Some weeks, there gets to be so much to report, I literally cannot report on it all. This was one of those weeks. In fact the constant flury of activity has created a backlog of stories that need to be reported or commented on.
We learned nearly two weeks ago that was originally thought to be a hate crime, was in fact a ploy used by a group of teenagers to deceive police and throw them off their trail.
From the Davis Enterprise on January 14, 2008:
“Davis police announced this morning the arrest of a local teen and the pending arrests of four others on suspicion of vandalizing Holmes Junior High School last month with a large amount of graffiti, some of it bearing racial slurs.
But while police initially investigated the incident as a hate crime , they later determined that the slurs — targeting Asians, African Americans and Latinos — were used as a tactic “to throw off the investigation,” Sgt. Scott Smith said.
On Friday, detectives arrested a 14-year-old African-American girl in connection with the case, describing her as the organizer of the vandalism spree. Four other girls, ranging in age from 13 to 15, were expected to be taken into custody this morning.”
The community originally reacted to these attacks as though they were hate crimes. I would argue that they still are. According to Sgt. Smith:
“Through our investigation, we obtained confessions from all the parties, and they were consistent in their statements that the motive for the racial slurs was to make people believe that a white person had done this.”
Some argue that hate crimes are actually just thought crimes, dependent on motivation and hate for their force. Of course all crimes are in part thought crimes, motivation helps differentiate first degree murder from involuntary manslaughter. But hate crimes are more than that. They are in fact an act of terrorism aimed not just at an individual victim but at an entire community. Thus I would argue that this crime is just as much a hate crime as it would be if a white person had done it.
Does the fact that the perpetrator was black, change the impact it had on the community when the crime was first detected? No. In fact we can add to it that they were trying to frame white community members for the crime.
Finally, the reaction from the Principal of Holmes Junior High:
“Derek Brothers, principal of Holmes Junior High, today described the vandalism as an “unfortunate incident.” He declined to comment further, citing the ongoing police investigation, but provided a copy of a letter sent home to parents last week.
“These crimes are extremely disturbing and contrary to all we believe and teach. Although unfortunate, such incidents do provide teaching opportunities about racism and hate crimes ,” the letter says. “Many of our teachers will be discussing this incident in their classrooms and making clear that what has happened is unacceptable for our schools, our community and our country.
“As parents, you can reinforce these lessons and help your children understand that hate language hurts all of us and damages the very fabric of our democratic society,” Brothers says. “
Frankly I do not see how the fact that the perpetrators were not white changes the impact of the incident. At the end of the day, a hate crime is a hate crime. I think we have just as much of a problem now as we thought we had a month ago. Maybe even a larger problem.
Open Government
I do not know how many people saw this item earlier this week in the local paper:
“Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley was honored today with the Freedom of Information Award by the California Newspaper Publishers Association and the California Society of Newspaper Editors. The award was presented at a luncheon at the Government Affairs Day Luncheon at the Sheraton Hotel in Sacramento.
The award was based in large part on Cooley’s sponsorship of Senate Bill 690 (Calderon) in 2007. This bill grants the public greater access to information about criminal charges and the outcome of criminal cases.
In accepting the award, Cooley credited Special Assistant District Attorney Jim Provenza, a Davis resident, for the new law.
‘Without Jim’s tireless efforts, this important freedom of information law would not have been adopted,’ Cooley said.
He went on to note that, in addition to representing prosecutors full time at the state Capitol, Provenza served last year as president of the Davis Board of Education.
‘Under Jim’s leadership, the school board implemented a sunshine policy that provides much greater public access to meetings and documents than that required by the Brown Act and the Public Records Act.’
Provenza has said previously he views these laws as minimum standards.
‘Making government accessible to the very people who fund it is fundamental in a democracy,’ Provenza said in a news release. ‘It’s frustrating we still have to make that known in some circles, but as long as I serve the public, in whatever capacity, open government will be a priority.'”
This blog and this blog writer have long been dedicated to greater public access to information and sunshine. As we speak, behind the scenes, efforts are underway in conjunction with local government officials to further open the process and provide the public with access to information about what is happening in their government. Transparency is the greatest and most important principle in democratic government.
Senate Bill 690 is a modest effort that amends the law to establish procedures for the release of Summary Criminal History Information. Summary criminal history information includes basic blotter sheet information such as a person’s name, physical description, date of arrests, arresting agencies, booking numbers, charges, dispositions and other data. It gives the public greater access to specific details about a subjects criminal history. It would make these detail subject to the Public Records Act, so that any person could make a written request for that information.
