Quentin Tarantino clarifies: ‘All cops are not murderers. I never said that.’


Two weekends ago, Quentin Tarantino took part in two rallies on behalf of Rise Up October, events that were partially coordinated by Black Lives Matter activists, working to bring attention to the killings of several African-Americans by police officers in New York. Tarantino was invited to speak alongside other activists and family members of the slain, and he stood up and called those particular cops – the cops who killed those unarmed African-Americans – “murderers.” He was pretty specific about it and there was a context to his words. That didn’t stop the NYPD’s union from threatening to boycott The Hateful Eight, and that didn’t stop the union from trying to paint Tarantino as a cop-hater who thinks ALL cops are murderers.

Over the weekend, Page Six posted a story about how Harvey Weinstein (who is distributing The Hateful Eight and who has a long personal and professional history with Tarantino) wanted Tarantino to apologize or clarify his statements. Weinstein is worried that a widespread police boycott or protest could seriously damage the film’s reception and sources claimed that Harvey was brainstorming ideas for how to make it right. This may be Harvey’s work then – Tarantino spoke to the Los Angeles Times about how he feels about cops and how he feels about how the police unions are coming after him.

QT’s clarification & defense: “All cops are not murderers. I never said that. I never even implied that. What they’re doing is pretty obvious,. Instead of dealing with the incidents of police brutality that those people were bringing up, instead of examining the problem of police brutality in this country, better they single me out. And their message is very clear. It’s to shut me down. It’s to discredit me. It is to intimidate me. It is to shut my mouth, and even more important than that, it is to send a message out to any other prominent person that might feel the need to join that side of the argument.”

He will not be intimidated: “I’m not being intimidated. Frankly, it feels lousy to have a bunch of police mouthpieces call me a cop hater. I’m not a cop hater. That is a misrepresentation. That is slanderous. That is not how I feel. But you know, that’s their choice to do that to me. What can I do? I’m not taking back what I said. What I said was the truth. I’m used to people misrepresenting me; I’m used to being misunderstood. What I’d like to think their attack against me is so vicious that they’re revealing themselves. They’re hiding in plain sight.”

[From The LA Times]

There are so many interesting elements at play here. Honestly, you could probably write a master’s thesis just about the racial elements involved in this situation. Tarantino is someone who comes from a place of enormous privilege, but to his credit, he’s trying to use his rich-white-guy privilege to draw focus to an important and controversial issue. Even though he’s being dragged through the mud, he’s still trying to keep the focus on the issue at hand, which is police brutality and killings of unarmed civilians by police officers.

On the other side, you have law enforcement organizations who are used to painting African-American activists as “fringe elements,” or domestic terrorists or simply “too black” to ever be taken seriously. The cops are trying to paint Tarantino with the same brush and I’m not sure if they realize that Tarantino can call up any newspaper, magazine or media outlet he wants to tell his side of the story and he’ll drown out every pro-cop headline. Basically… even though Tarantino is making this about himself a little bit too much, I still admire him for sticking with it and throwing the issue back.

Photos courtesy of Getty, WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

71 Responses to “Quentin Tarantino clarifies: ‘All cops are not murderers. I never said that.’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. SKF says:

    Great response!

    • Loulou says:

      I’m so glad he didn’t apologize.

      • Snazzy says:

        yes me too! It’s great that he is using his position of privilege give this issue some more exposure.

      • jammypants says:

        Same here

      • Cindy says:

        Me too. He has nothing to apologize for because what he’s saying is true. I love Tarantino, I think his films are unique and genius, I think he is courageous about sticking to the things he believes and I also admire him because even though he is priveledged now, he grew up with a single mom whose dad bailed on him.

        Also, is it weird that I think he’s kinda sexy? Okay, really sexy?

      • Loulou says:

        @Cindy – he and Vince Vaughn are my shame crushes.

      • Pandy says:

        What’s to apologize for? He’s right …

      • Maxine7 says:

        I’m a native NYer and currently live in NY. The problem with what Tarantino did in my opinion is not so much what he said as his presence at the rally here 4 days after Officer Randolph Holder actually WAS murdered. Just….poor taste…..bad timing….. Distracting…..Offensive to a city that was trying to honor the memory of a heroic individual.

