Was the Black NYPD officer who shot Sean Bell color-aroused?

In the Sean Bell case in New York, the police couldn't get an all-white jury in New York City, so instead they got an all-white judge. Brilliant!

Not for nothing has the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association forsworn jury trials for cops indicted in the Bronx. Two decades ago when Officer Stephen Sullivan went on trial for fatally shooting Eleanor Bumpers, a black grandmother, he did not appear before a jury. [In the Bronx juries are predominantly black and Hispanic.] Instead, he was tried before a specially selected white judge, who acquitted him. NYPDConfidential

But, this case demonstrates something else much more subtle and useful that I've been saying about color-aroused behavior. One of the police officers who killed Sean Bell was Black, and he's the one whom the Police Benevolent Association put before the cameras after the acquittals. Why? Because the PBA knows that Blacks believe that "only whites can be 'racist' ", as a matter of doctrine. So, once we learn that one of the police officer culprits was Black, that will take much of the wind out of our angry sails. The New York Times reports:

In Harlem, Willie Rainey, 60, a Vietnam veteran and retired airport worker, said that he believed the detectives should have been found guilty, but that he saw the case through a prism not of race, but of police conduct. “It’s a lack of police training,” Mr. Rainey said. “It’s not about race when you have black killing black. We overplay the black card as an issue.” NYTIMES

The fact is that when society does not value Blacks as much as it values whites, this affects everyone's behavior, regardless of their skin color - both Blacks and whites. When a Black police officer, regardless of his skin-color, considers employing lethal and unnecessary force force against a Black person, OF COURSE he considers the fact that he knows there will ultimately be no consequences for doing so. He acts in the knowledge that if he shot a white person 50 times, he might well be executed in some states. The New York Times says,

Sean Bell has become a symbol of what they describe as police aggression and racial profiling in black neighborhoods. Had Mr. Bell and his friends been white, they said, the police would have responded less aggressively, and Mr. Bell might still be alive. NYTIMES

But that NEVER happens, police shooting white people as they shot Sean Bell, because everyone knows that even a police officer cannot shoot a white person 50 times! Certainly a Black police officer would not be permitted to do so! One New Yorker told the New York Times,

“I’m just concerned about what kind of message it’s going to send on both sides,” Ms. Fobbs said on Saturday. “The community here is going to feel like anybody is fair game, if something like this could happen to an unarmed man and nobody was held accountable. And then, with the officers, it sends a message to them that they can do these types of things and get away with it.” NYTIMES

So, what we have here is "color-aroused" behavior on the part of police officers, based society's reaction to the skin-color of their victims. For the Black police officer and the white one, the perception of the color of the Black victim leads police officers to ideation (he's not worth much in the eyes of society and the courts and so if I kill him no one will care, and they might even be pleased), and that leads to behavior, (shooting the person under circumstances and in a way that would never occur with a white person).

Of course, this is a more complex way to analyze the situation then accusations of "racism", but it explains perfectly why even Black policemen value the lives of Blacks less than the lives of whites. The simple fact is that the legal deterrents are de facto less for executing Black people and this makes ALL people, regardless of their skin-color, more likely to kill Black people. And the number of Blacks killed in America every year, by Blacks and whites, supports this analysis.

I'm not usually one to rely on economic analyses of human behavior, but I make an exception in this case. When Blacks lives are cheaper in the criminal justice system and in our culture, it creates more demand. When televisions sets are cheaper, white people AND Black people will express more demand for television sets. And if they were free, as Sean Bell's life has turned out to be, then television sets would fly off of the shelves, into the arms of Blacks as well as whites.

Would Black people shoot each other as we do now if we knew we would be hunted and prosecuted, just as if we had shot a white person with blue eyes and blond hair? Of course not! So color-aroused behavior, not "racism", is implicated even when Black people shoot each other!

This is why "racism" is frequently not an analysis of the situation based on the facts, but rather an ideology seeking anecdotal facts to support preconceived conclusions. Blacks, we are told, cannot be "racist" because the "canons" tells us that they cannot be. Blacks cannot be "racist" because we don't have the power in society to control whites' lives as they control ours. That's the doctrine and the canons. But, Blacks CAN be color-aroused in a way that makes us more likely to victimize other Blacks, because the facts tell us that we can be.