This is not a new thing for Jim Provenza. While a member of the school board in Davis, Mr. Provenza fought long and hard to conduct meetings in open session unless specifically precluded to by law. When he first came to the board, the general practice was for the board to do things in closed session. The Brown Act specifically requires public business to be done in public unless interests of privacy or litigation specifically preclude it, but that was not the practice of the board when he first arrived.
California still has among the weakest public records disclosure requirements in the country, with a great amount of information still exempt from disclosure. The failure of the State Legislature last year to reauthorize civil police oversight and allow police disciplinary records become public (SB 1019) was a devastating blow to free speech and open government advocates. However, SB 690 was rightly seen as a step in the right direction.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
I hope the students at Holmes who committed the crimes come to understand how serious their crime is and are treated no differently than the boys who vandalized the schools and church in West Davis several years ago. The community can write it off as “teenagers acting out” but this is not just acting out. The suspected motivation changes everything – ‘we didn’t really mean what we wrote…we just wanted people to think that there are white people out there who meant what we wrote.’ Are they trying to start a fight/war in the community or what? I hope these kids get the help that they need.
I hope the students at Holmes who committed the crimes come to understand how serious their crime is and are treated no differently than the boys who vandalized the schools and church in West Davis several years ago. The community can write it off as “teenagers acting out” but this is not just acting out. The suspected motivation changes everything – ‘we didn’t really mean what we wrote…we just wanted people to think that there are white people out there who meant what we wrote.’ Are they trying to start a fight/war in the community or what? I hope these kids get the help that they need.
I hope the students at Holmes who committed the crimes come to understand how serious their crime is and are treated no differently than the boys who vandalized the schools and church in West Davis several years ago. The community can write it off as “teenagers acting out” but this is not just acting out. The suspected motivation changes everything – ‘we didn’t really mean what we wrote…we just wanted people to think that there are white people out there who meant what we wrote.’ Are they trying to start a fight/war in the community or what? I hope these kids get the help that they need.
I hope the students at Holmes who committed the crimes come to understand how serious their crime is and are treated no differently than the boys who vandalized the schools and church in West Davis several years ago. The community can write it off as “teenagers acting out” but this is not just acting out. The suspected motivation changes everything – ‘we didn’t really mean what we wrote…we just wanted people to think that there are white people out there who meant what we wrote.’ Are they trying to start a fight/war in the community or what? I hope these kids get the help that they need.
This is very serious and the kids should be charged as others have been. There is no difference.
This is very serious and the kids should be charged as others have been. There is no difference.
This is very serious and the kids should be charged as others have been. There is no difference.
This is very serious and the kids should be charged as others have been. There is no difference.
“Frankly I do not see how the fact that the perpetrators were not white changes the impact of the incident.”
It probably does change the criminal nature of this incident, if not its impact.
What distinguishes a hate crime from other crimes is intent. Generally, the intent in a hate crime is to spread fear beyond the act itself.
If a delinquent spraypaints “David Greenwald Rocks!” on another person’s property, that is vandalism and not a hate crime. His intent was not to spread fear.
If, on the other hand, he spaypainted, “Kill the Jews!,” it’s reasonable to infer that his intent was to spread fear to the Jewish community.
In the case at Holmes, even though the effect of the hateful words may have been to spread fear, there may be good reason to not believe that was this person’s intent. And because intent is what distinguishes hate crimes from other crimes, what she did is perhaps not a hate crime.
“Frankly I do not see how the fact that the perpetrators were not white changes the impact of the incident.”
It probably does change the criminal nature of this incident, if not its impact.
What distinguishes a hate crime from other crimes is intent. Generally, the intent in a hate crime is to spread fear beyond the act itself.
If a delinquent spraypaints “David Greenwald Rocks!” on another person’s property, that is vandalism and not a hate crime. His intent was not to spread fear.
If, on the other hand, he spaypainted, “Kill the Jews!,” it’s reasonable to infer that his intent was to spread fear to the Jewish community.
In the case at Holmes, even though the effect of the hateful words may have been to spread fear, there may be good reason to not believe that was this person’s intent. And because intent is what distinguishes hate crimes from other crimes, what she did is perhaps not a hate crime.
“Frankly I do not see how the fact that the perpetrators were not white changes the impact of the incident.”
It probably does change the criminal nature of this incident, if not its impact.
What distinguishes a hate crime from other crimes is intent. Generally, the intent in a hate crime is to spread fear beyond the act itself.
