There is "No presumption of innocence for young black men . . . "

Jordan Davis, an unarmed, black 17-year old boy, was shot last week by Michael Dunn, a white man, during an altercation concerning loud music on a car radio at a Florida gas station.   The white man fired shots into the backseat of the SUV.  He claimed he had seen a gun in the car and felt threatened.  But no shotgun was found, and second degree murder charges have been filed against him by local police.

Melissa Harris-Perry is a professor who has taught political science and African-American Studies at Columbia University and the University of Chicago;  she is now professor of political science at Tulane University and hosts her own tv news show on MSNBC, frequently commenting on race in America.

On her Saturday program, she commented on the parallels between Davis' death and the killing of Trayvon Martin, a black teenager who was also unarmed when he was shot and killed by George Zimmermann earlier this year.   Both instances, she said, continue "that sense for those of us who know them and love them that this country is no place for young black men."

Referring to the murder of Emmett Till in the 1950s, she said that one thing remains the same over generations of American history:

"No presumption of innocence for young black men, no benefit of the doubt. Guilt not determined by what they did or said but presumed to be inherent in their very being. They need not wield a weapon to pose a threat because if you are a young black man, you are threat enough."

Some are saying this will be another test for Florida's "stand your ground" law.   That is patently absurd.   Here's what happened in this case.   Dunn parked next to an SUV at a convenience story in Jacksonville, FL while his girlfriend went into the store.   In the SUV were four young black men, and their radio was playing loud music.  Dunn got out and told them to turn it down.  Words were exchanged.   Dunn then got his gun and fired eight or nine shots into the back seat of the SUV, killing Davis.   He said he saw a gun and felt threatened.  But there was no gun.   Just four young men coming from the mall and having fun listening to their music.

There is no way -- in a sane world, at any rate -- where this could conceivably be stretched to be justified under "stand your ground."    This was not Dunn's home;  it was a public place and Davis had just as much right to be there.  Dunn initiated the contact.  There was no provocation on Davis's part -- unless you call loud music a provocation -- well, I might, but I wouldn't kill anybody over it.

Except . . .  except.   Harris-Perry is right on target in this sense.  But, of course, that justifies nothing in the action of the white man.  Nor is she suggesting that.  But there are many white people who feel threatened just by the presence of young black men.    

If I were a shrink, I might suggest that this is an obvious example of projecting one's own feelings on to "the other" like this formulation:  'I want to eliminate him, so I assume that he wants to eliminate me too.   Therefore, he is a threat to me, and I have to protect myself by getting rid of him before he kills me.'   That projection is the basis of paranoia.

Well, you don't have to go that far into speculating about unconscious psychodynamics.   We do still have a race problem in our society.    We are still paying the price -- both white and blacks -- for slavery and the less severe forms of injustice that are not yet gone.

Is it that same feeling of threat that is behind the vicious Obama-hatred that played such a big part in this year's election?   Perhaps.

Ralph