This is my initial foray into the minefield that is the politics and religion thread of the board. Its not that I'm apolitical- my degree is actually in political science, but sometimes it just seems so emotionally exhausting to argue politics.

Have any of you guys heard of the Wichita Massacre? I never had until earlier today when an AP blurb in the local paper caught my eye. The story was very sketchy- it talked about a murder trial that was "gripping" Wichita and mentioned 5 friends being abducted from a residence and murdered. It piqued my interest, so I did a Google search to discover more details.

What I found is troubling to say the very least. I consider myself left-of-center, esp. with regards to social issues. Like most people I deplore hate crimes and was horrified by both the Byrd case in Texas and Matts murder in Wyoming. In both instances I felt like the media did an excellent job of reporting the facts and keeping people informed.

From what I've read today, mI don't think the same can be said of this tragedy in Kansas. I'm enclosing the url for the account that appeared in front page magazine, which I have never heard of prior to today. It's obviouly a conservative journal with ties to people like David Horowitz. Moreover, the article itself is a reprint from an original story that appeared in a publication called "New Renaissance", which strikes me as being so far right that it might be neo-fascist, although I don't really know that to be accurate. Yet despite the inherent political bias of the publcations involved, the facts seem to speak for themselves. I don't know if this is a concerted effort at a cover-up or just a case of PC run tragically amok- but I definitely see a troublesome double standard in them way this incident was covered by the national media.

Read for youself:
Front Page Magazine
ReadArticle.asp?ID=1908

EDITED by Tarkus to correct WebTV formatting.

[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

I'm stunned. I do find it hard to believe that these weren't racially motivated. A hate crime is a hate crime and should be dealt with accordingly.

Front Page is a well known extremist publication published by David Hor(ror)owitz--he is a wacko with very controversial views on race (and sexuality according to that venomous liar and former Horowitz pal David Brock). For a long time Horrorowitz had a column on Salon which has regularly came in for criticisms because of his factual misrepresentations and overstatements, which was not the case with other conservative columnists there, like Camille Paglia and Norah Vincent (people often disagreed with their ideas, but were not challenging the very substance of what they were saying).

Horrorowitz actually has an interesting past: he is a former radical left-winger who bears a particular animus against Black Americans because of his bad experiences with some African-American radicals in northern California. He now traffics with the likes of white supremacists like Jared Taylor and Jim Lubinskas. He also has written error-filled, vile pamphlets like the Multicultural Mafia and The Feminist Assault on the Military. He makes Ann Coulter look like George Will.

I don't really see any evidence of a hate crime in the Front Page article. Two vicious people targeted a group of innocents and terrorized them in a horrific way. Just because the skin color differs between victim and criminal does not make it a hate crime. I have heard no evidence from the sole survivor that racial epithets were used or that the the perpetrators said anything to indicate that the victims were targeted because of their race. I understand that the evidence of the trial itself may well indicate that this was the case, but as of now, even according to the Front Page article, there is nothing to support a hate crimes charge. But the most damning thing for those advocating the application of hate crimes standards to this case is in the fifth paragraph of the story. "At the time of their arrest, Sedgwick County District Attorney Nola Foulston refused to charge them with hate crimes, explaining that the main motive was robbery, and that Kansas did not have a hate-crimes law." You can't convict someone under a non-existent statute. You can't even charge them.
Also, this has become a referendum, in some people's minds, of the mainstream media refusing to promote stories that they perceive as politically incorrect. I think the media is certainly at fault here, but I suspect what their doing is far more insidious and dangerous to the unity of America. Kansas City doesn't matter to the bicostal media overseers. Think about the middle American stories that have made it to the national news desks. The only one I can think of off the top of my head is the Cincinnati race riots. A multiple murder, unless it's a serial murder case, in the midwest simply does not rate national attention. If this crime had occured in New York, LA, Chicago or the like, we would have heard all about it regardless of race. Because it happened somewhere unimportant, it was deemed unimportant.

This is a truly horrific crime that was stunning to read about. I also have followed a little bit of the trial and was really stunned at the level of violence the perpetrators (whether the jury finds them to be the defendants or they are someone else) displayed. Apparently, they sexually assaulted all of the victims, forced them to travel to ATMs to withdraw cash, and then took them to a field and shot all of them. Several hours of violence and escalating abuse. Very sad to think anyone has to go through something like that, no matter where or what the circumstances.

Excellent points, jqueer....while I concur that this story would undoubtedly have received widespread national publicity had it taken place in DC, LA, or near a larger metropolitan area, the fact that Kansas is one of 8 states with "no hate crime laws" on the books is clearly the reason why this "motive" has not been pursued by the prosecutors....even with all the rampant criminal activity and highly publicized trials that either are ongoing or will soon be taking place (Robert Blake, Al Quaeda members, hell even Winona Ryder's shoplifting trial is "big news") I am stunned that this gruesome and brutal rape and murder of five young people has barely generated a blip on the radar screen from CourtTV, CNN, and FoxNews, to name a few.

As several observers mentioned in the article, I firmly believe that the media is AFRAID to publicize "black on white" crime because it is not PC (thanks to idiots like Johnnie Cochran, but that's another matter altogether)....but as was pointed out in the article had this case been reversed and two WHITE brothers were accused of brutally raping and murdering five BLACK men and women this trial would have generated such national attention that Wichita would have been overrun with EVERY major media outlet in the country (and Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Johnnie Cochran would be in front of every camera and microphone within 50 miles of Wichita)....in either event, if the charges against these brothers prove to be true (and that certainly appears to be likely at this stage) we can only hope that "justice" will be served through whatever means are available in Kansas -- with or without it being deemed a "hate crime".

[ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: gamecock ]

First, I find the taking of any human life reprehensible. 9/11 demonstrated yet again how little some people in this world value human lives.

That said, I have to say to Gamecock, come on! The media have almost continually promoted the idea of "black on white" crime and traffic in it. Many politicians like George H.W. Bush helped their elections by throwing up the specter of Willie Horton-type Black superpredators. Reagan, Nixon, and even Bill Clinton played upon the superpredator specter in getting elected; the media played (as they still do) right along.

Part of the hysteria around the O. J. Simpson trial was the belief that a black man had gotten away with killing a white woman; yet black people have been killed with impunity for much of the history of the U.S. from Georgia to Minnesota to California, and there still is little widespread discussion of it. When have you seen a mainstream publication discuss lynching, or many numerous and various racial crimes that occurred against Blacks (and Indians) from the 1600s onwards? What about that Black woman who was killed during the 1996 Atlanta Olympics? Her death was linked to a white supremacist--does anyone even discuss this killing OR the fact that the fanatic has never been found?

Kansas itself was the scene of some of the most brutal killings, by whites against other whites and blacks, in the period leading up to and during the Civil War. The New York draft riots, the Tulsa Massacre, the Orangeburg Massacre, and other pogroms against Black Americans have been basically swept under the rug, so until there's discussion of those, let's not make wild claims about the media's failure to discuss "black on white" crimes of any sort.

One laudable aspect of this year's political campaigns has been the absense of racial demagoguery, especially around crime. THANK GOD that we experienced a period, under Clinton, where crimes of almost ALL sorts (except for rapes), especially murders, assaults and robberies, declined. This has defanged the easy recursion to holding up Black superpredators as the greatest threat to white suburbanites. The majority of violent crimes, even during the 1980s period of high criminal activity, were intraracial, as opposed to interracial or interethnic. Moreover, the majority of people on death row are Blacks who have committed murder against whites, while whites who have killed Blacks or Latinos have a far lower change of receiving the death penalty.

[Removed final paragraph, which was written in a moment of outrage--sorry!]

[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: fantomas ]

[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
What about that Black woman who was killed during the 1996 Atlanta Olympics? Her death was linked to a white supremacist--does anyone even discuss this killing OR the fact that the fanatic has never been found?

---

While I agree with much of what fantomas said, I do have to take contextual exception to this argument as an underpinning to the overall argument. The death of one black woman and one Turkish journalist in that blast was not a targeted racial crime. Rather it was a political terror crime aimed at internationalism as promoted by the Olympic Games. Eric Rudolf, the aleged bomber, has been connected to other crimes, including against gay clubs in Atlanta, but I don't believe he's ever specifically targeted blacks. And, btw, the likelyhood is that he hasn't been found because his decomposing body is off in the woods somewhere they havn't bothered to look yet.

I think that's a little overboard, fantomas...Tim didn't start this thread anonymously nor did he say anything that suggests he's advancing anything except a discussion of this horrific crime. And there's nothing in the outsports guidelines that says we can't comment on (or vehemently disagree with) extremist views.

You're right, bryan d.

Okay--MY APOLOOGIES to Tim, because he isn't David Horowitz. But still--this man--Horowitz--has a resume of racial extremism, so it is really disturbing that there weren't more qualifications, by someone else at least, about commentary coming out of one of his publications.

[quote]Originally posted by jqueer:


While I agree with much of what fantomas said, I do have to take contextual exception to this argument as an underpinning to the overall argument. The death of one black woman and one Turkish journalist in that blast was not a targeted racial crime. Rather it was a political terror crime aimed at internationalism as promoted by the Olympic Games. Eric Rudolf, the aleged bomber, has been connected to other crimes, including against gay clubs in Atlanta, but I don't believe he's ever specifically targeted blacks. And, btw, the likelyhood is that he hasn't been found because his decomposing body is off in the woods somewhere they havn't bothered to look yet.

---

Jqueer, you're right that the attack at the Olympics was anti-internationalist. From what I've read of Eric Rudolf, he had ties to white supremacists in North Carolina and Georgia, and the last I heard, he may have received assistance from some of them in eluding the authorities.

[Duplicate of above message removed. F]

[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: fantomas ]

I would like to read this Wichita Massacre article, but when going to the Front Page Magazine website, I could not locate it. Could someone please direct me to the site. Thanks

I love David Horowitz. Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Horowitz is just a very opinionated and fearless conservative who goes full-throttle for what he believes in. He's also seems quite nice, I met him at a fundraiser once.

Fantomas wrote earlier: "Horrorowitz [sic] actually has an interesting past: he is a former radical left-winger who bears a particular animus against Black Americans because of his bad experiences with some African-American radicals in northern California." This is just bizarre psychoanalysis, not a statement of fact.

I'm not going to get into a shouting match with anyone about this, because I know to plenty of people on this board any "conservative" opinion is extreme, and anyway "extreme" is a subjective judgement. So my first statement will stand as a response to any other posts about Horowitz's character, ghoulishness, etc.