    • Anne tommy says:

      He seems to have been totally misrepresented, and his response is excellent. The Weinstein Company does seem to have come out with a statement saying that QT can and should express his own opinions. It is probably weird, but I also think he is strangely attractive Cindy…

  2. Sara says:

    He has to make it a bit about himself, they are slandering him. But if that much crap is thrown at a powerful white man, imagine the intimidation minority activists, especially women, must go up against. Such courage.

    • Snazzy says:

      Very very true

    • Denisemich says:

      The police union is so strong, especially in NYC, that any criticisim is dealt with harshly.

      Remember how the NYC union attacked the Mayor of NYC for saying how he told his black son to act when confronted by a police officer. Instead of dealing with that reality, they decided to shut him out and not invite him to police funerals and stop working.

      Police should not be able to do that. Their purpose should be to protect the citizens in their cities but like all things it has become political.

      Quentin Tarrintino will have a hard time getting appropriate police security in the NY tri-state area but I think he lives in LA so it should be fine. Weinstein lives in NYC area and he is afraid not just of this movies sales but the issues this will bring to other movies he backs that need to film in NYC.

      • WOR says:

        Police aren’t trained to protect citizens. Most get their first experience either in the military or the prison system. They’re trained to see the people they’re supposed to be serving as an enemy to be controlled. Black people have it worst but everyone is at risk. A middle aged suburban white woman is suing the Carlsbad California police because she was beaten by a cop in front of her crying kids. He accused her of assaulting him and she was facing felony charges. It was only when a video of the incident was presented to the DA by her lawyer that the charges were dropped. What’s desperately needed is a complete retraining of police officers all over the country. They often have “to protect and serve” written on their patrol vehicles but they usually aren’t trained to see themselves that way.

      • denisemich says:

        I only know nyc area. Most of those cops went directly to the police academy from some type of college.

      • Kitten says:

        One of many reasons why I’m not a fan of unions. They all do this: they close ranks and protect each other, regardless if they are in the wrong. Disgusting.

      • Veronica says:

        I’m fine with unions in private sector business, but I agree with a lot of people that it’s a major conflict of interest in the government sector. Here’s a perfect example of why.

      • MND says:

        @Kitten: Not a fan of unions? Wow. If it wasn’t for unions workers’wages and conditions would much worse than they are. The unions may not be entirely pure but their enemies aren’t either.

    • Cindy says:

      No kidding. Our country is so damaged and f*cked up concerning racism. I’m just a white lady, so I hope I’m not speaking out of turn, but it seems so bad I wonder if we need another civil rights movement.

      • belle de jour says:

        Fox News – which plays relentlessly on the gym’s TV down here – has picked up this aspect of fearing an ‘uprising,’ and at least one ‘host’ there has started to run with it. Yesterday (and the day before), he and his ‘expert guests’ tried to conflate the recent Chicago Exchange protests with the Black Lives Matter protests with the ‘radical One Percent Wall Street’ movement… even warning that this country is facing a ‘new French Revolution’ of ‘all sorts of groups’ getting together and organizing to promote anarchy (oh, the inadvertent irony) and ‘socialism’ and unrest.

        Both the host and the guests did not hesitate to wonder aloud ‘Just what are these people protesting? Do they even know why they’re angry, or where to direct their anger? Should we be worried that they don’t?’ (paraphrased)

        And so on. Busy already – again – peddling generalized fear of a nameless, shapeless mass… whilst trying to blur and weaken the particulars and identities and issues of what they admittedly don’t understand yet sense they should oppose. The NYC police union is not far from this thinking and behavior and ‘circling the wagons’ mentality, either.

      • Who ARE these people? says:

        So shameless. If people stopped to think, they might consider that if the downtrodden wanted to take over the country, they would have done so many time already. Lord knows they’ve had plenty of provocation and are large enough in number. But no, people despite oppression still keep trying to live the American dream – that’s all – instead of organizing the kind of revolution of which Fox ‘news’casters seem to be afraid.

        The only large-scale organized rebellion against the American government was by armed white Southerners. The only people who truly created anarchy in this country were armed white aristocrats.

    • korra says:

      …damn. Food for thought.

