Dylan Roof and Payton Gendron
Hmm...looks like entitlement and justification
“Racism is a human problem and a crime that is so ghastly that a person who is fighting racism is well within his rights to fight against it by any means necessary until it is eliminated, "said Malcolm X.
In 2015 and 2022, two Caucasian men walked into spaces that was meant for no harm and killed those who they had a sense of hatred for. Their victims were people that looked like me. I was at the age of twelve when nine Christians were shot and killed in a Episcopal church. I was scared because I never imagined that people could die in a place that spreads love and the word of gospel.
That massacre was the reason I was always cautious of the church. Eight years after that massacre, I was at the age of nineteen when ten elderly black people who were close to my grandmother’s age were killed in a grocery store. (She is in her early seventies.) When I heard about the story, I did not believe it. I could not process that a white boy would drive 200 miles to a city so he can livestream the murder for everyone to see.
I should not have been surprised because hate is a feeling of intense hostility and aversion that derives from fear, anger, or a sense of injury.
Humans have allowed this feeling to have power over them. This feeling was used to manipulate and control a certain group of people. When I was growing up, I did not know any better because I used to think: Why won’t this feeling go away? Why can’t everyone love one another? But I am not the girl who used to believe that everyone can come together because it is not easy.
I had to realize that you cannot get rid of a feeling that is implemented in the minds of people. These two men have so much in common but there is one similarity that I wanted to point out: how young they were when they committed these murders. I find it strange when you are fixated on eliminating a group of people because you care about jumpstarting a war between blacks and whites and you do not want to be replaced. This is something that I expect from older racists who are still living in the past. When at your age, you should be figuring out what the future holds for you.
What can I make of myself once I become an adult?
I have scream it out at the top of my lungs:
“ATTENTION WHITE FOLKS, WANTING BLACK FOLKS DEAD SO YOU CAN SAY THAT WE WON THE WAR IS NOT AN ACCOMPLISHMENT!”
“IT IS SICK, TWISTED AND EVIL.
“IT REMAINS A CRIME.”
Now, I will not claim that only white folks are capable of racism. I do not think it is true because every race has a prejudice against each other. Black folks and white folks speak ill and with no respect for each other.
I have witnessed it on social media and in my family. At the end, these two men were waiting their whole lives to show their murderous side.
The darkness was already inside of them.
You can look in their eyes and see that something is not right. Their eyes remind of Adolf Hitler. His eyes were the most distinctive feature. They were dead, flat, and soulless. These kinds of people do not love themselves so what makes you think they can love anyone else?
I am starting to believe that we are living in the matrix, and we will never be unplugged. Sometimes I want to be unplugged from the world that we are living in, but we cannot keep running from everything.
About the Creator
Janay Ealey
Greetings, my fellow readers!
Writer.
Social Media Manager.
Student.
Keep reading
More stories from Janay Ealey and writers in Criminal and other communities.
Nikolas Cruz
I know the American people weren’t that stupid enough to believe that Nikolas Cruz was going to receive the death penalty. He’s a school shooter. School shooters will get leniency because simply they are young. As a woman who is the age of twenty, I’m going to keep it real. My mother believes that he didn’t get sent to the chair because of white privilege.
By Janay Ealey3 years ago in Criminal
Minneapolis ICE Shooting Updates
In recent weeks, Minneapolis has found itself at the center of a growing legal and political controversy following a shooting involving Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. What initially appeared to be a straightforward federal use-of-force investigation has evolved into a broader dispute between state authorities and federal officials, raising serious questions about transparency, jurisdiction, and accountability. The most significant development so far is the state’s claim that it has been denied access to key evidence related to the incident. As public attention intensifies, the case is no longer just about what happened during the shooting. It is increasingly about who controls the facts, who gets to investigate them, and how justice is supposed to function when federal and state systems collide. What We Know About the Minneapolis ICE Shooting The shooting occurred during a federal immigration enforcement operation in Minneapolis. ICE agents were reportedly conducting official duties when gunfire erupted, resulting in injuries and immediate emergency response. Federal authorities confirmed the incident and stated that internal protocols were activated, including an automatic review by federal oversight bodies. From the beginning, details were limited. Officials cited the ongoing nature of the investigation and concerns about officer safety. This lack of information, while not unusual in federal cases, quickly became a point of friction for Minnesota state authorities, who argued that the public deserved clarity and that the state had a legal role to play in examining the incident. State Authorities Push for Transparency Minnesota state officials, including investigators and legal representatives, formally requested access to evidence connected to the shooting. This evidence reportedly includes body camera footage, surveillance recordings, forensic reports, and internal communication logs from the operation. According to state representatives, these requests were either delayed or denied outright. The state has since gone on record stating that it cannot independently assess the legality of