In any case, calling the (lawful) killing of a kid by the police a murder by an accomplice, is making a mockery of the term murder and of justice in general.
I am not taking a cheap shot, unless you can prove to me that these "histories" are firmly in the past for Alabama, and that the attitudes have not lingered and that lady Justice is now color-blind in Alabama courts.
Edit: I've just realized your post is what-aboutism, I regret taking the bait.
1. https://cbsnews3.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2018/04/08/7bd07dde-...
2. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/inside-the-memorial-to-victims-...
That's something I never said, or even implied.
If I said that America has a "history of military power projection", would you object that military power projection is the present reality as well? It certainly is, but you probably would not object to that phrasing. You're reading much more into the use of the word 'history' than you should be. I'm well aware of the civil rights problems in southern states. Save your outrage for a situation more deserving than this conversation, in no conceivable way did I defend honor or reputation of Alabama. I used the word disreputable specifically because the social problems of Alabama are widely known, you needn't teach me something every schoolchild is taught.
The simple fact of the matter is that when it comes to the felony murder doctrine, that boy could have just as well been in San Francisco. Rather than allow you to write felony murder off as a consequence of Alabama being a typical southern state, I decided to give you a brief education on the true scope of the issue. Since you were obviously distressed by felony murder doctrine, I expected you to thank me. Instead I get the feeling you're looking for a fight. That's disappointing.
>"histories"
English isn't my native language, so please correct me if I'm wrong. However I believe when you're referring to Alabaman history specifically (not the history of several separate states at once, as I was in my previous comment) you would use the singular "history" rather than the plural "histories".
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/history
For instance:
>Alabama has a history of civil rights violations.
>Alabama and California have histories of suppressing labor organizations.
Ahh, I see where we're crossing lines. I was writing off my lack of surprise at this occurring in Alabama. I would have been more surprised if this had happened in San Francisco, which as you said, has the same law. I'd love to see how frequently it's enforced by location as uneven enforcement is a thing, especially as societal attitudes shift but the laws are yet to be revised (see possession of small amounts of drugs in certain jurisdictions).
> ...I expected you to thank me. Instead I get the feeling you're looking for a fight.
I was merely rebutting your accusation that I took a "cheap shot". The first half-sentence in your initial reply has no substances, and serves no other purpose except to antagonize. I would have been grateful had you replied with just the second half instead.
> English isn't my native language, so please correct me if I'm wrong...
I wasn't attacking your grammar, I was suggesting that the reasons leading to my lack of surprise are very much in the present.