    • Jo 'Mama' Besser says:

      Yesterday, I read about how the NYPD has been monitoring and harrassing the postal worker who gave Ismaayl Brinsley directions to the Marcy Houses. Brinsley was the man who fatally shot two officers last December and he did it at the Marcy Houses. Listen to me: The NYPD is monitoring and harrassing someone for giving someone directions because to them, he’s their enemy for not having been able to see into the future. That is what the mafia does. By that logic, shouldn’t these cops be following and harrassing themselves for not having stopped those two officers from going out on that call? Government workers aren’t allowed to give people directions anymore?

      Anyway, He’s been pulled over about 20 times since the murders, which were less than a year ago, although what’s sad is that a lot of that could have been garden variety DWB, but it turns out that that enough wasn’t enough to satiate their blood lust. A whole group of them decided that they would beat and stomp the guy within an inch of his life and, pin some bogus charges on him after the fact, then call his mangled face a ‘cracked lip’. Now let’s come with a bunch of reasons as to why that man deserved what he got, giving someone directions like that in bold defiance of authority.

      • I Choose Me says:

        I’m filled with horror right now trying to process what you wrote. What is happening? What is wrong with the mentality of those cops that they would consider a postal worker the enemy simply for giving directions?

        I feel like we’re living in a dystopian world but we just don’t know it ’cause everything’s still shiny.

      • Jo 'Mama' Besser says:

        His being black didn’t help, no wonder one of the charges is for resisting arrestI know. I will admit that I’m very cynical about police and the NYPD especially. This, though, THIS even surprised me. They full well know that the man could have just as easily asked one of them for directions and had they given them, the outcome would’ve been the same. They are beneath contempt.

  3. Lou says:

    Well SOMEBODY has to say something. Cops think they are untouchable, and most of the time, they are! It creates an atmosphere of mistrust and that scares me, if you can’t trust the police then who do you turn to for help? He definitely has balls, i just hope his slate is clean because im sure police are DYING to get revenge.

  4. Kate says:

    Perfect. He clarified, but then turned it back on the people purposefully misrepresenting him. Most people in situations like this just do the former, which reads as apology.

  5. MexicanMonkey says:

    When I read the headline I was too afraid to read the article and find that he backtracked under Harvey’s instructions, I’m so glad he didn’t! It’s a perfect response.
    There is a problem with police brutality and the more they try to blindly defend themselves the worse it makes them look.

  6. Jess says:

    Good for him!

  7. GoodNamesAllTaken says:

    I think he would have been more effective had he just stated that this was an obvious deflection of the real issue, rather than all of the language about how they are trying to intimidate him and shut him down. It was too me, me, me but in general, I don’t think he ever said all cops were murderers and I don’t think he needs to apologize for what he said.

    I have made remarks on here about these unnecessary deaths of black citizens and have been lectured about the “few bad apples” and how all police aren’t bad, when I never said they were or implied that they were. It’s classic. Don’t address the actual problem, just take the original statement out of context and express outrage at what the person never said. So annoying.

    • Esmom says:

      I think he was speaking with more emotion than was necessary, but I think his point was clear and well said.

      And you are so right about the classic deflection tactics, they are so frustrating. The gun nuts are really good at doing that. So are some local Tea Partiers in my local government. It’s like every wing nut was issued the same play book, grr.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Oh, the gun nuts. Grrrr. I had a terrible argument with one the other day, and I said the authors of our constitution had no way of foreseeing the types of problems we now have with guns and he started arguing that I hated the constitution and wanted to throw it out and become Russia, blah blah blah. I wanted to punch his face in. I just said I wouldn’t bother to argue with someone who deliberately twisted my arguments and walked away but I’m still mad! 👿👿👿👿

      • Esmom says:

        I’m with you on the Founding Fathers likely being unable to fathom what today’s gun culture would wreak, and have had very similar encounters with the gun nuts. “Hating the Constitution” seems to be their latest knee jerk rebuttal. Sigh.

      • antipodean says:

        The gun nuts and their ilk refuse to believe that society has moved on apace from when there were wild bears and animals slavering at the door, and protection from them was required. How much sport or satisfaction can there be in using a high powered rifle against a defenceless animal or human for that matter? It’s a mystery to me how one can even imagine pointing a gun and choosing to kill another. Self defence, blah, blah, blah, there has to be an other way. And I have every respect for the Constitution.

