The Mad Monk
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Northern Kentucky
Re: 30 black teens attack 4 white girls in "non-bias" attack
Here's another example, one of many that don't get any play in the mainstream news:
Black on White Hate
ITHACA--A white female student assaulted Sunday night leaving the Nappy Roots and Ludacris concert at Cornell's Barton Hall told The Sun that she was the victim of a hate-crime, which left her with a ruptured ear drum and thirteen stiches on her face.
The Cornell Police morning report noted that the police received a "complaint from a student that was physically assaulted by an unkown individual." The report indicated that the assault occurred at 11:47 p.m. and that the investigation is continuing.
The incident, as described by the victim, began when the student had a minor altercation with another girl who was at the concert while the performace was still going on.
"She said 'Get your white hair out of my face,'" the student said.
After the student put her hair up to get it out of the way, the alleged assailant proceeded to hit her, at which point the student and her friends moved to the back of the concert space.
When the concert was over, the student separated from her friends to get into her car and said she found herself surrounded by a group made up of five black females and one black male, who have yet to be identified.
"They said they were gonna f**k up my pretty white face," she said.
Allegedly, the incident turned physically violent when one of the girls slapped the student hard enough to rupture her eardrum, a blow which threw her off balance. The other five assailants proceeded to kick and punch her as she fell down.
"They pulled a ton of my hair out," the student said.
The six assailants stopped hitting the victim only when one of her male friends came out of the concert and stepped in.
"If it wasn't for [him], I don't know how long it would have gone on," she said.
The victim said doctors estimate it will take her eardrum a year and a half to heal.
"This was a hate crime, and it shouldn't happen to another person. The more people know the better," said the victim's mother.
The University is currently investigating the situation.
"We take any sort of hate crime very very seriously," said Linda Grace-Kobas, interim vice president for communications and media relations. "We will thoroughly investigate all aspects of the incident."
"I would encourage her to file a bias-related incident report," said Robert Harris, vice provost for diversity and faculty development. "We have a process and with a report we can begin putting that process to work."
Once an incident report is filed, a University employee is assigned the case to assist victims in pursuing their situation, according to Harris.
"It's really hard to live with this. I want people to know because I need to press charges. If anyone has any information, tell the police because [they] don't know anything right now," the student said.
The examples that me and RFA1966 provided are just two of many...Why don't they get the same airplay on the major networks that White on Black Hate crimes do?
The court battle is underway to determine what tapes, statements and other evidence a jury will get to review when Wilbert Rideau has his 4th trial for murder. After a court ruling Thursday, prosecutors will be able to show several media interviews in the trial.
KPLC has obtained excerpts of one interview first aired 23 years ago. It was 1981. By this time, Rideau had been convicted of murder three times and was serving his sentence at Angola State Penitentiary. He was interviewed by former Baton Rouge T.V. Reporter Jodie Bell. He talked about the killing of Julia Ferguson and the injuries of the two bank employees who lived.
The reporter asked, "You didn't cut their throats? I was told you cut their throats."
Rideau replied: "Yeah, one."
Reporter: "You cut one?"
Rideau: "That's the one who died."
Reporter: "Why did you do that, rather than shoot that person?"
Rideau: "I think I ran out of bullets."
Reporter: "Okay, so you took four, you took three, shot two and killed the other one."
Reporter: "I know I've asked you a lot of questions, just interesting about why you would want to kill them when they hadn't done anything to you. I'm not in the right frame of mind to understand what you're saying."
Rideau: "You have to understand what happened. Back then, like Billy pointed out, I was criminal. I needed to be locked up even before I committed the crime."
Reporter: "How old were you when you did it?"
Rideau: "Because I was dangerous. I was 19 years old. I had just made it. And aside from being criminal, back then I had to-- the fact that I hated white people added an extra dimension to the whole affair. I mean, you're not that concerned about the humanity of people you hate."
Though Rideau was sentenced to die, he escaped the possibility of execution after state's death penalty law was thrown out by the U.S. Supreme Court. He talks about the death penalty in the interview:
Reporter: "Should you have been executed for what you did?"
Rideau: "Because, if you have a law you gotta enforce it."
Rideau also talks about life in prison being worse than death: "It's just another form of death. It's just that this one is more excruciating than the other because he's going to suffer for the rest of his life." By this time, Rideau was pleading his case for release from prison. In fact, he says the time he spent on death row gave him empathy for his victim. "It made me realize what my victim must have felt, because I did the same thing to her. I ignored her pleas."
