I am the one counseling restraint and you are whipping up the lynch mob.

  Mr.Swickard writes: ” My take is that both young men did actions that caused this tragedy, both were wrong and I attributed the real reason to both of them being young bold men.”
  Simply bizarre. The idea that a 17-year old who is unarmed and walking home has done something wrong belies the dark and ugly beliefs some have of what “place” this young man deserved. No matter how twisted the logic of Mr.Swickard, an unarmed 17-year old who is chased down by an armed 28 year old who outweighs him by 40lbs cannot possibly be assumed to have done anything wrong. What actions could a 17 year old who is unarmed possibly take against an armed person who is following him against police instructions that would in any way be considered “wrong”?  Mr. Swickard has long been an advocate for concealed carry and has indicated he carries a concealed weapon. His reasons are for self protection and to help others if needed. How can he square the idea that a person has a right to carry a concealed weapon for protection, yet at the same time argue that an unarmed 17 year old who is shot by an armed person has somehow done something wrong??Did the 17 year old aggressively defend himself which caused his death? Is that what he did wrong? That’s an interesting position to take from a guy who promotes carrying a concealed weapon. Would Mr.Swickard be condemning the young man had he successfully defended himself with a firearm and the other guy was dead? It’s just a bizarre attempt to explain what, to most, is a clearly unwarranted death of a young man by an armed aggressor.

TM approached GZ as GZ was going back to his truck. TM stuck him to the ground, breaking his nose and TM was on top of GZ hitting him leaving a laceration on the back of his head and grass stains on his back
 
Sources, please?
 
if Trayvon had gone directly home

Didn’t he? As I see the aerial photograph (*) it looks like the dead kid was on a pretty direct route home, assuming he was headed to the back door of the home. Of course, after the encounter he couldn’t go home, being dead and all.

Everyone seems to agree that at the initial encounter the kid DID try to avoid conflict, did run away. That’s what the shooter said to the 911 dispatcher.
 
There’s really no evidence that the kid didn’t do everything he could to avoid the shooter, and that the tussle and the shooting were caused solely by the shooter chasing down and grabbing the kid. If you have such evidence, I’d like to see the source. Of course, one of the problems we have is that of the two participants, only one can now tell his story – and he has a strong motive to make his story look as good as he can. So if you’re believing his story, I’d like to know why.
 
* http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/02/us/the-events-leading-to-the-shooting-of-trayvon-martin.html

Part 2:

Darn, I forgot to mention all your “ifs” – that is the thing about you blood thirsty republicans who illegally invade soverign Nations at the expence of Patriotic souls…not only do you not live in reality you manifest your fantasies into realities in which people die.

The dark young souls that have returned will be defeated and then, once again, face their God.

Swickard, lol! hit a nerve?! I am not hiding…maybe Trayvon should have tried to, oh…that’s right he was visiting a parent’s home where people stalk others while carrying a deadly weapon. Sorry to burst your absurd bubblegum reality where excusing a killer  <”But NBC“> is the norm but it is also misleading <”True, sort of: but you left out that TM approached GZ”> because it was the habitual 911 abuser who first approached aggressively looking for the reality he created. Finally let me state that your ranting diatribe borders upon child abuse:  <”both young men had things in their past that showed a lack of good sense”> as Trayvon was a minor and his murderer an adult.

Please pay attention Swickard, my comment in regard to racism is the fact that the overwhelming number of individuals in jail are young Black adults. If you can’t comprehend the written word don’t blame me but if you want more of this I got you.

Your logic is twisted and purposeful but don’t worry Trayvon won’t be able to defend himself…the adult made sure of that.

Qui Tam – you hide your identity while spewing racial hatred. Sad
Fact one: dude (GZ) was stalking and told not to by police. A) GZ was a neighborhood watch member. Are all neighborhood watch members stalking when they watch strangers in their neighborhoods? B) GZ was told by the police dispatcher to leave TM alone. That is true. But NBC ran a fictitious account of the encounter that they, NBC withdrew when it was shown they had edited the 911 call to indicate racial issues when it was not. Perhaps you should read up on the fact that GZ did not bring race into the conversation.
 
