A woman paying her respects to the three victims of the Dollar General store shooting in Jacksonville.
A woman paying her respects to the three victims of the Dollar General store shooting in Jacksonville. Credit: Corey Perrine/Florida Times-Union/USA TODAY NETWORK

The Jacksonville shooter (whose name I shall not write) ultimately killed three innocent Black Americans at a Dollar General Store only after he was first spotted at nearby Edward Waters University (EWU).

As the shooter donned his bulletproof vest, some EWU students eyed what they believed to be a suspicious person.

The students at the Florida historically black institution immediately alerted a nearby security guard who approached the suspect near his car. Upon seeing the officer, the suspect fled in his car toward what would be his next target.

Had the cowardly shooter not turned the weapon on himself after killing three innocent Americans at the discount store, his first encounter at Edward Waters University would have been more than strong trial evidence that his plan was to kill Black Americans.

In plain language, the Jacksonville shooter was engaged in a terrorist plot.

“Terrorist” is defined (rather circularly) by Webster’s dictionary as

“relating to, or characteristic of terrorists or terrorism: practicing or involving violent acts of terror.”

The key to the definition is that terrorism involves acts of violence.

One might imagine one of the definitional requirements of terrorism would be the use of violence to achieve political or cultural objectives, but Webster’s ignores this element.

But, we know from our recent history, terrorism can be simple violence calculated to induce fear and terror in its victims — and its victims are most often those who are identifiable and insular — those who are either vulnerable minorities or protected class members.

This is a pattern that is clear from the racist massacres dating from the era of post-Civil War Reconstruction until last week in Jacksonville.

But had these recent incidents been perpetrated by any identifiable non-American, this nation would have acted swiftly to prevent future atrocities through passage of anti-terrorism legislation and would have appropriated funds for both the FBI and DOJ to investigate and prosecute them “to the full extent of the law.”

Instead, in the wake of the repeated attacks, national and local politicians recite a litany of delay and denial mixed with indifferent thoughts and belated prayers about the deaths of their fellow countrymen and women.

Instead it is past time to act.

They must denominate these clockwork-like acts of violence as real terrorism; and, in doing so must both legislate and appropriate the resources necessary to prevent them.

But to do this they must first confront a hard truth — the truth that the most dangerous terrorists in our midst are other Americans: mainly radicalized young white Americans who seek to kill and terrorize their own neighbors — Americans who are Jewish, Black or Hispanic.

The same fervor to fight terror which once spread across all spheres of politics after 9/11 seems to have evaporated in the last half decade once the incidence of terror evolved to acts against Americans by other Americans.

But that doesn’t change the state of reality.

Albert Turner Goins
[image_caption]Albert Turner Goins[/image_caption]
As the founder John Adams once said: “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

Despite our own inclinations, the facts and evidence demand we address the problem where it exists.

We need to stop terrorism where it arises.  And that is the threat of terrorism in our own front yard.

Albert Turner Goins Sr. lives in White Bear Lake.

Join the Conversation

49 Comments

  1. It took until almost the end of the article for this write to get out his bias. Yes, killing people based on their race is evil. There is no question there. But if you want society to target domestic terrorists, then include everyone. How about the consistent violence conducted by groups of all political persuasions? How about the incessant violence of black on black crimes which are on a much higher scale than the focus of what this writer, who has worked for the ACLU, wants us to believe?
    The constant divide in our country is because there are people who don’t want to face the obvious and only want to paint a picture of a specific group with only selective events. There is zero credibility when this happens and this article is a prime example.
    Facts (indeed) are stubborn things.

    1. The author was specifically talking about violence in the context of terrorism. There are plenty of examples from recent decades of people being targeted based on traits–sexual orientation, religion, skin color, etc.–for no reason other than a belief on behalf of the perpetrator that those people shouldn’t exist.

      The fact that you ignored what was written and brought up unrelated issues shows evidence of bias, but not on the part of the author.

    2. The author had a BIAS? You mean, he has a point of view that he expressed in the article? Oh, my goodness – can there possibly be a greater crime against the American people than a BIAS?