[quote]Originally posted by SmoothRon:
I would like to read this Wichita Massacre article, but when going to the Front Page Magazine website, I could not locate it. Could someone please direct me to the site. Thanks

---

SmoothRon, since Tim's original link was to the home page for FrontPage magazine and the article (from the Washington Times btw) first appeared on 10/7/02 the column no longer appears on the "front page".... but the following link should directly access the article we have been discussing....unfortunately, this thread has gotten FAR off topic from the horrific case that Tim was kind enough to bring to our attention and the fact that five innocent young people were brutally raped and murdered....this is far more important than an ad nauseum debate about the merits of "right wing" vs "left wing" politics....just my two cents, of course.

Wichita to Revisit Brutal Slayings as Testimony Begins

[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: gamecock ]

Actually, although Horowitz claims that there was little mainstream media coverage of this story, a google search shows that commentary on the murders originally appeared in the Chicago Tribune and in the Washington Times, and it has seen appeared on MSNBC; Newsday; Kansas.com, Court TV's boards, Kansas City Channel, etc., as well as in The American Renaissance, Stormfront, and New Nation News, all known white supremacist publications.

The killing of these four people is truly horrible. ABSOLUTELY UNCONSCIONABLE. And these brothers, if they are guilty, should be punished to the full extent of the law. However, this does not appear to have been a hate crime; they were not targeted because of their race, and nothing I've read points to that. One of the murderers even had the gall to say to H.G. that they could be dating under other circumstances! It was a brutal, senseless crime that should be fully and completely punished, but it was not a *racial* crime.

William1865, if you truly mean that you "love" David Horowitz, I have to say I have lost ALL respect for you. The man is truly hateful. Your ends-based argument doesn't even deserve further comment.

I have heard something about this case - and agree that it is one of the most horrific I have ever heard. With what is going on in DC right now, the fear those people must have felt is hard to fathom.

However, from the details provided, it is hard to see how hate crimes charges would be warrented, even if they were available. There is no indication the victims were chosen because of their race, and the crime involved robbery and rape, which often don't happen in "typical" hate crimes.

To me, the whole issue of hate crimes boils down to the number of victims of a crime. When a hate crime happens (e.g., the guy who shot up the Jewish daycare center in LA a few years back), the crime is directed at a group of people, with the direct victims standing in for the entire group. The crime is meant to retaliate against that entire group, and that retaliation would be the primary motivation.

I personally think the concept of a hate crime is bandied about too much. It is true that few crimes occur because the criminal feels positively toward the victim, but I don't believe the "every crime is a hate crime" crap. We should be very judicious with hate crime designations, because it is difficult to prove motivation, but where it fits, it should be added to charges.

For example, whether the assaults in WeHo were hate crimes is a tough call - robbery was included, and it is unclear whether the victims were targeted because of their perceived sexual orientation. On the other hand, the burning death of the gay man in Santa Barbara last year (earlier this year), where he was burned alive in his bed because an aquaintance had heard he was gay and decided he didn't deserve to live - that is clearly a hate crime.

I also think the recent sniper shootings in DC are hate crimes - because they are targeting a group, albeit the entire population. I don't for a minute think hate crime charges will be filed, but they should be.

At the risk of redundancy the reason why hate crime charges have NOT been pursued by the prosecutors is because, as was pointed out in the article, Kansas is one of 8 states that DOES NOT presently have any hate crime statutes on the books!....whether it is or is not is unfortunately irrelevant in this case -- you cannot charge someone with a crime that is not illegal in that state (as absurd as it may be -- do ALL the lawmakers in Kansas have their heads buried in the sand waiting for Dorothy and Toto to appear? )....to use a bad analogy, in this instance beginning a debate about hate crime is the equivalent of asking why someone was not ticketed for speeding because they were doing 95 mph on the highway in Wichita if there were no speed limits posted anywhere in Kansas....it may be illegal in 42 states and common sense may say they should be charged but they are still subject to the laws of that jurisdiction, as outdated as they may be.

As for the question of whether the motive was robbery, that is much more laughable IMHO....you think those five young victims didn't WILLINGLY offer their heinous criminals EVERYTHING in their possession, especially when the six of them (remember one girl survived after running naked and bleeding across the frozen lake) were taken to the field to be brutally murdered?....yes, they WERE first driven to a number of ATM's to withdraw cash but that is purely secondary here....there's absolutely no doubt that these murders were premeditated and, while I'm not trying to get in the minds of these two animals (nor would I want to), they clearly figured why not get every dollar from their victims FIRST....if I was on this jury in Wichita (and I wish I were) and the defense attorney tried to use robbery as the sole motive (which is so absurd that it is utterly laughable) I would be disgusted and this would eliminate any ounce of credibility that the D.A. may have (not that much of what comes out of the mouths of most D.A.'s has any credibility to begin with -- integrity is hardly a common trait in that occupation).