Fact two: Dude shot gun. True, sort of: but you left out that TM approached GZ as GZ was going back to his truck. TM stuck him to the ground, breaking his nose and TM was on top of GZ hitting him leaving a laceration on the back of his head and grass stains on his back. Yes, then TM was shot at point blank range by GZ. Qui Tam, why did you leave those details out? Your account needlessly fans the flames of racism.
 
Fact three: GZ has a pattern of behavior and is white. A) both young men had things in their past that showed a lack of good sense, B) Interesting that you say GZ is white rather than Hispanic. Why? If our president is black, why isn’t GZ white? Why does this tragedy rest upon ignoring GZ Hispanic heritage? Why fan the flames of racism by describing a person of Hispanic heritage as simply white?
 
Qui Tam says, “Change the color and see if it is different.” OK, Hispanic hits a black on the nose, knocks him down and is beating him. Black shoots his attacker in chest. How is that racial?
 
Qui Tam says, “Not racist? please. That is why I wrote the column. The race-baiters, of which you seem to be one, are working on starting a race war over this case when the facts do not support that conclusion. It harms our society when people race-bait and try to undo what Martin Luther King, Jr. preached, a color blind society where we are judged by the content of our character, not by the color of our skin.
 
Please pay attention Qui Tam – If GZ had not left his pickup, no story. If TM had punched GZ and then went directly home, again, there would be no story. My take is that both young men did actions that caused this tragedy, both were wrong and I attributed the real reason to both of them being young bold men. So Qui Tam, you cannot follow that logic, you must have a race war to satisfy your blood lust. It is your right to believe such a thing but you are only making an unbecoming disclosure of your soul.

if Trayvon had just avoided GZ and not confronted him.
 
The transcript (*) of the 911 call recording has the shooter saying that the dead kid “ran”. If that’s not avoiding a confrontation, I don’t know what is.
 
if Trayvon had gone directly home, 
 
Didn’t he? It’s not clear to me that the dead kid wasn’t on a direct way home. If you have other information, I’d like to know the source.
 
On the other hand, the dead kid was talking to his girlfriend on his cell phone. If I’d had a cell phone at that age I, too, might have wanted someplace a bit more private and out of the house to talk to a girlfriend, and walking around is one of the few places a kid can go for privacy.
 
If Trayvon had not hit GZ
 
Did he? That’s what the shooter claims, but it’s not at all clear from what I’ve seen that the kid initiated the physical violence – or even that the kid hit the shooter at all. Again, if you have other information, I’d like to see it. I’ve read about the witness statements, and they are confusing, confused, and apparently contradictory.
 
*  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin

“Young Bold Men” syndrome? If you’re talking about testosterone and agression, there is ample evidence and studies that there is a correlation. But I’m not a sociologist nor a psychologist who studies these issues. Maybe you are, or you just guess about something, write about it and hope you’re right. Perhaps you could site studies that would back up your thesis instead of guessing, and then pretending it was your idea.

And you suggest there should be some way to diminish the testosterone fuel in young men. I’m surprised you didn’t recommend we add something to energy drinks, a favorite among young bold men, to reduce the effects of testosterone. I hear soy does that, and so does excessive alcohol.

There is however, young bald men syndrome, but it probably doesn’t fit into the abstract picture you paint. And since most young men look bald these days, it would likely not be a factor in agression.

As far as what movies I watch, it runs the gamut, but I get a lot of laughter from science fiction.   

My how flippant.

Dude was stalking and told not too by the POLICE. Dude shot gun. Dude killed his prey (that he was stalking). Dude has a pattern of behaviour. Dude white.

Black in the wrong neighborhood. Black wearing a hoodie. Black young and cogniscent of being stalked. Black dead.

Change the colours and try telling me that Black wouldn’t have been in jail 40 plus days ago.

Not racist? please.

