When you peel back the concentric layers around progressively driven racial story lines what you find is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

As with almost every aspect of life whatever inherent truths you deny, you are doomed to revisit.   Yesterday we outlined the latest media-avoided conversation surrounding yet another racially inspired knock out assault.

Knowing that a single blow to the head can lead to death, as was evidenced recently in the “knock out murder” trial of Jesse Smithers, these awkward, horrific and continually repeating examples are not a game.   

They are, for all intents and purposes, attempted homicides.

Capital Murder as generally defined is: “the unlawful killing of another person, with malice of forethought and specific intent to kill“. Remove any of the three essential elements [(1) Unlawful, (2) malice, (3) specific intent] and you have the various degrees of homicide charges.

Remove ‘specific intent’ and you have “Murder 2” unintentional killing.  Add in the removal of ‘malice of forethought’ and you have “manslaughter”. Remove ‘unlawful‘ and you end up with “justifiable homicide”.

The YouTube ID of 3-mkROh_t6g?feature=player_embedded is invalid.

What you witness in this attack is (1) unlawful and (2) with malice of forethought.  The unknown variable is ‘specific intent’.  Does the attacker intend to kill the victim ?

Generally, at least in this example, I would surmise no – but one could easily argue, perhaps.

It is unlawful to physically strike another person.  It is a higher degree of unlawful to do so with malice of forethought.

Such is the legal and statutory framework for felony assault.

If the victim, in this case the male companion, dies, then you have felony murder 2.

The attacker did punch the victim in the head; and the attacker did so with malice of forethought;  meaning he intentionally meant to inflict injury.

This is not a game, and public pressure upon law enforcement and the media should continue to stand firm on this position.  This is not a game.

In this video what you witness are two, generally young, white people – one male and one female.   Upon exiting the shop the female looks to her left, and given the proximity of the attacker it can reasonably be assumed she saw him coming toward them.

The YouTube ID of 3-mkROh_t6g?feature=player_embedded is invalid.

The couple turn right in the opposite direction to the location of the attacker.   The female then puts her arm in the arm of her companion.

It is reasonable to infer from watching the video the person whom she saw upon exit could have elicited her intuition, or instinct, to draw closer in proximity to her male companion.

A subconscious act; an instinct.   Drawn from real-life experiences.

Moments later the black attacker comes into the immediate proximity of both white victims and angrily strikes the male in the head.  This seems unprovoked and random.

However, if you watch the video closely you can get the gist of what took place…..

……And therein lies the bigger, perhaps more uncomfortable, conversation.

The woman instinctively profiled the approaching male as a risk.  Then, feeling vulnerable, she draws closer to her only proximate defense, her male companion;  and perhaps it was that profiling behavior which psychologically angered the approaching black male – triggering the confrontation.

The Professional Black Grievance Industry, in combination with the White-Guilt apologists, would advance a proposition her profiling is what caused the confrontation.

It is important to understand this distinction for it encompasses the same ideological argument you see repeated ad infinitum with Don Lemon’s “mind your own business” comment;  or Ben Crump and Natalie Jackson’s, “he (George Zimmerman) should have stayed in the car“;  or the Virginia Pilot position, “they (reporters) should have avoided the neighborhood“, ….. or (fill in the blank), there have been hundreds of examples.

This is what we have previously defined as “the Safari Principle”.   A position based around a premise that victims should know better when in proximity to predators.

The woman should have known the short skirt would lead to her rape is another similar victim-blame example, albeit with a gender driven connotation.

Back to the video – The liberal ideology which advances white-guilt, together with the entire construct of professional racial provocateurs’ is based around this redefining of expectation.   A premise upon watching the video which states:  The woman’s implied racism is what caused the black attacker to attack.

If she had not instinctually felt threatened, her companion would not have been attacked.

However, inherent in this liberal premise is the proposition that young black males cannot control themselves when they sense fear amid other members of humanity.  If black males can control themselves the basis for their argument is moot.

This is a critical aspect where the discomfort within the conversation creates animosity, and strong ideological division comes into play.

As politically incorrect as this sounds, in essence the argument boils down to:  is there an empirical reason to believe you are “at risk” when outside the vehicle on safari ?

If the young black male cannot control his behavior, for whatever reason, then the victims instinctual response to the environment is accurate.   She identifies a situation (an approaching black male) that carries within it an implied risk.

However, the conversational problem becomes if the young black male can control his behavior, and just chooses not to, the instinctual response to her environment is still accurate.

The only framework where the instinctual response from the female would be structurally flawed is within an environment where all people have nothing to fear.   A premise that people are self-regulating and bound to commonly acceptable morals and values.   In essence a society where virtue is agreed upon.

Unfortunately, the behavior by the young black attacker, as evidenced in the video, just solidifies the accuracy of the victim.    Simultaneously it affirms an undeniable reality that a segment of young black males do indeed represent a risk.   There is an increasingly growing group of people who refuse to accept morals, values and the inherent self-regulation that such an acceptance carries.

The woman thought the approaching male could be a risk; and he affirmed her concern with the strike against her companion.    Ironically, this is the exact same framework around the George Zimmerman incident where he too profiled Trayvon Martin as a potential risk, and he too was affirmed in that opinion when he was similarly punched and attacked.

This is the greater dynamic for discussion.   A discussion needed because the severity and frequency of the attacks is increasing daily.

However, this is also the basic premise for the discomfort which leads to a conversation avoided.

Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are profoundly skilled at pointing out their anxiety toward the initial response by the woman in the video; and, in a larger sense, to the Zimmermans’ in society who view young black males as potentially representing a behavioral threat.

This is the basis for them labeling George Zimmerman and that lady, as well as the larger society, as institutionally racist.    Sharpton, Jackson, and various elements of the professionally aggrieved, are willing to lead that parade 24/7.    They are then enabled by a legacy media, and a team of aligned ideologues, who are willing to remove responsibility from an entire group within society.    A group who refuse to conduct themselves with common principles of decency in their behavior.

However, they, and the entire construct of the black grievance industry they represent, are silent toward the fact the victim’s fear was not unfounded.

To the contrary it was literally affirmed on camera.