[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: gamecock ]

Great discussion guys.I'll count on Tarkus to correct the annoying web tv format- in the meantime I'll add my two cents worth. First of all fantomas, I have no idea what you said about me since it was edited- but I certainly accept your apology. My greatest fear when posting the story initially was that my motives would be misconstrued.Like I said in my initial post, I came upon the story locally and was curious.I had no idea there was a racial element involved- it just mentioned 5 friends being abducted and murdered. Since I live in the midwest and it happened in the midwest nearly 2 yrs ago,I just wondered why I hadn't heard about it. It may be a minor point,but the url that gamecock so graciously posted leads to a completely different article than the one I originally linked.In fact, the first time I've even read that article was when gamecock posted.I think between a combination of me not being able to get the whole url to hyperlink, and Tarkus editing my original post, the original link got lost.Here is another try http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...cle.asp?ID=1908 It may be a subtle difference but this article seems to be a more fact based,less overtly political rendering of the events that happened.We can debate whether or not it constitutes a "hate crime", but I concur with gamecock that calling it merely a robbery is "laughable".These guys wanted to hurt these people and took delight in making them suffer, and that would be just as true if the perps were white, asian, hispanic... whatever. Beyond the crime itself,what bothered me was the fact that it seemed the story was deliberately unreported.I normally don't subscribe to the notion that the media is biased,but in this instance I can definitely see some form of benign censorship at work.I'd agree that the fact that it happened in the midwest is a factor, but I don't think that's the total story.I can think of at least two prominent cases in that same area that were sensational stories: the Clutters in Kansas and the Starkweather case in Nebraska.Of course both gained even more notoriety after being immortalized in popular culture ie. Capote's In Cold Blood and Springsteen's Nebraska, respectively.However, both were major stories at the time and were extensively covered by the media.It could be that we've become desensitized to the violence because it's become so widespread- to me it just seemed like a story that living in the midwest, I should have been aware of.

[Post reformatted - Outsports moderator]

[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: m1 ]

FT, you say Horowitz is truly hateful, but what are the facts behind this conclusion? He's a courageous hero in my book. I've met him and was favorably impressed, not least by his refusal to kowtow to political rectitude and willingness to tell it like it is.

"Superpredators" are also part of what really is. As a lawyer who handles a lot of prison work, I can tell you there are many VERY cold and calculating people inside prisons - and thank our system of justice for it! Willie Horton was one and criticizing a permissive or inept judicial system that allows such guilty murderers to go free is entirely within bounds.

I also take strong exception to FT's claim that the media play up black on white crime and play down the reverse; from my perspective, it's just the opposite. Maybe that's just a function of living in liberal, guilt-tripping SF, where lynchings, Jim Crow and all the other past products of race prejudice are paraded ad nauseum, but I'm convinced that the bias is as I've described it. Half - OK, a substantial portion - of NPR/PBS' programming is devoted to reminding us about white on black violence of the last several centuries, so please don't claim there's been "little widespread discussion of it," let alone presume to limit others from discussing black on white crime until examination of its reverse reaches your level of acceptability, doubtless an ever-increasing mark. In fact, consider how much black on white crime the media have ignored, especially the ongoing "quiet riot," by which whole cities like Detroit and Gary have been devastated by institutionalized - can you say "Devil's Night?" -black violence. But what do I know - I only lived through it while it was occurring. So add that to your list of unconsidered facts before you go preaching old cliches anew.

Finally, your take on OJ is just more tired sociobabble. OJ killed two people that night in Brentwood and ascribing the "hysteria" surrounding his prosecution to the King Kong/Fay Wray paradigm you descibe is absurd. And not only because it leaves out the other victim, a white male BTW; the real rage against OJ came from honest people who live by the rules and resent it mightily when they are played for fools by criminals and their apologists who don't do likewise. Understand that and you'll understand much, but, judging from your writings, I doubt if you'll ever understand, let alone appreciate, a whit of it.

[quote]Originally posted by gmginsfo:
Half - OK, a substantial portion - of NPR/PBS' programming is devoted to reminding us about white on black violence of the last several centuries...

---

I'd like to see some documentation on this. From my observation, and I grant I cannot document this, PBS is more concerned with the minorities within the justice system and whether they have truly received fair hearing. Either because they seem to be innocent yet are incarcerated, or because the burden of their sentence far outweighs the crime they committed.

JQ - Listen to "All Things Considered" for a week or two and tell me I'm wrong. The one PBS program that sticks in mind, because it rightfully exposed a horrible chapter in our history, was the story of the small town in FL that was torched in the '20s by a white lynch mob. Also, don't forget the scam Clinton raised when he spoke of "remembering black churches burned in his town while he was growing up," but astute investigative reporting by the WSJ showed no such burnings occurred, along with more recent tales of same shown to be fabrications. Right now, in SF at least, PBS is showing a series called the Rise and Fall of Jim Crow that depicts the saga of de facto segregation.

I do listen to All Things Considered on a regular basis. Perhaps I listen for the wrong things, but I haven't noticed some overwhelming trend toward reporting white on black violence.

As for the Jim Crow program, I haven't noticed it on the local PBS schedule. When was the last time a black man was lynched in the Bay Area? Has there ever been a lynching in the Bay Area? Interesting how the areas where it wasn't a problem seem to be the most aware that the problem existed at all. And that places where it happened frequently and relatively recently seem intent on forgetting about it altogether.

I have to agree. I listen to NPR every day and none of the shows (including ATC) regularly report on white on black crimes. I think, overall, these stories get reported only when they are newsworthy.

