As a teacher of rhetoric, I cannot even begin to comment on the number of errors committed in just the expressive process itself, without even getting into matters of judgment and philosophy. [At this point, by the way, if you're already of the opinion that I am going to come out strongly against Professor Watkins's argument(s), since I have given no empirical reason for you to feel that way, thereby leaving you to your own bias and suspicion, your predisposition
makes you unfit to read my response. Stop now before you injure your own mind.]

In terms of Ellis claiming she wasn’t resisting arrest: to consider her a reliable source for that particular statement is to already have given her the benefit of the doubt, with no reason to have done so. Would she admit openly if she had been resisting arrest?

“According to Ellis, she was shoved by another customer, had her items pushed to the side and was shortchanged when she finally checked out.” Her being shoved by another customer is not Wal Mart’s nor is it the police’s fault. “Had her items pushed to the side,” is a conveniently agentless pseudopassive that leaves open the question “By whom?” By the customer that she alleges shoved her? The allegation Professor Watkins seems to be, without saying so (the only real purpose of the passive voice in this type of rhetoric, as most decent writers avoid it), that it was the Wal Mart employee. AND EVEN IF IT WAS, so what? If she in fact did cut in line, that’s a perfectly appropriate thing to do. Speaking of passives, “was shortchanged” is quite loaded. Really? Intentionally? To send a message about her blackness? Come on, let’s be honest – if you’re a cashier at Wal Mart, your math skills might be a little lower than the average adult’s, and seriously, if all of this excitement was really going on, is it not possible that in the rush to get this disruptive woman out the door, the cashier might have goofed on money count? To suggest that she did it on purpose suggests a motive that implies that the cashier stood to gain form the act, which I think is patently absurd. When a person feels he or she has been wronged, every little detail stands out in high relief, and it is easy to find plots and plans where none actually exist.

“…11 months later, the misdemeanor counts were dropped, which seemed to be good news. The good news, though, was replaced with something even more disturbing. It turned out that the misdemeanor counts had been replaced by felonies.” I honestly don’t know what this would have dragged on for so long, but during the course of an investigation, charges change. And a particularly unrepentant accused individual (reference http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2009/11/robbery_at_carousel_center.html#_login for an analagous example from Dr. Watkins’s home base of Syracuse, NY) who refuses to take a plea bargain, instead gambling that the DA will just give up and go away, sometimes needs to be put in his or her place. You cannot strike a cop just because you disagree with the events that led up to the confrontation. And you cannot then complain that you are being overpunished for “cutting in line at Wal Mart” when in fact your crime is felony battery against a peace officer, especially when you are the one who chose to escalate the offense. *ah-hem* Allegedly. So my question is: “disturbing” to whom? Disturbing to those who thought she should get off clean because she’s a pre-med student, or whatever? Buddy at Fort Hood was an Army Major, and a Doctor of Psychiatry. I guess we should just let bygones be bygones. Accountability is so passe.

Now, that being said (admit it, you thought I was completely anti-Boyce here, didn’t you?), the matter of the KKK cards is DISTURBING. There is no reason for the officer to have presented her with the cards the way he (allegedly) did, when just simply saying, “Ma’am, there are some concerns about your safety in this environment; there are some things you need to be aware of… ” and then describe the situation empirically. It does sound from this article (again, the source and author of which are clearly biased and therefore not fully reliable by default) that the delivery of the card was specifically done to shock and intimidate, and if that’s the case, then that police department should be gutted like a line-caught mackerel. But I do not think it is factually determined (though it is implied… oh, you tricky writer, with your big Confederate flag picture and your “KKK Involved” addition to the article’s title…”) that the impetus behind this even was actually racism. It’s easy (and to be honest, professor, darned lazy) to allege such after the fact, but such recreations that seem to fit the facts do not substitute for actual fact.

It sounds like Ellis should have taken the deal. “Her aunt claims that the deal was offered so their family wouldn’t file a lawsuit.” And we trust her aunt’s word above everyone else’s because….?

“Ellis claims that her pending convictions have cost her two jobs and the chance to enter medical school, but she still refuses to sign the plea deal.” If she actually committed the acts of which she is accused, that’s too darn bad. On the positive side, however, she is certainly acting against her own interests by not taking the deal — in a court of law, a “statement against interest” is a powerful and admissible way to allow in testimony that might otherwise be disallowed. To take one on the chin as hard as she is, either she is a very patient and very calculating liar (who maybe sees a multi-million $$$ civil rights payout at the end of her legal rainbow), or she in fact has a legitimate case to make, and is owed some credibility.

Freeman’s comment is not entirely without merit either — the fact is that any commercial entity’s job is to provide a safe and comfortable environment for their customers. But just because that does happen in a particular case is not an automatic failing on the part of the institution. To say so is to strip humans, otherwise possessed of free will, of any and all accountability for their actions.

The story that I have read over and over is that Ellis and a family member took two lines in the store, agreeing to “pool up” at which ever line got to the front faster. I myself have done that many times, and I have never had a problem. (I never did mention what color my skin is, though I’m sure you have… what makes you so sure you’re right?) I can see where a customer might have been upset with that, though — when I was a teenager, back in the days before Internet concert ticket purchasing, I remember lining up hours in advance for a good seat or the first stab at tickets, and I always hated when single people tried to claim to be “place holders” for their multiple friends and acquaintances who just weren’t hardcore enough to stick it out themselves. So I might go from being 4th in line to being 25th in line in the space of a few hours. i always just used to count my place in line, and then, before the doors opened, I would go to the front of the line, count that many people, and re-insert myself. If someone had taken issue with that, or wanted to kick mu butt, I suppose they could have, but it never came to pass, thank goodness. So maybe things got a little heated up at the local Wal Mart. But if Ellis was asked to leave by the store in any official capacity, her ONLY recourse was to do so. She would have all the opportunity of any American to pursue legal action appropriately, and maybe she even has/had a case, but to engage in fisticuffs with the law, regardless of how “wronged” she felt, that’s just simply not redeemable.

I really do HOPE that they do find evidence of institutionalized racism in that police department, because I think the whole KKK card thing seems to have been badly handled. But I also hope that this young woman receives a punishment that is appropriate to her sins, same as the girl in Syracuse who stole clothes from a JC Penney and then pepper-sprayed the security guards who tried to detain her. You don’t get to have a hiss fit when things don’t go your way that impacts others in that fashion.

We may have a long way to grow up as a society, but there are also a lot of individuals out there who need to do the same.

p.s. Yes, I know I committed some of the very same logical fallacies and errors in my own writing. That’s the problem with third-hand commentary — what is for one person “a rhetorical misstep” or “a logical fallacy” is for another person “style” or “individual voice.” NONE of which actually help get to the bottom of the truth. Peace.