ABC News actually covering Long Beach hate crime trial in un-PC way

ABC News website ^ | 1/12/2007 | Laura Coverson

[Zhangliqun]

Jan. 12, 2007 — It's a case with headline-grabbing details, even for Southern California — home to the trial of the century.

Girls and boys gone wild on Halloween night. An alleged hate crime, a violent attack fueled by racial slurs. The "F" word. The "B" word.

Parents of the suspects accuse prosecutors of making a rush to judgment. Meanwhile, a virtual stable of defense attorneys is accused of putting prosecution witnesses at risk by leaking their names.

There are reluctant witnesses and those facing intimidation by reported gang members. A witness known as the Good Samaritan may now be too afraid to return to the stand. And then there's the race card.

Defense attorneys charge that the case is being tried in the media by an aggressive local newspaper.

But there are critics who say the story hovers ghostlike on the national scene garnering little attention, perhaps because it turns traditional notions of racially motivated violence on their head. The victims are white and the suspects are black.

[Zhangliqun]

Guess Ms. Coverson didn't get the memo that this sort of thing just isn't done...

[Sherman Logan]

But social and political analyst Earl Ofari Hutchinson sees something more significant: "Black violence against whites can't match the scale and history of white beatings and killings and intimidation

Over the last 400 years, absolutely correct.

Over the last 40, quite the opposite.

[popdonnelly]

"But social and political analyst Earl Ofari Hutchinson sees something more significant"

Who elected this guy a social and political analyst? Himself? This is the kind of rubbish quote that routinely gets published in the media.

[Doctor Raoul]

The rest of the quote in that article suggests that he's NOT justifying going easy on the perps.

[Sherman Logan]

You are correct. I'm not criticizing Mr. Hutchinson's position, as such, merely trying to point out that the particular historical period you compare is rather important.

Over the entire history of black/white relations in America, whites are the aggressors.

Over the lifespan of anyone alive today, it is quite the reverse. Far more black on white violence has taken place over the last 50 years than white on black.

[Eagles6]

"it turns traditional notions of racially motivated violence on their head. The victims are white and the suspects are black."..." while whites still commit the majority of hate or bias crimes, attacks by blacks account for 20 percent of the reported offenses."

This is a blatant lie. Walter Williams wrote an article regarding this disparity some years ago. About 90% of inter racial violence is black on white. Murder, rape and assault against whites is just crime. A stern look by whitey at a minority miscreant is a hate crime.

Classifying hispanics as white when they are perpetrators and minority when they are victims also skews the stats.

[STE=Q]

"story hovers ghostlike on the national scene garnering little attention, perhaps because it turns traditional notions of racially motivated violence on their head. The victims are white and the suspects are black."

Traditional "notions" are wrong.

Statistically: Black on white "hate" crime is far more prevalent -- and likely -- than the converse.

[Godwin1]

Well, history is one thing. But in modern America, interracial crime nearly always means white victims and black perpetrators. Everyone in our society knows this. One of the many reasons many of us distrust and dislike the media is that they deliberately cover this up.

[Razz Barry]

BTTT