I'm confused, what's your point? It's a "win" that this killing was by a certain person?

Has nothing to do with shit on the streets, etc. etc.

No, it's a win that poor people (most of whom are not violent criminals) are not being unfairly proxy-blamed for this murder any more.

They commit the vast majority of crime and problems, literally the dredges of society lol

Here's how the cycle works. We decide a certain group of people ("literally the dregs [sic] of society") causes most of our problems. Then we pass laws targeting that group, and enforce the laws most strictly against against that group — and surprise, that group ends up getting caught breaking the law most often! Then we use that to drum up further public sentiment against that group. Rinse, repeat.

Crime is a social construct. We choose what's illegal and what's not. We enforce some of the laws, against some of the people, some of the time. Saying that a certain group commits the vast majority of crimes is meaningless without additional context. And if your additional context is that they're "literally the dregs of society", you're not being serious — you just have an axe to grind.

Hard disagree, people are responsible for themselves. Sure society can suck, but ultimately rising out of that is your problem.

See: like, everyone's history?

> Saying that a certain group commits the vast majority of crimes is meaningless without additional context.

are there poor people who totally deserve it? is it the majority of them?