      • Cindy says:

        @GNAT and Esmom
        Yup.I am so sick of gun fanatics justifying their aggression and hostile personalities with the 2nd amendment. I am just going to say it. I *hate* guns full stop. Hate them. Don’t ever want to touch one, and men who carry them around on their person (no, not hunters, I know thats different), scare me. This is only my opinion and I don’t care if the world hates me for it. Zimmerman types need intensive therapy and anger management, not gun permits. My stomach hurts just thinking about this it bothers me so much.

      • Who ARE these people? says:

        They *were* issued the same playbook — by the NRA.

    • Bridget says:

      It would bother me more if that wasn’t the NYPD police union’s favorite tactic with anyone that criticizes them. There are some great cops, but the folks in the leadership positions of that union are complete bullies that try to intimidate anyone that dares to try to hold them accountable for their actions.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Right. I’m not saying that what he said isn’t true. They probably are trying to intimidate him. I just think when you’re in a highly emotional situation, sometimes it’s better just to stay calm and state your point without jacking up the emotions any further. Not that I always do that either, tbh, but I think it works better.

  8. Mia4s says:

    He has a right to speak up; and the police have a right to boycott. In that much at least, the system works. Slander is complicated, it’s doubtful he could mount any serious case.

    At this point though the problem will come if the movie underperforms. It’s possible: the movie is apparently deeply offensive (in the most Tarantino of ways) and the marketplace is insanely crowded. The second it comes in below expectations the story becomes “See? The boycott!”, when the former reasons are more likely.

    • Junior says:

      I agree with Mia4s: boycotts are one of my favorite types of nonviolent protest. We all know about Martin Luther King and his Montgomery Bus Boycott, and Ceasar Chavez and his grape boycotts helped many low-paid Hispanic American farmworkers unionize for the first time. Refusing to hand over money is an excellent and effective form of political speech, and it’s something accessible to all levels of society, poor as well as rich.

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      Oddly, this just makes me want to see his movie(s) and I *hate* violent films.

  9. Junior says:

    Tarantino makes his living from filming ‘funny’ violence, and like the rest of Hollywood he’s done a lot to desensitize both cops and civilians to the consequences of real violence, particularly gun violence.

    (I’m always amazed when people encourage Hollywood to improve onscreen gender and ethnic representation – because representation is influential! – but then insist that onscreen violence does not influence offscreen behavior. Of course it does.)

    Tarantino is part of the gun culture problem, not part of the solution, and the people who applaud him are happy just because he’s reflecting their own views back at them. We all think that people who agree with us are very smart and courageous!

    • Sara says:

      You can dislike someone’s work, disagree with many of their opinions, yet agree with one of their positions, and support their courage in standing up to intimidation. I mean, the police groups are saying they won’t help any crew on any future Tarantino movie as retaliation??? That’s intimidation.

      • Junior says:

        The police unions said they wouldn’t serve as off-duty security and advisors on Tarantino’s productions, not that they wouldn’t do their jobs as on-duty public servants should a crime be committed on set.

        Refusing to take off-duty work from someone you disagree with is fine, in my opinion. Wouldn’t you be pleased if they refused off-duty work on a Mel Gibson production?

    • Illyra says:

      You make some good points here.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      You make good points about violence and his role in relation to that, but I agree with Sara that in spite of that, I think he’s right not to apologize for something he never said.

    • Saphana says:

      actually the people in the west live safer lives than in any other period of time. how did Hitler and Stalin get their ideas without rock and roll, video games and Marilyn Manson? how did the ancient greek come up with their torture stuff? how did Attila know how to mutilate people without Tarantino movies? Genghis Khan?

      • Kitten says:

        THIS X 1,000,000.

        Pop culture is always the convenient punching bag. Much more daunting to examine the ugly truths of human nature that are the root cause of violence.

      • Junior says:

        OK, you’re arguing that ultraviolence is an inherent part of human nature, and Tarantino celebrating it in a movie is no big deal – after all, it’s always been around, even in the days of Genghis Khan. You could say the same about rape and extreme racism: they seem to be inherently (sadly) part of the human condition. Would you therefore excuse a director who regularly showed women being attacked, or one whose movies included people wearing blackface?