If a delinquent spraypaints “David Greenwald Rocks!” on another person’s property, that is vandalism and not a hate crime. His intent was not to spread fear.
If, on the other hand, he spaypainted, “Kill the Jews!,” it’s reasonable to infer that his intent was to spread fear to the Jewish community.
In the case at Holmes, even though the effect of the hateful words may have been to spread fear, there may be good reason to not believe that was this person’s intent. And because intent is what distinguishes hate crimes from other crimes, what she did is perhaps not a hate crime.
“Frankly I do not see how the fact that the perpetrators were not white changes the impact of the incident.”
It probably does change the criminal nature of this incident, if not its impact.
What distinguishes a hate crime from other crimes is intent. Generally, the intent in a hate crime is to spread fear beyond the act itself.
If a delinquent spraypaints “David Greenwald Rocks!” on another person’s property, that is vandalism and not a hate crime. His intent was not to spread fear.
If, on the other hand, he spaypainted, “Kill the Jews!,” it’s reasonable to infer that his intent was to spread fear to the Jewish community.
In the case at Holmes, even though the effect of the hateful words may have been to spread fear, there may be good reason to not believe that was this person’s intent. And because intent is what distinguishes hate crimes from other crimes, what she did is perhaps not a hate crime.
DPD —
There is a larger problem here in Davis, but it isn’t with hate crime. It’s with bias, but not the one you suggest. Let’s begin with defining hate crime, from Wikipedia:
“crimes (also known as bias motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her membership in a certain social group, usually defined by race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation.[1] Hate crimes differ from conventional crime because they are not directed simply at an individual, but are meant to cause fear and intimidation in an entire group or class of people.”
Clearly, the incident you refer to as hate crime is not- the perpetrator’s apparent intention was not to strike fear or intimidation into the community of African Americans or Asians – their intent was to trick the police and Davis citizens into jumping to conclusions about a wave of hate crime breaking out in the city and therefore, to avoid suspicion for their vandalism crime. Fortunately, our police department, and the Enterprise, following the lead of the police department, reviewed the actual evidence and correctly determined this was probably not a hate crime, and did not needlessly agitate the community by making it a bigger issue than it was.
Unfortunately, you and Jann Murray Garcia and several others,decided, despite evidence to the contrary, and despite knowing the police department conclusions, that this was another shred of evidence that tolerance was lacking in Davis, and you roundly criticized the Enterprise and police department for their reaction. On December 22, you wrote “The troubling aspect to the individual involved and to a number of people I have since spoken with is the apparent lack of response in Davis either by the Davis Police Department and small and scant coverage in the newspaper.” I would suggest that misdemeanor crimes do not warrant page 1 notice for the Enterprise, or for that matter, for the Vanguard. On January 3rd, you wrote “Without the substantial reporting and historical context of hate crimes in Davis, our public memory, our community conscience is compromised. Our ability to parent and teach and police, our ability to remember, is compromised.” I would suggest that premature judgement about hate crimes and other similarly charged issues actually does much more damage – it destroys credibility for those who inaccurately report such things and it may create significant, unjustified, devisive backlash in the community.
I want to be clear, I do not condone hate, or any other, crimes. I think the perpetrators should be punished for what they did, and I do think it is a learning opportunity regarding how words can hurt. I also think that you, and the others who clearly over-reacted, should be learning something else from this. The perpetrators understood that there is a bias of over-reaction and histrionics among some in the Davis community, and they hoped it would allow them to escape from their vandalism crime. Fortunately, their plan was foiled.
DPD —
There is a larger problem here in Davis, but it isn’t with hate crime. It’s with bias, but not the one you suggest. Let’s begin with defining hate crime, from Wikipedia:
“crimes (also known as bias motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her membership in a certain social group, usually defined by race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation.[1] Hate crimes differ from conventional crime because they are not directed simply at an individual, but are meant to cause fear and intimidation in an entire group or class of people.”
Clearly, the incident you refer to as hate crime is not- the perpetrator’s apparent intention was not to strike fear or intimidation into the community of African Americans or Asians – their intent was to trick the police and Davis citizens into jumping to conclusions about a wave of hate crime breaking out in the city and therefore, to avoid suspicion for their vandalism crime. Fortunately, our police department, and the Enterprise, following the lead of the police department, reviewed the actual evidence and correctly determined this was probably not a hate crime, and did not needlessly agitate the community by making it a bigger issue than it was.