      Of course, the B*** word isn’t present in the insistence on bringing up black-on-black crime as a response, is it? No, that’s just a painfully obvious attempt at deflection, if not a willful failure to understand the point of the article. There is a big difference between the ordinary run of street crime and a person who carves swastikas into the stock of his (lawfully purchased) AR-15 and targeting black shoppers in a Dollar General (where he went because security guards chased him off the campus of an HBCU).

      Street crime may be more prevalent, but bias crimes* speak to a deeper form of rot in our society. A mugging or other violent crime is a violation of the social contract and merits punishment. Targeting individuals because of their color or ethnicity goes much deeper, and is aimed at destroying our society.

      *Which do not include the black person who didn’t treat you with the proper deference when you walked by them on the street.

      1. How about Black on Asian crime, which has seen a huge uptick in recent years?

          1. I understood his point perfectly. He doesn’t want to talk about Black on Black crime because its mostly ordinary street crime and not driven by racial animus. The 99 percent of Black lives lost to “ordinary” violence and crime don’t matter. We are only going to talk about the 1 percent of Black lives lost due to racist violence here. Those are the Black lives that matter. That was very, very clear.

            So I instead asked up Black on Asian crime, because unlike “ordinary” street crime, it is driven by racial animus. These are bias-driven crimes committed by members of one racial group against another. The District Attorney of San Francisco was recalled because the city’s large Asian population objected to his failure to treat those crimes as hate crimes because the perpetrators are not White. And that thinking is not uncommon – despite the increase violence against Asians by Blacks and other minority groups, there is an effort to discount that trend and just focus on the left’s preferred definition of hate crimes where only white perpetrators are involved. Anything but that preferred definition is deflection I guess.

            Here is one that was prosecuted as a hate crime:

            https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/30/us/yonkers-asian-hate-crime-sentence-reaj/index.html

            Do you think that Mr. Goins would consider this guy a terrorist?

            1. Hate crime? Or terrorism? How do you draw the line?

              The linked article doesn’t say whether the defendant has a history of anti-Asian writings or online postings. The article also doesn’t say whether this was a planned act. So yes, hate crime, no, probably not terrorism (one working definition says that a terrorist act is the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear through violence or the threat of violence in the pursuit of political change). One could justifiably point to the mass shooting at the Sikh temple in Wisconsin as an act of racial terrorism, but the shooter there was white, so never mind.

              What you are omitting from your “bad, bad black folks” comment is the recognition that racial violence by white people against black people has a long history in this country and has been used to deny social and political rights to black people throughout that history. Official racial violence may have abated, but the unofficial violence continues (“fine people on both sides,” right?). The shooting in Jacksonville is of a piece with other acts of racial violence.

              This is not to diminish the severity of anti-Asian hate crimes (which – as I’m sure you will recognize as having known all along when it is pointed out to you – are not made even worse by the fact that they may have been committed by a black person). This is to acknowledge a different history of the anti-Asian violence in this country. Are there currently online posters actively urging attacks on Asians? Is this what has motivated attacks on Asians? Are Asian political leaders met with the same suspicion and disdain as black political leaders (has anyone asked to see Vivek Ramaswamy’s birth certificate, or are we just taking it on faith that he was born in the US?).

              Nor is it to diminish the severity of ordinary street crime. Comparing the social effect of the two is, however, absurd.

              1. I agree that comparing the two is absurd. The number of Black lives lost to “ordinary” street crime dwarfs the number lost to hate crimes/terrorist attacks.

                No one is out protesting when Black children are shot in North Minneapolis, but they are out in force when violent criminals get shot while fleeing from or shooting at police. Violent men who beat and abuse women are treated as heroes. Its not “bad, bad black folks.” Its just bad bad folks. The focus on race (and yes, I understand the historical underpinnings) has gone way too far and is warping the way society addresses crime.

                1. “No one is out protesting when Black children are shot in North Minneapolis, but they are out in force when violent criminals get shot while fleeing from or shooting at police.”

                  If you can’t tell the difference between state-sponsored violence and crime, there really is no point in continuing this discussion, is there?

                  1. Oh, I can tell the difference. I just think the difference is not important. Or rather that the priorities are confused.

                    1. “I just think the difference is not important. Or rather that the priorities are confused.”

                      And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how it starts.

        1. The only crime that matters is white crime, duh. Unless it is a white trans killing Christian children, and then the manifesto gets buried in the vaults of the FBI and the media quickly moves on to the next outrage.