The Jodie Bell interview is one of three media interviews the defense sought to keep out of the trial. However, the judge denied the motion. Judge David Ritchie ruled to allow use of a written statement Rideau gave to the FBI in 1961, but defense will appeal to the Third Circuit. Both sides will be back in court at 9:30 Friday morning to continue hearings on pre-trial motions. The trial is set for October 25th.
Why are black leaders silent on black hate crimes?
Their failure to denounce violence against whites, like the suburban Pittsburgh killings, cedes the moral high ground to white supremacists.
By Earl Ofari Hutchinson
- - - - - - - - - -
March 06, 2000 | In the Pittsburgh suburb of Wilkinsburg, Joseph Kroll, a middle-aged maintenance man, was busily going about his repair duties in the apartment building where he worked. Joseph Healey, an elderly former Catholic priest, was enjoying a bite to eat at a nearby Burger King restaurant. Emil Sanitelevici, a physics student at the University of Pittsburgh, and two other men were eating at a nearby McDonald's restaurant.
Then, in a moment of rage, Ronald Taylor gunned down Healey, Kroll and Sanitelevici and seriously wounded the other two men. These heinous killings almost certainly were racially motivated: Taylor is black; the three men killed and the two men wounded were white.
But unlike after other hate crimes, no black leader or organization immediately rushed forth to vigorously denounce the shootings. There was no expression of outrage from black communities, and there was no demand that Taylor be harshly prosecuted under the federal civil rights hate crimes act if he shot the men because they were white. Worse, some blacks quietly shrugged off the killings with the bitter remark that whites have been killing blacks for years and getting away with it, and that there has been no massive explosion of white outrage at the lax treatment of white killers.
The deafening silence by blacks on this apparent racial outrage against whites instantly drew shouts from some whites that blacks are hypocrites and have a double standard when victims are whites. They're not totally wrong. Black leaders and organizations should have quickly condemned the shootings. The victims of Taylor's rampage were innocents who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and were shot because they were white.
Blacks must mourn these murders as passionately as they do those of black victims of white attacks and just as passionately call for the harshest punishment of the killer(s). The great strength of the civil rights movement was that it seized and maintained the moral high ground by never stooping to ape the violence of white racists.
But the Taylor shooting spree is deeply troubling for another reason. While it is a grotesque and extreme example of racial violence, it is hardly an aberration. More whites than ever are the targets of racially motivated attacks by blacks. True, some of the attacks against whites by blacks are for their money and valuables. Others are revenge assaults by blacks for real or imagined racial insults. It is equally true that the vast majority of violent crimes against whites are committed by other whites, while the vast majority of violent crimes against blacks are committed by other blacks.
Yet even after discounting crimes that are hastily and erroneously tagged as racially motivated, many blacks do attack whites because they are white. A Justice Department study in 1998 confirmed that nearly 20 percent of the hate crimes examined were committed against whites by black attackers. And the Southern Poverty Law Center has noted that black-on-white violence soared during the 1990s.
A motley collection of white supremacists and rightist extremist groups has eagerly made black-on-white violence a wedge issue in their crusade to paint blacks as the prime racial hatemongers in America. Avowed white supremacist David Duke instantly screamed that Taylor's carnage proves that whites are under assault from lawless blacks and that the federal government won't protect them.
The New Century Foundation, an ultraconservative think tank, has launched a full-blown national campaign to alert whites to the danger of hate crimes committed by blacks. It uses the issue of black hate crimes to rationalize and bankroll its research into alleged genetic defects among blacks. These groups and individuals relentlessly magnify black hate crimes to oppose affirmative action programs, stronger hate crime laws and various social programs; to downplay or justify the proliferation of white-supremacist-tinged paramilitary groups, police violence and racial profiling; and to lobby strenuously for more prisons and police and tougher laws. Black-on-white violence also reinforces whites' fears of blacks as the ultimate menace to society.
The Taylor onslaught claimed innocent lives and caused monumental pain and suffering to the victims' families and friends. It dangerously heightens racial distrust and poisons racial attitudes. When blacks say or do nothing about these attacks, it is taken by some as a tacit signal that blacks put less value on white lives than on black lives -- a terrible price to pay for black silence on black hate crimes.
Last edited by Jaycint; 04-19-2005 at 11:51 AM.