[quote]Originally posted by gmginsfo:
FT, you say Horowitz is truly hateful, but what are the facts behind this conclusion? He's a courageous hero in my book.
***
I also take strong exception to FT's claim that the media play up black on white crime and play down the reverse; from my perspective, it's just the opposite. Maybe that's just a function of living in liberal, guilt-tripping SF, where lynchings, Jim Crow and all the other past products of race prejudice are paraded ad nauseum, but I'm convinced that the bias is as I've described it.
****
Finally, your take on OJ is just more tired sociobabble. OJ killed two people that night in Brentwood and ascribing the "hysteria" surrounding his prosecution to the King Kong/Fay Wray paradigm you descibe is absurd. And not only because it leaves out the other victim, a white male BTW; the real rage against OJ came from honest people who live by the rules and resent it mightily when they are played for fools by criminals and their apologists who don't do likewise.

---

A "courageous hero"? This is a man who publishes the work of Holocaust deniers and white supremacists, and who committed a TREASONOUS ACT in the past, you're calling him a HERO? If you know him so well, then you'd know that he revealed this not only in his rant-filled writings, but even on his page, where he self-servingly recasts it so that he doesn't come off in such a bad light--it was during his "liberal" phase, blah blah blah. See here. By championing a racist, traitorous dissimulator like this, you could care less about this country than you claim.

But you can go to "Horowitz Watch" for more info: I quote the site: Tuesday, July 23, 2002
Horowitz’s Disastrous First Week As Blogger Last week, David Horowitz began a blog on his web site Front Page Magazine. One of the first things that blogger Horowitz did was to act as an apologist for white supremacist Jared Taylor of American Renaissance magazine (check the Watchful Babbler’s Posts as well as my 7/16 post on my site for more details). Then Horowitz wrote that he wished that John Walker Lindh had been shot for his treason—this despite the fact that Horowitz’s own admitted treasonous acts were far more serious than Lindh’s (more on this soon). In Horowitz's soon-to-be-released, barely-coherent diatribe How to Beat The Democrats And Other Subversive Ideas, the acknowledgements section thanks Republican Majority Whip Tom DeLay (whom Horowitz incorrectly calls Majority Leader) and GOP Congressmen David Dreier, J.C. Watts, Jack Kingston, Ed Royce, and J.D. Hayworth. Republican strategists want to enlist the aid of a white supremacist apologist and self-admitted traitor? Is this part of the GOP’s big tent strategy? (posted by Scoobie Davis / 5:51 PM)

Also, progressive San Francisco is hardly representative of the rest of the U.S. In much of the United States over the last 30 years, crime--and especially the specter of Black criminals-- have been utilized as a major element in political campaigns as well as local TV media to draw viewers. Richard Nixon? Ronald Reagan? Bill Clinton? Rudy Giuliani? Moreover, speaking just of NPR--which is supposedly so enamored of Blacks and minorities--it obviously is so devoted to non-whites that it can't take the time to hire many to serve on air in its most diverse markets. See the FAIR report here.

Finally, I made no reference to King Kong/Fay Wray, so that's a vile little analogy you have sitting in your consciousness--the pot calling the kettle.... At any rate, I personally believe that O.J. Simpson was guilty, but he was acquitted in the criminal trial, so to claim that he killed two people as fact is meretricious at best. If O.J. had killed two white men and if he hadn't been a wealthy celebrity, I really don't think the trial would have generated the same level of interest; had he been poor he probably would have been convicted and sent to the death chamber.

Speaking of honest people who "resent it mightily when they are played for fools by criminals and their apologists who don't do likewise," are you also talking about the criminals and ne'er-do-wells behind the financial shenanigans at Harken, Halliburton, Enron, WorldComm, Tyco, etc., and their ilk, which would include members of the current administration? These criminals, who played by their own rules, bilked shareholders out of their money, robbed pensioners of their savings, and cost thousands of workers their jobs?

Oh FT, here you go again. Playing dumb after you get called on your potshots, and changing the subject to suit your needs. You're too clever - cf. smart, but see also crafty - not to recognize the black predator/King Kong analogy you alluded to and which I correctly identified. And it's been more part of our collective social consciousness than lodged in any one individual's since colonial times. What was your degree in again, BTW?

Your speculations on OJ's trial are just that - and his being found civilly liable for the death of Ron Goldman satisfies this lawyer's mind that he murdered both his ex-wife and the young gentleman. And yes, I DO believe that the various financial miscreants you mentioned, in another of your attempts to save face by shifting gears, should be prosecuted and punished to the full extent of the law. That's one of the nice things about being a law and order Republican - apply the laws strictly, consistently and fairly across the board, regardless of the irrelevantia you and other permissive leftists - cf. progressive liberals - introduce into the equation and we'll soon reduce the crime rate by reducing the number of criminals themselves. That to me is a good thing and it applies in boardrooms just as it does in any other crime scene.

JQ, your observation that the areas where lynchings weren't a problem seem to be the most aware of the problem is illustrated by a line from Victor Hugo, "Jesus wept, Voltaire smiled;" late converts are the most fervent of all. The Bay Area is full of people who, never having experienced much adversity in life, are hell bent on reliving others.' As for the places' where lynchings happened frequently and relatively recently being intent on forgetting about it altogether, who can blame them for wanting to move on and not relive their unhappy past? It needn't be dredged up constantly in the present to avoid being repeated in the future. Thinking people will learn from and avoid past mistakes; fools will be bound by their own ignorance, whether reminded of others' or not.

Did Wyoming have a hate crimes law when Matthew Shepard was killed? I recall people using that as a reason why Wyoming needed such a law. But this Witchita situation just seems to point out the absurdity of such laws. Why should it matter whether or not the killers used a racial or ethnic slur when they murdered their victims? It's absurd to suggest that would have made the crime worse or even different in any way.