            1. I didn’t say they were victims, I am merely pointing out it is national news if a white man kills a black person, but only local if it is inner city or the other way around.

              1. A news article from seven years ago? You really did have to dig in the archives to find that one, didn’t you?

                Well, I guess good white Americans need to step up to the plate and keep them in their place, don’t they?

                1. Yeah, since then they do not make it easy to find such info. I wonder why? That said, the numbers have only gone up, but not many here seem to care about what the numbers really say.

      2. Yeah, turning America into even more of a police state will surely fix things.

    3. I think we can just distill this down to the current GOP mindset/talking point that the “real” racists are the people that are pointing out bias and racism.
      White conservatives seem hell bent on dismissing racism at every opportunity.

  2. The author doesn’t give any ideas about what we should do to fight terrorism. The last time we tried we got the Patriot Act, which was a massive rollback of our civil liberties, and not much good at stopping terrorism anyway.

  3. The murders is Florida were not different that a lynching, except that a mob is not longer required to play executioner. It just took one angry and vindictive white bigot with a gun trying to terrorize all Black people. He illustrated the need for strict firearms safety laws including red flag laws. In today’s America angry white male bigots are killing every category of people they hate. It is past time for conservative leaders to have the guts to admit it and help end it.

    1. They’ll never do that because they’ve purposefully/intentionally choreographed it for years. Driving hatred & devisiveness keeps the country distracted and infighting…while today’s REPs/white nationalists/fascists drive their agenda incessantly & in every way possible.
      Perhaps looking at the percentages of ethnicities holding the guns in all of the 470 to-date mass shootings in 2023 wb enlightening. I’d venture an educated guess that the vast majority of shooters have been white male outliers who live in red states.

  4. Yeah, because the first War on Terror was such a great thing? Surely further empowering the FBI, Homeland Security, NSA and CIA will be GREAT for democracy! Never mind the FBI spent the better part of a decade setting up young Muslims to do violence, to justify their increased budgets – which at least some liberals were aware of at the time.

    1. So what do we do? Stand by with our hands on our pockets, watching it happen while sneering about the conspiracy-related bugbear of the moment?

      Or isn’t racial violence a particularly compelling evil for you?

      1. I think the point is, acting like we need a new Domestic Terrorism Act to go after rural white America, while sitting on one’s hands about every other kind of violent crime in the city, is not going to fix either problem.

        1. Or . . . the point could be that we look at other ways of addressing the problem.

          Pretending that fighting bias crimes is “going after rural America” is not only false, it is condescending.

          1. “Pretending that fighting bias crimes is “going after rural America” is not only false, it is condescending.”

            Sort of like the constant refrain of MAGA! anytime anyone here questions liberal doctrine, or like the constant deflection above anytime anyone mentions a race bias that does not involve white people?

            “Or . . . the point could be that we look at other ways of addressing the problem.”

            Such as? We already have plenty of hate crime, civil rights, etc legislation to deal with likes of the Jacksonville monster. Disarming America is a non-starter. We might try actually enforcing the law in the city again. How about we celebrate the nuclear family and the importance of a father, uncles, and community for young boys and men? Maybe finance serious fentanyl interdiction? Maybe force video game makers to finance outdoor learning activities for boys? Maybe stop talking like all masculinity is toxic, instead that a lot of masculinity can be tonic? Maybe start asking more serious questions about the effects of pharmaceuticals particularly SSRI’s?

            1. “We might try actually enforcing the law in the city again.”

              So building a police state?

              “How about we celebrate the nuclear family and the importance of a father, uncles, and community for young boys and men?”

              This sounds like social engineering. Whose family? The traditional nuclear family, in which the men rule and the women are secondary?

              “Maybe finance serious fentanyl interdiction?”

              Fentanyl is a Schedule II controlled substance, which means it has a legitimate medical use. Are we going to outlaw it?

              “Maybe force video game makers to finance outdoor learning activities for boys?”

              There are many issues with this idea, starting with the First Amendment (force? Really?) and ending with the idea that these activities would be just for boys (“Gee Wally, the Nintendo people just gave me this swell basketball. How about you call Eddie Haskell and we go shoot some hoops instead of firebombing that synagogue?”). How about teaching children of any gender to respect others and not use violence to resolve disputes or to address real or imagined grievances?