Unfortunately, you and Jann Murray Garcia and several others,decided, despite evidence to the contrary, and despite knowing the police department conclusions, that this was another shred of evidence that tolerance was lacking in Davis, and you roundly criticized the Enterprise and police department for their reaction. On December 22, you wrote “The troubling aspect to the individual involved and to a number of people I have since spoken with is the apparent lack of response in Davis either by the Davis Police Department and small and scant coverage in the newspaper.” I would suggest that misdemeanor crimes do not warrant page 1 notice for the Enterprise, or for that matter, for the Vanguard. On January 3rd, you wrote “Without the substantial reporting and historical context of hate crimes in Davis, our public memory, our community conscience is compromised. Our ability to parent and teach and police, our ability to remember, is compromised.” I would suggest that premature judgement about hate crimes and other similarly charged issues actually does much more damage – it destroys credibility for those who inaccurately report such things and it may create significant, unjustified, devisive backlash in the community.
I want to be clear, I do not condone hate, or any other, crimes. I think the perpetrators should be punished for what they did, and I do think it is a learning opportunity regarding how words can hurt. I also think that you, and the others who clearly over-reacted, should be learning something else from this. The perpetrators understood that there is a bias of over-reaction and histrionics among some in the Davis community, and they hoped it would allow them to escape from their vandalism crime. Fortunately, their plan was foiled.
DPD —
There is a larger problem here in Davis, but it isn’t with hate crime. It’s with bias, but not the one you suggest. Let’s begin with defining hate crime, from Wikipedia:
“crimes (also known as bias motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her membership in a certain social group, usually defined by race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation.[1] Hate crimes differ from conventional crime because they are not directed simply at an individual, but are meant to cause fear and intimidation in an entire group or class of people.”
Clearly, the incident you refer to as hate crime is not- the perpetrator’s apparent intention was not to strike fear or intimidation into the community of African Americans or Asians – their intent was to trick the police and Davis citizens into jumping to conclusions about a wave of hate crime breaking out in the city and therefore, to avoid suspicion for their vandalism crime. Fortunately, our police department, and the Enterprise, following the lead of the police department, reviewed the actual evidence and correctly determined this was probably not a hate crime, and did not needlessly agitate the community by making it a bigger issue than it was.
Unfortunately, you and Jann Murray Garcia and several others,decided, despite evidence to the contrary, and despite knowing the police department conclusions, that this was another shred of evidence that tolerance was lacking in Davis, and you roundly criticized the Enterprise and police department for their reaction. On December 22, you wrote “The troubling aspect to the individual involved and to a number of people I have since spoken with is the apparent lack of response in Davis either by the Davis Police Department and small and scant coverage in the newspaper.” I would suggest that misdemeanor crimes do not warrant page 1 notice for the Enterprise, or for that matter, for the Vanguard. On January 3rd, you wrote “Without the substantial reporting and historical context of hate crimes in Davis, our public memory, our community conscience is compromised. Our ability to parent and teach and police, our ability to remember, is compromised.” I would suggest that premature judgement about hate crimes and other similarly charged issues actually does much more damage – it destroys credibility for those who inaccurately report such things and it may create significant, unjustified, devisive backlash in the community.
I want to be clear, I do not condone hate, or any other, crimes. I think the perpetrators should be punished for what they did, and I do think it is a learning opportunity regarding how words can hurt. I also think that you, and the others who clearly over-reacted, should be learning something else from this. The perpetrators understood that there is a bias of over-reaction and histrionics among some in the Davis community, and they hoped it would allow them to escape from their vandalism crime. Fortunately, their plan was foiled.
DPD —
There is a larger problem here in Davis, but it isn’t with hate crime. It’s with bias, but not the one you suggest. Let’s begin with defining hate crime, from Wikipedia:
“crimes (also known as bias motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her membership in a certain social group, usually defined by race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation.[1] Hate crimes differ from conventional crime because they are not directed simply at an individual, but are meant to cause fear and intimidation in an entire group or class of people.”
Clearly, the incident you refer to as hate crime is not- the perpetrator’s apparent intention was not to strike fear or intimidation into the community of African Americans or Asians – their intent was to trick the police and Davis citizens into jumping to conclusions about a wave of hate crime breaking out in the city and therefore, to avoid suspicion for their vandalism crime. Fortunately, our police department, and the Enterprise, following the lead of the police department, reviewed the actual evidence and correctly determined this was probably not a hate crime, and did not needlessly agitate the community by making it a bigger issue than it was.