Mick – there is no top end to age for boldness to get you in trouble. Yes, from the very fragmented accounts if GZ had stayed home that night, if he had stayed in his truck… If he had not put the gun on… link that to – if Trayvon had gone directly home, if Trayvon had just avoided GZ and not confronted him. If Trayvon had not hit GZ, etc… if if if… but this column was directly about the insanity of people trying to make it something it is not – racial. I believe what started the problem was two bold men who would not take a step back. Not racial.
 
Also, I’m glad you talk to young men in your life though I suspect if they are caught by the young bold syndrome, they are thinking what you say doesn’t apply to them. MS

Dr. Swickard,

I agree with most of your observations about bold young men, especially with regards to the recent tragedy in Las Cruces that you mentioned. I definitely had a chat with my 18 year old nephew about that very topic after I read about that.

However, by most accounts, Mr. Zimmerman is 28 years old. Hardly a teenager. Also, it was his choice to arm himself and to put himself and others in harm’s way. I wasn’t there, but even if I look at it from his side, I see a reckless disregard for safety.

I’m a gun owner. I have a right and a duty to protect me and mine. I am not so sure it’s my job to go looking for trouble; I might just find it.

Peace.

Michael J. Flynn 

GFA says: Sounds like Dr. Swickard got his theme, “Bold Young Men”, from some old western shoot ‘em up.
 
Wrong, I have had these thoughts for a long time. They come from being a newsman at the scene of needless tragedy. They come from being around young men who are full of themselves – ten feet talk and bulletproof as the saying goes.
 
Example: a young man lost his life in Las Cruces a week ago. Reportedly he got crossways with another youth. That youth chased him and his friends firing at them with a pistol. This young man rather than run from the youth with the pistol at some point decided to go back to the youth and was set to fist fight him. Instead he was subsequently shot to death. If he had just run away he would be alive today. But he was a young bold man.
 
So, GFA – are you saying that there is no young bold men syndrome? Are you saying young men do not jump in with their fists, knives and even guns without much thought or reflection? What movie have you been watching?

The shooting was caused entirely by the bold young men syndrome.
 
Well, that’s certainly possibly.  But there’s absolutely zero evidence to support that explanation.
 
On the other hand, we actually do know that the dead kid was black, and that the shooter wasn’t. We also know that there’s a lot of racism, and a lot of racial profiling, in this country. We also know that the shooter was a neighborhood watch guy, meaning he was looking for trouble. We also know that he had chosen to carry a gun, meaning that he had pre-meditated his choices and decided that he might need lethal force. We know that the dead kid was armed with Skittles. Meaning that the kid wasn’t expecting to need lethal force to defend himself. We also know that the shooter got out of his vehicle and approached the kid, meaning that the shooter chose the confrontation. The kid didn’t pull him from his vehicle.
 
So maybe race had nothing to do with it.
 
And maybe it was the extraterrestrial tetrapodal crustaceans from Deneb III. That’s precisely as much evidence to support the extraterrestrial-did-it theory as to support the ‘bold young men’ theory. In fact, I find those two theories equally plausible. So should you.

This commentary by Dr. Swickard doesn’t stand up to any logical analysis of the situation that took a kid’s life, especially when so much information is missing. Sounds like Dr. Swickard got his theme, “Bold Young Men”, from some old western shoot ‘em up. 

There are so many things about this story that disgust me but show how badly American society has deteriorated. From the biased media coverage to the insanity introduced by the “social media” and that totally useless medium, to the intervention of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the New Black Panthers stirring up racial hatred and stereotyping, to everyone taking sides and the inevitable political exploitation of the whole thing by professional politicians.  But I would say if you substitute “angry”, chip-on-their-shoulder”, “troubled”, “looking for trouble” and “testosterone enhanced” for ” Bold” in the story I would agree.  They were not bold, but all the other things in my opinion.  ”Bold” has far too many positive connotations for this situation.

Time for everyone who is interested in this case to watch (or re-watch) “In the Heat of the NIght,” the 1967 landmark Sidney Poitier film.  Idiot white small-town deputy arrests black cop, cop keeps his cool, follows the drill.

I’m glad my two sons were not taught by Swickard. What a weird column.