Suppose a killer walks up to a guy wearing a gay pride t-shirt, puts a gun to the guy's head and kills him, without saying a word. Now suppose the exact same scenario, but the killer says, "Die, faggot" before pulling the trigger.

Is the victim any more or less dead? Is the killer any more or less guilty? And under hate crimes law, isn't the killer facing additional penalties for expressing a thought? That seems dangerous, a bit like a thought police. Or are both crimes hate crimes simply because the victim was seemingly identifying himself as gay by his t-shirt. Of course, I'm not saying such a killer should not be punished. I think all murders should be punished harshly enough that extra penalties would be superfluous.

I suppose, though, that most "hate crimes" are not murders, but rather assaults, vandalism - what else? I think these crimes should be dealt with rather harshly in all circumstances. I just think that hate crimes, for all their good intentions, bestow more moral gravity upon some actions, which inevitably trivializes others. And they are inherently political, i.e. they seek to write into law that gays, minorities are - with thanks to BoSoxRudy (where's he been lately?) - victim groups deserving of special protections. I just can't go along with that.

"The Bay Area is full of people who, never having experienced much adversity in life, are hell bent on reliving others."

gmg - What? Did you intend on making such a broad generalization about the Bay Area? Do you really believe this?

The problem with hate crime laws, as is usually the case in knee jerk legislative reactions, is that it's being promoted as something it isn't. In most felony cases, when it comes to sentencing, there is already a law that allows the jury/judge to consider mitigating or exacerbating circumstances. In capital crimes, that is the crux of the sentencing decision. The motive behind the crime and the way in which it was carried out must be considered. This makes hate crimes laws largely irrelevant in all the cases which are championed by those screaming for hate crimes laws. Where hate crimes can actually change the outcome of a trial is when it takes a misdemeanor offense and makes it a felony. Now if you're comfortable with that, and I'm not sure that I am not, then there should be no problem with hate crimes laws.

[quote]Originally posted by gmginsfo:
As for the places' where lynchings happened frequently and relatively recently being intent on forgetting about it altogether, who can blame them for wanting to move on and not relive their unhappy past? It needn't be dredged up constantly in the present to avoid being repeated in the future. Thinking people will learn from and avoid past mistakes; fools will be bound by their own ignorance, whether reminded of others' or not.

---

I can't endorse this attitude. AMC has been showing Mississippi Burning a lot recently. I see bits and pieces of it flipping through channels when I get home from work at 2:00am. It struck me that the 1960's aren't that long ago. Many of the people represented in that movie haven't died yet. Their children are certainly alive. Where did the hate go? Where did the destructive forces that committed those heinous acts disappear to? I realize the movie itself was a fiction, but the reality behind it exists to this day. Rather than removing these attitudes from our society, we've succeeded in shoving the hateful and dangerous ideas underground in our society. I've brushed up against the edges of far too much hate in my daily interactions to accept the notion that it is something of the past wich we no longer need concern ourselves with.

Thank you, Jqueer. Didn't I post a thread just a few months ago about how OREGON, which was not a member of the Confederacy, actually still has in its constitution a statement banning the immigration of Black people? THAT IS IN 2002! While it is not in de facto effect, it has de jure power. This is but one artifact of many in a long and sometimes sordid history. But it is our history and it should not be cast aside because its unpleasant or annoying or difficult. Ignorance is not bliss.

Moreover, Mississippi Burning presents a skewed version of the particularly violent and ugly history of that state. In fact, the main leaders and targets of the racist brutality were Blacks; the filmmaker Alan Parker made the protagonists white to appeal to the mass of moviegoers, but as many histories of the Civil Rights period make clear, the vast majority of the agents of change were Blacks, who worked with interracial coalitions from across the south and the country to fight for the denied rights of millions of people.

As for that person from SF, YOU are the one who had to make that King Kong equation, which is blatantly offensive. The fact is that the Black male-white female sexual and power equation has been a mitigating factor in the racism of American law since the colonial period. It is one reason that many Southern colonies banned interracial marriages, and violently punished Black male slaves and free men who were even THOUGHT to be entertaining sexual relations with white women. If you are ignorant of this fact, then you really should learn a bit more American history. (Martha Hodes' book on this topic might enlighten you.) It provoked violent responses in New England states, as well as throughout the rest of the Northeast and Midwest. In fact, attacks on interracial couples, particular Black male-white female couples, continue to this day. However they are no longer outlawed as they were. It is central to the story of anti-Black violence in the pre-and-post Civil War period, as well as to the long history of lynching.

Alabama did not remove its constitutional prohibition until recently, I believe; the federal challenge did not occur until 1967. That YOU chose to throw out King Kong speaks volumes (ugly) about you. But then David Horowitz is one of your heroes, right?

What speaks ugly volumes are those that do not live in the states of which they speak and purport to be all knowledeable. I will wager that the South, as a whole, is less predjuiced than the North. I live here, I live it and I know it. Please refrain from throwing the South under the train in every racial conversation that is on the board.

RE: the application of hate crime laws in the Trev Broudy beating. I saw an interesting letter in the Los Angeles Times the other day. There's no evidence whatsoever of anti-gay sentiment BUT the perps did say they were going after "rich white folks" so, since hate crime laws don't specify that they kick in only when whites whup on blacks, that the law is color blind, there is a case to be made that it's a hate crime based on racial animus. So far, the DA, Steve Cooley, has resisted efforts by Los Angeles Mayor Jim Hahn to file hate crime charges based on sexual orientation. For various reasons, there's been no discussion about filing them based on race.