Unfortunately, you and Jann Murray Garcia and several others,decided, despite evidence to the contrary, and despite knowing the police department conclusions, that this was another shred of evidence that tolerance was lacking in Davis, and you roundly criticized the Enterprise and police department for their reaction. On December 22, you wrote “The troubling aspect to the individual involved and to a number of people I have since spoken with is the apparent lack of response in Davis either by the Davis Police Department and small and scant coverage in the newspaper.” I would suggest that misdemeanor crimes do not warrant page 1 notice for the Enterprise, or for that matter, for the Vanguard. On January 3rd, you wrote “Without the substantial reporting and historical context of hate crimes in Davis, our public memory, our community conscience is compromised. Our ability to parent and teach and police, our ability to remember, is compromised.” I would suggest that premature judgement about hate crimes and other similarly charged issues actually does much more damage – it destroys credibility for those who inaccurately report such things and it may create significant, unjustified, devisive backlash in the community.
I want to be clear, I do not condone hate, or any other, crimes. I think the perpetrators should be punished for what they did, and I do think it is a learning opportunity regarding how words can hurt. I also think that you, and the others who clearly over-reacted, should be learning something else from this. The perpetrators understood that there is a bias of over-reaction and histrionics among some in the Davis community, and they hoped it would allow them to escape from their vandalism crime. Fortunately, their plan was foiled.
The December 22 article refers to a different incident than the one in question.
I disagree with your conclusion–the effect here is the same as before. In fact, the intent here could be argued to stir up racial tensions within the community, to make it easier for people like you to dismiss a hate crime the next time it occurs as perpetrated by a white person. I very much believe that this incident is far more insidiously than an ordinary hate crime because it strikes at the very fabric of the community’s response–it serves to undermine community response, to blunt it, to dull it, to make it easier to negate in the future.
No doubt that was not their intent, but the effect here could be catastrophic and your response here underscores that. You’ve turned this now on myself and Jann Murray-Garcia because we dared to show concern and believed the community should receive better access to information from the local paper than to have a story buried on page 4.
I understand that you may not agree with that, but I maintain that regardless of the eventual facts that this story was front page newsworthy. And it remains such.
The December 22 article refers to a different incident than the one in question.
I disagree with your conclusion–the effect here is the same as before. In fact, the intent here could be argued to stir up racial tensions within the community, to make it easier for people like you to dismiss a hate crime the next time it occurs as perpetrated by a white person. I very much believe that this incident is far more insidiously than an ordinary hate crime because it strikes at the very fabric of the community’s response–it serves to undermine community response, to blunt it, to dull it, to make it easier to negate in the future.
No doubt that was not their intent, but the effect here could be catastrophic and your response here underscores that. You’ve turned this now on myself and Jann Murray-Garcia because we dared to show concern and believed the community should receive better access to information from the local paper than to have a story buried on page 4.
I understand that you may not agree with that, but I maintain that regardless of the eventual facts that this story was front page newsworthy. And it remains such.
The December 22 article refers to a different incident than the one in question.
I disagree with your conclusion–the effect here is the same as before. In fact, the intent here could be argued to stir up racial tensions within the community, to make it easier for people like you to dismiss a hate crime the next time it occurs as perpetrated by a white person. I very much believe that this incident is far more insidiously than an ordinary hate crime because it strikes at the very fabric of the community’s response–it serves to undermine community response, to blunt it, to dull it, to make it easier to negate in the future.
No doubt that was not their intent, but the effect here could be catastrophic and your response here underscores that. You’ve turned this now on myself and Jann Murray-Garcia because we dared to show concern and believed the community should receive better access to information from the local paper than to have a story buried on page 4.
I understand that you may not agree with that, but I maintain that regardless of the eventual facts that this story was front page newsworthy. And it remains such.
The December 22 article refers to a different incident than the one in question.
I disagree with your conclusion–the effect here is the same as before. In fact, the intent here could be argued to stir up racial tensions within the community, to make it easier for people like you to dismiss a hate crime the next time it occurs as perpetrated by a white person. I very much believe that this incident is far more insidiously than an ordinary hate crime because it strikes at the very fabric of the community’s response–it serves to undermine community response, to blunt it, to dull it, to make it easier to negate in the future.
No doubt that was not their intent, but the effect here could be catastrophic and your response here underscores that. You’ve turned this now on myself and Jann Murray-Garcia because we dared to show concern and believed the community should receive better access to information from the local paper than to have a story buried on page 4.
I understand that you may not agree with that, but I maintain that regardless of the eventual facts that this story was front page newsworthy. And it remains such.
