What horrifies me most about the coverage of this case is that it is described as the "loud music trial" rather than the murder of an unarmed teenager trial.
I think everyone can feel safer knowing the killer is going to jail, but I think justice would be better served if he was convicted of the most serious crime he committed.
He was convicted on 2nd degree murder and will spend 60 years, or the rest of his life, in prison. The DA has the option to retry him on the 1st degree charge.
At my job, even though a lot of the workforce is Asian - Korea to Indonesia - about 1/4 is Black, not counting Africans. The black people seem generally happy, despite our jobs not being very stimulating or hip. In fact, came as a bit of surprise when one visitor told me to smile more often. Here I was thinking I was one of the happy workers. Looks are deceiving I guess.
@2 the defense atty will certainly appeal for concurrent sentencing. If accepted, this would mean much less time in prison. I am doubtful he would be convicted of murder/manslaughter, as FL law appears pretty lienent on self-defense justification.
@1: Crimes making news are nearly always associated with a unique identifier (the event, the place). Another example is the Craigslist killer. It doesn't negate the serious of the crime, but rather helps people research it.
@5 Yes, but "loud music trial" mentions the alleged complaint about the victims without mentioning the crime at all. Shorthand is one thing, eliding completely over the crime is another.
Granted that the media often identify trials with an easy identified moniker, but the "loud music trial" does imply that the youths had some sort blame of being inconsiderate enough to play their music too loud. To me it is the equivalent of describing a rape trial by the dress the victim wore. Would we really stand for the "short red dress" trial?
@10: YOU ARE A FILTHY LIAR.
One, the Crown Heights Riot was in 1991. Two, two persons were actually convicted for crimes they committed in the riot and sentenced to a total of 40 years in prison, your claim that "[n]o one was brought to justice".
If you're Jewish, you give us a bad name with your racist blathering. If you're Gentile, stop trying to hijack my people's worries for your own racist ends. If you're happy and you know it go fuck yourself.
@11: Hayden also leaves out how the riot started. (Surprise, surprise, white-on-black. Again.)
The riots began on August 19, 1991 after Gavin Cato, the son of two Guyanese immigrants, was struck and killed by an automobile in the motorcade of prominent Hasidic rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson. A Jewish ambulance known as Hatzolah came to the scene and removed the Jewish driver and placed him in the ambulance. The child was left pinned under the vehicle which had jumped onto the sidewalk of President Street and Utica Avenue as the police had ordered the ambulance away, fearing the outrage that was being expressed by black bystanders.
@12 The violence in Crown Heights was black on Jewish and black on white. You referred to a car accident as "the cause" of the lynchings. Really?
1) The people lynched, assaulted and having their businesses targetted for arson and looting did not cause the car accident. (Even if they did I don't know how that could be justified). They were targetted for being Jewish alone. Jordan Davis, Trayvon Martin, and Emett Till did more to bring violence apon themselves then Anthony Grazoni, Yankel Rosenbaum, Issac Bitton and his 6 year old son, and the hundreds of other people attacked in racist black on Jewish and black on white violence. Jordan refused to turn the radio down, Emett refused to apologize for sexually harrassing a woman, and Trayvon punched someone. Antony Grazoni was driving in his car when he was shot for being a Jew (although he wasn't). They assumed he was Hasidic because of his hat and beard. Rosenbaum , Bitton and his 6 year old son were walking down the street when the black racist mobs hunted them down. They were targetting people they suspected of being Jews. They were targetting people for their race and what they were wearing on their head just like people falsely claim happened to Trayvon. If you want to say it was a "reaction" to a car accident then you can say violence towards innocent young black males like Jordan is a reaction towards the ungodly amont of violence they perpetrate. Would that be acceptable to you? Would it be acceptable to you if a Nigerian man walking down the Seattle street were murdered by a racist mob who was angry about the lack of justice in the TubaMan's murder? Would it be acceptable to you if Charles Mudede was attacked while walking down the street with his young child because a black man caused a car accident 2 hours earlier? Use some common sense.
I think everyone can feel safer knowing the killer is going to jail, but I think justice would be better served if he was convicted of the most serious crime he committed.
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/new-yo…
^Links to #dangerousjewishkids assaulted by racist black mob. No one was brought to justice for these or the dozens of other racially motivated crimes blacks committed against Jews for several days in Crown Heights. Any tears Danielle?
One, the Crown Heights Riot was in 1991. Two, two persons were actually convicted for crimes they committed in the riot and sentenced to a total of 40 years in prison, your claim that "[n]o one was brought to justice".
If you're Jewish, you give us a bad name with your racist blathering. If you're Gentile, stop trying to hijack my people's worries for your own racist ends. If you're happy and you know it go fuck yourself.
The riots began on August 19, 1991 after Gavin Cato, the son of two Guyanese immigrants, was struck and killed by an automobile in the motorcade of prominent Hasidic rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson. A Jewish ambulance known as Hatzolah came to the scene and removed the Jewish driver and placed him in the ambulance. The child was left pinned under the vehicle which had jumped onto the sidewalk of President Street and Utica Avenue as the police had ordered the ambulance away, fearing the outrage that was being expressed by black bystanders.
1) The people lynched, assaulted and having their businesses targetted for arson and looting did not cause the car accident. (Even if they did I don't know how that could be justified). They were targetted for being Jewish alone. Jordan Davis, Trayvon Martin, and Emett Till did more to bring violence apon themselves then Anthony Grazoni, Yankel Rosenbaum, Issac Bitton and his 6 year old son, and the hundreds of other people attacked in racist black on Jewish and black on white violence. Jordan refused to turn the radio down, Emett refused to apologize for sexually harrassing a woman, and Trayvon punched someone. Antony Grazoni was driving in his car when he was shot for being a Jew (although he wasn't). They assumed he was Hasidic because of his hat and beard. Rosenbaum , Bitton and his 6 year old son were walking down the street when the black racist mobs hunted them down. They were targetting people they suspected of being Jews. They were targetting people for their race and what they were wearing on their head just like people falsely claim happened to Trayvon. If you want to say it was a "reaction" to a car accident then you can say violence towards innocent young black males like Jordan is a reaction towards the ungodly amont of violence they perpetrate. Would that be acceptable to you? Would it be acceptable to you if a Nigerian man walking down the Seattle street were murdered by a racist mob who was angry about the lack of justice in the TubaMan's murder? Would it be acceptable to you if Charles Mudede was attacked while walking down the street with his young child because a black man caused a car accident 2 hours earlier? Use some common sense.