I agree with W1865 about the 1984-ish aspects of thought control inherent in hate crime laws.

I always get the politico David Horowitz mixed up with a local TV reporter of the same name who did consumer fraud pieces for the local NBC affiliate for years. I'll see the politico mentioned and I'll have a moment of cognitive dissonance and be all "What does he know? He goes after cheating car mechanics?". *Sigh* I've been bombarded with too much media in my lifetime.

[ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

Still smarting over King Kong, are you FT? I only called it like you implied it, and you can't handle the heat from your own fire now, can you? BYW, I have a name and I'm not a generic "person," but a man who lives in SF. Dig?

I agree with you that ignorance is not bliss. But if you seem a most unhappy person, does it follow that you must be intelligent too? Just re-read your posts and listen to the violence and rage simmering in them, not to mention their countless repetitive cliches, although you have a rival or two in that latter department on this board. And you presume to lecture others on what is or isn't "offensive." Baloney!

Finally, don't presume - or ascribe - ignorance of or insensitivity to racial strife in the US to me or others. You have no monopoly on the history or understanding of race relations and if your posts are any indication, your sensitivity on that and other topics leaves a bit to be desired. I know full well the history of our country and I know how to interpret facts. That I don't do so according to your Hoyle troubles me not. Even an unreasonable mind will differ.

No doubt this was a sickening hate-filled crime. Those two young men are the sad product of a sick society.

Killing them will not deter their successors nor bring back their victims. It will not prevent future crimes any more than life imprisonment.

What it will do is give some people the same sort of sick vengeance that nurtured these two in the first place.

And the wheel will continue to turn.

[ May 08, 2004, 06:55 PM: Message edited by: sportinlife ]

[quote]Originally posted by sportinlife:


No doubt this was a sickening hate-filled crime. Those two young men are the sad product of a sick society.

---

...a society trapped on a violent road to nowhere. A road I call - Violence Road.

--Spongebob Squarepants

Spongebob rules. I just thought I'd type that in before this thread gets closed down because GMG and Fantomas can't play nice.

M1 & I discussed this thread. We agree that it's interesting stuff and we want to keep it open. But this is the first and last warning.

Tone down the personal remarks. Reply to specifics in a person's post, don't attack them personally.

If you have questions about the policy, e-mail me or M1.

Thank you.

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:


...a society trapped on a violent road to nowhere. A road I call - Violence Road.

--Spongebob Squarepants

---

HA!, I've DONE it again.

--Mr. Magoo

I just found out there was this discussion about the killings in Wichita. There are a few things that I feel I need to clear up and add to the story.

1) Most importantly, this was NOT a Hate Crime. It has NEVER been discussed as one. It was a random act of violence.

2) The brothers had been out at a local bar and decided to follow a lady that was also there home. She lived in the other half of the twin home that the 5 were in. She decided to park on the street, and the brothers went on down the street and turned around and came back.

When they came back, they saw an open garage door. Thinking that is was the side that the lady lived in, they burst in through the door from the garage to the house. They were wrong however, and it was the other side where the young professionals were living.

3) The other lady that was killed was a member of the Wichita Symphony. She was on her way home and was also evidentally followed. Interestingly her home was about 6 blocks from the bar where the other lady was followed from. She lived in a pretty expensive area of town, and all that was missing in this case was her money. The shooting severed her spine, but she lived several weeks. She was stable and was in the process of being transfered to a rehabilitation facility, when a blood clot formed and took her life.

4) The trial is being carried live on cable and radio here in Wichita. On Tuesday, my boss had to testify, as I work in Operations for one of the banks that the withdrawals were made from. As the Operations Manager she had to testify as to the validity of the ATM video tapes. Today, a co-worker's husband who was one of the crime scene investigators had to testify.

5) It has been interesting that one of the brother's attorneys started out the trial by saying his client was innocent, but his client's brother and another man committed the crimes. Also interesting, almost all of the objections from the defense attorneys have been over-ruled.

That day in December 2000 will be one of the days in my life I won't forget. I always turn on the news while getting ready for work, and this story was the whole newscast.

[Edited by Tarkus to correct formatting]

[ October 19, 2002: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

Since you are a resident of Wichita thanks for updating us playtym (and clearing up a few misconceptions) concerning this case -- the details of which turn my stomach into knots and I never even heard about it until two weeks ago, nearly two years after the vicious crimes were committed.....I'm also glad that you have hopefully successfully attempted to get this thread back on topic (AT LAST) to discuss the details related to the heinous crime that was committed and not have every P&R topic turn into a name-calling right wing-left wing political debate that a few holier-than-thou posters repeatedly try to turn this board into.

As I originally mentioned, I am still appalled by the astounding LACK of national publicity that this case has generated....apparently CourtTV is going to televise the live testimony from the lone survivor, which should be compelling to say the least -- I know she has remained anonymous (at least in the articles I have recently read) but is there any word in the local media on how this young woman has "coped" (physically and emotionally) after seeing her five friends viciously abducted and murdered right before her eyes - and barely escaping death herself?