        Tarantino doesn’t just reflect violence, he celebrates it. He takes joy from it. His work may be ‘pop culture’, but we’re not talking about the Beatles’ haircuts here, making ‘pop culture a punching bag.’ This is a guy who sells blood and guts for fun. Then he calls other people ‘murderers’. Sorry, but he’s a small-minded shock merchant, and certainly no hero.

      • Kitten says:

        @Junior-Yeah I would and have excused directors who have portrayed violence against women (see Von Trier for just one example) and black face (see Tropic Thunder) if it’s part of a larger and more important commentary or message.
        If it’s violence for the sake of entertainment, I won’t condemn it, I simply won’t watch it. Not because it’s “evil” and causing the destruction of our society but simply because I have no interest in it. But if you think that Tarantino’s films are about glorifying/celebrating violence, then that’s on you. You’re entirely wrong, but still, you’re entitled to your opinion.

        But you’re missing my point: it’s not about “excusing/not excusing” it’s about laying blame and NO I absolutely 100% do not blame movies, music or any art form for the prevalent violence in our society. To do so would be to willfully turn a blind eye to the systemic, social, and biological reasons why people engage in violent behavior. I’ve never found that conducive to solving what is an inherently complex issue. On the contrary, I find it to be a huge distraction. It’s not like people in Sweden and the Netherlands don’t watch American movies or listen to American music, yet somehow the crime rates remain incredibly low in those countries. If you want to ruminate about why the US is so f*cking violent you don’t have to go very far: look at our historical relationship with guns (which started WELL before the advent of film, TV, video games) and look at our penal system. Look at how we treat non-violent offenders and LOOK at how our law enforcement treat many innocent, unarmed civilians. Hell, look at WAR.

        But by all means, continue the pearl-clutching about movies promoting violence or songs being played backwards causing kids to commit suicide.

    • Veronica says:

      It’s fair to criticize Tarantino’s involvement based on the fetishization of violence of his films – no matter how much we want to claim a delineation between fiction and reality, there are plenty of studies suggesting it does influence our cultural pyshoclogically. However, the issue of police brutality as a means of oppressive force (particularly against African Americans) is not a direct result of mass media trends. That existed well before the advent of television and, frankly, is built into origins of police culture and the modern prison industrial complex. I am fine with him bringing attention to the issue from that perspective.

  10. vauvert says:

    Good for him! I like what he said, and it is great to see a guy using his privilege to stand up to the establishment. He is right, they can’t shut him up, which is why his support is important. The police or government can silence black activists more easily, it is a lot harder to intimidate and monitor someone like him. I don’t think he made it too much about himself. He was defending himself against the accusations. Remember, the accusations were not generically made against all the protesters or even against their cause – they specifically targeted him. So sure he had to defend himself and he did a good job of explaining but not apologizing; there was nothing to apologize for.
    It is a difficult topic, maybe less in Canada, but while I totally respect the job the police do, I wouldn’t want them to take advantage of their position to freely discriminate and suffer zero consequences. Their job is to serve and protect, not abuse and victimize. And because it is such a responsibility, we should not tolerate even a few bad apples.

  11. Liz says:

    Yay for Quentin for not backing down!!!! I have a lot of respect for the police and the hard work they do, but I hate when anyone tries to shut down someone from speaking the truth. Quentin did not say all cops are murderers.

    • Addison says:

      On this subject all people hear is what they want to hear.

      I think that if the police condem these acts that are blatantly wrong people would feel they are actually doing their job. In the same manner we want Arab countries to condem acts of terrorism, the police should also condem these obvious racist assaults/deaths.

      This is what Tarantino was doing condemning those acts, not the entire police force. But of course they hear what they want to hear.

      It’s good he didn’t apologize because he never said that it was All the police force.

  12. original kay says:

    No, not all cops are terrible.

    But there is something terribly wrong with the way some interpret their training. Point in fact- the cop who handcuffed a 7 year old boy, at his school, and then to add to it couldn’t find the key to release him. Google it- it happened in Flint, Michigan.
    There are no words.

    I found some words- they need a better, improved system of psychological testing for potential officers. Find the ones who really should not have that much control over other people.

  13. bns says:

    Blogs keep using that part of his quote to make it sound like he’s retracting but he’s not. He’s right. And fuck the police.