the shooting without full access to the materials. This denial has fueled concerns that federal agencies are operating without sufficient external oversight, especially in incidents involving potential civilian harm. State leaders emphasized that their position is not adversarial by default. Rather, they argue that cooperation between federal and state agencies is essential to maintain public trust, particularly in communities already wary of immigration enforcement. Federal Response and Jurisdictional Limits Federal officials, for their part, maintain that the investigation falls squarely under federal jurisdiction. ICE operates as a federal agency, and shootings involving federal officers are typically reviewed internally and, when appropriate, by federal prosecutors or inspectors general. In statements released following the controversy, federal representatives cited legal restrictions that limit the sharing of evidence during an active investigation. They also stressed that premature disclosure could compromise witness testimony or investigative integrity. This explanation, while legally grounded, has done little to ease state frustrations. Critics argue that “ongoing investigation” has too often been used as a blanket justification for withholding information, even in cases where transparency could prevent misinformation and public unrest. Community Reaction and Public Trust The Minneapolis community has responded with a mix of concern, anger, and fatigue. For many residents, particularly in immigrant and marginalized communities, the shooting has reopened long-standing fears about aggressive enforcement tactics and lack of accountability. Community leaders and advocacy groups have called for the immediate release of non-sensitive evidence, arguing that transparency is a prerequisite for trust. Peaceful demonstrations and public forums have highlighted a broader demand: that no law enforcement agency, federal or otherwise, should be beyond scrutiny. Local officials echoed these concerns, noting that Minneapolis has spent years attempting to rebuild trust between residents and law enforcement. The perception that evidence is being withheld threatens to undermine that progress. Legal Implications of Denied Evidence From a legal standpoint, the state’s inability to access evidence raises complex questions. While federal agencies do have authority over their operations, states also have a responsibility to investigate deaths or injuries occurring within their borders. Legal experts suggest that this dispute could set a precedent. If states are routinely blocked from reviewing evidence in federal use-of-force cases, it may limit their ability to pursue independent inquiries or bring charges under state law when applicable. Some analysts believe the issue could ultimately be resolved in court, with judges determining whether the state has a legal right to access certain materials. Such a ruling could have national implications, influencing how future federal-state conflicts are handled. Political Dimensions of the Case The Minneapolis ICE shooting has also taken on a political dimension. Immigration enforcement remains a deeply divisive issue, and incidents like this tend to amplify existing ideological divides. State officials critical of federal immigration policies view the denial of evidence as symptomatic of a larger lack of accountability. Meanwhile, supporters of strict federal enforcement argue that state interference could hinder effective operations and put officers at risk. This political tension complicates the path forward. What might otherwise be a procedural disagreement risks becoming a symbolic battle over immigration, law enforcement authority, and states’ rights. What Happens Next? As of now, the investigation continues under federal oversight, while the state explores its legal options. Negotiations between state and federal officials have reportedly not been ruled out, suggesting that a compromise could still be reached. Potential next steps include limited evidence sharing under confidentiality agreements, congressional inquiries, or judicial review. Each option carries its own risks and consequences, both legally and politically. What remains clear is that public pressure is unlikely to fade. Minneapolis residents, like many Americans, are demanding clarity, fairness, and accountability in cases involving law enforcement use of force. A Broader Conversation About Accountability The Minneapolis ICE shooting is no longer just a single incident under investigation. It has become a lens through which broader issues are being examined: the balance of power between federal and state authorities, the limits of transparency, and the role of public oversight in a democratic society. Whether or not the state ultimately gains access to the evidence, the controversy has already sparked an important conversation. How that conversation translates into policy, practice, or reform remains to be seen, but its impact will likely extend far beyond Minneapolis. In the end, accountability is not only about assigning blame. It is about ensuring that systems function openly and fairly, especially when lives are affected. The outcome of this case may help determine how well those principles are upheld in the future.
By Saboor Brohi 5 days ago in Criminal
Federal Law Enforcement Shooting in Minneapolis Sparks National Debat
## **Federal Law Enforcement Shooting in Minneapolis Sparks National Debate** In early 2026, a serious incident unfolded in Minneapolis when federal law enforcement officers shot a civilian during a large-scale operation in the city. The event immediately drew public attention and ignited widespread discussion about the role of federal agencies, public safety, and accountability. The shooting occurred in a residential area, creating fear and confusion among residents and prompting strong reactions from local leaders and community groups.
By America today 6 days ago in Criminal
Comments (1)
nice job. I'm kinda new here. might just check some of my writings and drop your truest critique,if you don't mind