Please keep us informed of the particulars of this trial -- I'm certain there are more than a few of us here who are interested to learn more about the facts leading up to this brutality (and not read any more endless political diatribe from posters who haven't mentioned ONE WORD about this revolting case)....thanks again for your input, playtym, and my heart goes out to the young female survivor and all those families in Wichita whose lives were forever changed that night -- I know nothing can bring their loved ones back but perhaps this trial will provide them with some solace and closure and that justice will ultimately be served, at least to some degree.

I'm providing some links, having just seen a post at news.admin.censorship of Keven Alfred Strom's remarks. Kevin Alfred Strom is a white supremacist who lives northwest of Charlottesville VA. He picks up his mail at Earlysville, the town where I was living when I bought my first motorcycle.

here's the post

wichita-massacre.com

a site run by Strom

Strom's website

I'm just providing the links. Moderators, do as you will.

[ October 27, 2002: Message edited by: twin58 ]

All I can add is thank goodness those two animals were convicted last week of OVER 100 FELONIES thanks to the courage and testimony of that lone survivor....I can't ever recall reading more graphic descriptions as detailed in the 80 page testimony of that young female survivor as she describes as how four friends (and herself) were repeatedly sexually abducted and shot in the back of the head while naked in that soccer field in Wichita....even execution doesn't seem like it is enough punishment for those two brothers but hopefully they will both receive the death penalty and the sooner that takes place the better.

I believe the comments made by Kevin Storm in twin58's first link are valid when he points out the reasons for the virtual COMPLETE lack of media coverage (at least outside of Wichita) including CourtTV's unwillingness to show any part of the trial, after they initially stated they would broadcast "gavel to gavel" coverage....for EVERY network to IGNORE one of the most heinous brutalities in American history largely because it was a "black on white" crime is inexcusable IMHO.

What those five young people went through during those 3+ hours (and the survivor has continued to live with during the past two years) is absolutely unthinkable....I can only hope that this display of justice (hopefully ending in the execution of the perpetrators) will somehow provide some degree of solace to the families of all five victims, including the courageous survivor.

The trial and sentencing is all over now, finally! What a long, nearly 2 years we have had.

Last night the jurors announced that they had come to a decision on the 4 murders of the friends. The decision was 4 death sentences for both of the brothers.

Today the judge agreed with the sentences. He also added life plus 61 years to one brother and life plus 67.5 years in prison to the other brother on the remaining counts. Needless to say this is a big relief for all of us in Wichita.

Thanks for the update, playtym -- particularly coming from someone in Wichita....I understand why everyone is glad the trial is over and the sentencing announced yesterday actually is justice, for a change -- it's only too bad we can't REALLY kill each of them FOUR TIMES as the judge announced to make those two brothers experience a SMALL part of the suffering that those five young people endured for 3-4 hours two years ago....I don't consider myself to have a "vigilante" mentality but this is one of the very rare cases where a simple "quick" execution almost seems to be too kind to those animals -- they should somehow be made to endure a slow, painful death with a lot of suffering as they subjected their innocent victims to but as I said earlier, the sooner these scum are eliminated from the planet the better!

My main point with the earlier follow-up post, however, was concerning the reasons for the TOTAL lack of media coverage (at least outside of Wichita) as a result of this being a "black on white" crime....while that may now be considered a "taboo subject" (thanks to bigots like Johnnie Cochran and company), in light of the brutality of this crime I view the conduct of the media (including the 180 degree reversal in the decisions made by the executives of CourtTV) to be absolutely reprehensible.

One final question, playtym -- since you were apparently one of the few to receive ample media coverage what is the view of the public and local press there in Wichita regarding the decisions made by the national media to ignore the case and act as if it never happened?

Once again, hopefully the families of each of the five victims (including the courageous young survivor) will now be able to realize some semblance of peace and solace (if that is possible following a crime of this utter brutality) knowing these two heartless brothers will soon be executed.

To answer your question gamecock, there really has not been a reaction nor comments by the public, nor media, about the lack of national coverage. The only thing that was said was when CourtTV decided not to cover the trial, our local stations decided to carry the live court coverage on 2 of our cable stations. It was also carried on 2 or 3 of the AM radio stations.

The surprising thing to me was that before yesterday, there were only 4 men on death row in Kansas. There are now 7, two being the Carr brothers, and the other one being the guy from near Kansas City who had killed several women and hid their bodies in barrels on his property. He was sentenced yesterday to death yesterday also.

Information about the Carr trial and sentencing can be found at: The Wichita Eagle

[quote]Originally posted by Itsplaytym:
Most importantly, this was NOT a Hate Crime. It has NEVER been discussed as one. It was a random act of violence.

---

I know I'm responding to a month-old post - but this points out why I don't think the term "hate crime" has any real meaning and should be banished from the English language.

It's absolutely bizarre that anyone would consider this to be anything less than a hate crime. It may not be a black-on-white hate crime, but ... the female victims were brutally raped then forced at gunpoint to commit sexual acts upon each other. From a gender standpoint, if the term "hate crime" is to have any meaning, this would have to be construed as a hate crime, a bias crime, against the women.

Of course, this crime is as heinous as crime gets and there's no need to add the term "hate crime" in order to give these evil thugs their just desserts. I guess the appropriate sentence would be for them to be brutally and repeatedly gang-raped in prison before they are executed. Of course, I'm anti-death penalty, even in a situation like this, so I guess the sentence would be life imprisonment ... with the daily gang-rapes.

[ November 16, 2002: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]