  14. Ponytail says:

    How is he speaking from a place of privilege ? I thought he grew up very poor, had a number of rubbish jobs and then managed to get his first film script noticed. He is rich now, yes, but that isn’t a privilege – he worked for that. Or am I misunderstanding what privilege means ?

    • Jay says:

      I think they’re referring to white rich guy privilege.

      • Ponytail says:

        But like I said above – he wasn’t always rich, he’s worked for that. How is that privilege ? I think perhaps Americans use it in a different way to the way I’ve always understood it (language evolves, I suppose).

      • Veronica says:

        You are mistaking social privilege with economic privilege (though they definitely influence one another). A white man (and in this case, straight and cis) is inherently privileged in Western society regardless of his caste because he is white and male, therefore he is not subject to either racial or gendered discrimination that others deal with. He doesn’t get pulled over because he’s driving an expensive car. He doesn’t get questioned for walking around a suburban neighborhood at night while wearing a hoodie. He’s not told he can’t make executive decisions because he’s too “hormonal” or “emotional.” He’s statistically more likely to have access to better healthcare, better pay, better housing, and frankly, he’s less likely to see serious consequences for criminal behavior. White privilege is what allowed him to grow up poor and obtain enormous success when many others sectors of society do the same with far less pay off.

    • Lucrezia says:

      Privilege comes from the Latin privus (private) and lex/leg (law). It originally meant private law, as in nobles were treated differently under the law than serfs or slaves. (That might be why you’re thinking “privilege” = “hereditary social class”. Originally, it did.)

      In modern times the use is more general, and it refers to treatment by society in general rather than specific laws. Any type of “different rules for different folk” is now referred to as privilege. “A special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group.”

      So it’s fair to say he’s got wealth-privilege now, even if he wasn’t rich when he was younger. He worked for his wealth, sure, no-one is denying that. He wasn’t born with a silver-spoon in his mouth. But now that he’s rich he’s got power/options/advantages unavailable to the poor.

  15. Frosty says:

    Don’t back down, QT!

  16. QQ says:

    *slow Impressed clap* Well Played QT, well Fuck!ng Played!!

  17. My two cents says:

    I get very upset when I hear general
    terms of F the police. Where would we be without the police? In a land of lawlessness and left to protect ourselves, which would be rather difficult if some had their way and had guns taken away from all people. Just because some people see things different from the exteme liberal point of view doesn’t make them completely wrong. There is a fine line too many cross on both sides of all these sensitive matters.

    • Bridget says:

      We’re not talking about a general “F the police”. We’re talking about a very serious issue in many, many US cities about police brutality and violence. Those that uphold the law are still accountable to those laws.

    • FingerBinger says:

      If you were living in a neighborhood that had police harassment you’d say f the police too.

      • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

        Exactly. I asked this of someone in another post but the question still stands. If you’re not willing to face the dangers and harassment that comes with being a police officer, don’t be one period. Why should it be that people have to bow to you as an unfailing deity in order to be given safety? Why must we be unable to question and recognize faults in our police force? What good is a police force that hears F the police and pouts like a 5 yr old?

        I think if a large segment of the population is saying f something (and there isn’t with the police, there’s criticism but there’s not a mass group running around saying f them) then people need to think and look into why.

    • Veronica says:

      The African American community has never had the privilege of seeing the modern police force as a protective, defensive force. You really need to do more reading on the subject if you aren’t aware of how integral the relationship between racial disparity and the American justice system is. (The modern police force actually has its origins in the slave patrols of the 1600s, if that gives you a small window in the depth of the issue.) I’d recommend starting with some of the material regarding the prison industrial complex and the criminal slave trade of the South in the early 20th century.

      This is not a “liberal” issue, and I’m tired of seeing that thrown around as a deflection point by claiming its purely political. The issue of criminalization of black culture is a well documented phenomenon. Beyond the loss of life, it’s costing taxpayers billions on lawsuits against police departments, incarceration costs, and the endlessly fruitless drug war. How’s that for the conservative viewpoint?

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      It’s not about seeing things from an “extreme liberal” point of view. It’s about seeing case after case of police wrongly killing black people who did nothing wrong. It doesn’t take political bias to see that the Jim Crow-era lynchings of the south tacitly condoned by the local police are now happening nationwide with bullets instead of with nooses.

  18. Sarah01 says:

    Bravo! Well said!