Flatbush – Vos Iz Neias recently published a video of a woman assaulting another woman at Target because she refused to apologize for reaching over the first woman’s child in order to take a shampoo. The video is taken by the woman who is being assaulted and to her credit she did not respond in kind to the violent assaults and threats. However she did verbally provoke the other woman, who was gentile, threatening to bring a lawsuit against her and implying that she acts violently to her own child.
There are no winners in such a battle. Both women are at fault for their behavior, but there is a clear and definitive difference between verbal sparring and physical assault. Imagine if everybody who jumped in line at the store was physically manhandled and thrown backwards. This would not be the kind of world we would want to live in, even as we eschew the rude behavior of those who push ahead.
Yet for some reason most of the knee-jerk responses to the story on Facebook favored the aggressor and not the person taking the video and condoned her violent reaction due to the racial discrimination she allegedly suffers from.
Thus, Asap Doris claimed that “Non-People of color have a tendency to walk and act as if they don’t see the rest of us.” The theory that certain people are “transparent” may or may not be true, but how can you justify violence to make yourself more noticable? Doris says that “People get tired and she was tired.” Ok, so if I’m tired of not getting noticed I should scream, threaten and knock someone over?
Terry DeWitt presumes that “Some white people play a sick psychopatic game. They will start something, and when you react to it… then the whites will play the victim. It is a sick game, and they want us to play it with them.” DeWitt assumes that the non-apology was intentional and meant to goad the black woman into being aggressive so that the white woman can play victim. Why not assume that there was no apology because the child didn’t cry, get hurt or feel aggrieved? Why imply that there is premeditation here? Do people really expect to be assaulted because they bypass someone else?
When people justify the attacker they are encouraging the next attack taking place. When the police justify the attacker they are not just encouraging the next attack, they are legalizing such attacks and making a mockery of their job to protect law abiding citizens from violent reactions based on spurious feelings of racial discrimination.
Alan Hill Jr. indeed derived this conclusion from the police’s reaction, stating that “The police know that legally she invaded the black women’s daughter’s personal space. In the eyes of the law she was defending her daughter. Especially after this other woman escalated by antagonizing the woman. This is called justification under New York law.”
I didn’t know that people standing in a public store have “personal space”, much less that “invading” such space warrants vilification and violence. Yet Hill believes this is “justification”, although it sounds more like “overreaction” and “belligerence” than something which can be defended by law.
Violence is a red line which shouldn’t be crossed unless there is a need to physically defend oneself or one’s kin. Under no circumstances can it be condoned, and it behooves the police to do their job and protect victims from aggressors and not vice versa.