              1. So, from your responses I assume you mean – let criminals in the city run wild just as they are, kids don’t need a family let the government take care of them, fentanyl killing 100,000 Americans each year is not worth the trouble, first amendment is great for corporations but not for people questioning the government or corporations or liberals on social media, and whatever about boys getting some quality time outdoors with other boys and good men they’ll just be violent?

                In other words, you took my good faith suggestions and dumped on them without offering any of your own.

      2. The author seems to be harking back to the “fervor to fight terror which once spread across all spheres of politics after 9/11” as if it was something great that we should revive.

        1. There is “fervor,” and there is misdirected fervor.

          Is there no way of preventing racial terrorism without turning into a police state?

    2. Seems to me the FBI has been stretched to the max in recent years dealing the Trump/MAGA Jan 6th insurrection/attempted coup to overthrow our federal government…so a psychopathic grifter & lifetime common criminal could realize his delusional dream for power & control Uber alles forever.

      1. More like stretched to the limit telling Facebook, Google, Instagram and formerly Twitter what and who to censor.

  5. Today, one of the traitors from Jan 6 was sentenced to 17 years for his sedition, that is a beautiful thing for sure.

    The funny part was he cried like a baby telling the judge he wasn’t a terrorist – he’s the very definition of the word. Those traitors like to walk around with their body armor and assault rifles, terrorizing everyone else around them, yet, he isn’t a terrorist in his eyes, and seemingly in the eyes of most Republicans.

    More of those traitors will be going to prison, where they deserve all the punishment prison can offer – hope they like it there.

    1. And so many murderers are off in less time. Strange times indeed. Never parade in Washington.

      1. Yeah I never understand short sentences for murder. But seditious conspiracy is the #2 worst crime in the USA. Treason is #1; the absolute worst thing any citizen can do to their country. This gives me hope for the sentencing of the head of the snake & his aiders & abetters, who thought up & led the Jan 6th insurrection…. Now write to your congressional members & State Attn Generals & demand Trump’s name & any others complicit be removed from any high level position ballots!! Amend 14, Sec 3!

      2. Were people convicted of parading on Jan 6? Didn’t know that was a thing, but nice try, however pathetic that try might be.

    2. What is worse, what he did, or you glorying in it?

      “The funny part was he cried like a baby telling the judge he wasn’t a terrorist – he’s the very definition of the word. Those traitors like to walk around with their body armor and assault rifles, terrorizing everyone else around them, yet, he isn’t a terrorist in his eyes.”

      Yeah, no one did that at the capital on Jan 6. I suspect the judge felt a lot like you do. Probably he will get much less time on appeal.

  6. Thanks, RB, for pointing out that “none are so blind as those who do not wish to see.” The author of the piece doesn’t have to have written a perfect manifesto for his point to be well-taken and on-target.

  7. How about the gangs terrorizing many big cities across America, do they count as terror groups also?

    1. Whataboutism…another core tenet to what passes for conservatism these days.

  8. Republicans have had many good and effective strategies over the years regarding the treatment of suspected terrorists. Rendition to black sites in foreign countries, offshore prisons, drone assassinations, torture, solitary confinement, no-fly lists, and 24/7 monitoring. The Republican head of the FBI agrees that our domestic right wing groups are terrorists, and not only that, that they are the largest terrorist threat in America. I’m certain that other Republicans will agree with the Republican head of the FBI that we should employ the use of past Republican strategies in the deterrence of domestic right wing terror.

  9. Well I would hope that we could all agree that we never want another type of Patriot Act ever again. Maybe a lot of the responses are sarcasm, I don’t know, but it puzzling to hear.

  10. The rise in politically motivated rightwing violence is emblematic of a fascist state. In white-dominated America, Blacks have long been “the other”.

    Violence is the final resort of a political minority that knows it cannot possibly obtain (or retain) power through legitimate democratic processes. What we are seeing is the natural evolution of a white reactionary movement that only grows more and more toxic and unjustifiably enraged, largely through “social media” brainwashing and lies.

    That we cannot do anything about it as a democratic society shows that the rot and cultural degeneration is very advanced.

Leave a comment