But what about the other 90% of the article?
He was venting his feelings, his reactions for the most part. There are very few facts in the article at all.
I will take his word for it that a vicious, unprovoked attack occurred. If the races of the victims and perpetrators had been different, it would have been reported worldwide as a "hate crime".
I believe him when he reports the generous and gracious nature of the victim. I have known many people like that of all races, both sexes and in every walk of life. Same is true of the perpetrators.
When he makes a vile and unsupportable characterization of the society which has nutured and protected him, I take exception.