This race baiting activity is very harmful to our community. I think that race-baiting by DavisVanguard is a racist activity and I wish that it would stop.
This race baiting activity is very harmful to our community. I think that race-baiting by DavisVanguard is a racist activity and I wish that it would stop.
This race baiting activity is very harmful to our community. I think that race-baiting by DavisVanguard is a racist activity and I wish that it would stop.
This race baiting activity is very harmful to our community. I think that race-baiting by DavisVanguard is a racist activity and I wish that it would stop.
The December 22 article refers to a different incident than the one in question.
I disagree with your conclusion–the effect here is the same as before. In fact, the intent here could be argued to stir up racial tensions within the community, to make it easier for people like you to dismiss a hate crime the next time it occurs as perpetrated by a white person. I very much believe that this incident is far more insidiously than an ordinary hate crime because it strikes at the very fabric of the community’s response–it serves to undermine community response, to blunt it, to dull it, to make it easier to negate in the future.
No doubt that was not their intent, but the effect here could be catastrophic and your response here underscores that. You’ve turned this now on myself and Jann Murray-Garcia because we dared to show concern and believed the community should receive better access to information from the local paper than to have a story buried on page 4.
I understand that you may not agree with that, but I maintain that regardless of the eventual facts that this story was front page newsworthy. And it remains such.
The December 22 article refers to a different incident than the one in question.
I disagree with your conclusion–the effect here is the same as before. In fact, the intent here could be argued to stir up racial tensions within the community, to make it easier for people like you to dismiss a hate crime the next time it occurs as perpetrated by a white person. I very much believe that this incident is far more insidiously than an ordinary hate crime because it strikes at the very fabric of the community’s response–it serves to undermine community response, to blunt it, to dull it, to make it easier to negate in the future.
No doubt that was not their intent, but the effect here could be catastrophic and your response here underscores that. You’ve turned this now on myself and Jann Murray-Garcia because we dared to show concern and believed the community should receive better access to information from the local paper than to have a story buried on page 4.
I understand that you may not agree with that, but I maintain that regardless of the eventual facts that this story was front page newsworthy. And it remains such.
The December 22 article refers to a different incident than the one in question.
I disagree with your conclusion–the effect here is the same as before. In fact, the intent here could be argued to stir up racial tensions within the community, to make it easier for people like you to dismiss a hate crime the next time it occurs as perpetrated by a white person. I very much believe that this incident is far more insidiously than an ordinary hate crime because it strikes at the very fabric of the community’s response–it serves to undermine community response, to blunt it, to dull it, to make it easier to negate in the future.
No doubt that was not their intent, but the effect here could be catastrophic and your response here underscores that. You’ve turned this now on myself and Jann Murray-Garcia because we dared to show concern and believed the community should receive better access to information from the local paper than to have a story buried on page 4.
I understand that you may not agree with that, but I maintain that regardless of the eventual facts that this story was front page newsworthy. And it remains such.
The December 22 article refers to a different incident than the one in question.
I disagree with your conclusion–the effect here is the same as before. In fact, the intent here could be argued to stir up racial tensions within the community, to make it easier for people like you to dismiss a hate crime the next time it occurs as perpetrated by a white person. I very much believe that this incident is far more insidiously than an ordinary hate crime because it strikes at the very fabric of the community’s response–it serves to undermine community response, to blunt it, to dull it, to make it easier to negate in the future.
No doubt that was not their intent, but the effect here could be catastrophic and your response here underscores that. You’ve turned this now on myself and Jann Murray-Garcia because we dared to show concern and believed the community should receive better access to information from the local paper than to have a story buried on page 4.
I understand that you may not agree with that, but I maintain that regardless of the eventual facts that this story was front page newsworthy. And it remains such.
“I very much believe that this incident is far more insidious than an ordinary hate crime because it strikes at the very fabric of the community’s response–it serves to undermine community response, to blunt it, to dull it, to make it easier to negate in the future.”
I don’t know if it is “far more insidious,” but I agree that ruses like this could dull the community response in the future.
It is for that reason that I think diogenes makes a good point: it is more responsible of journalists to back off. Don’t make this kind of thing front page news before the facts are clear. Until intent is extablished, it should be reported as “a vandalism incident.”
Not too long ago, we had two highly publicized false rape allegations. Both made front page news, as if the rapes actually occurred. The first of these targetted “skateboarders.” Letters to the editor followed, saying “skateboarders” in Davis are a menace. I don’t know if teenaged boys who rode skateboards were threatened by the atmosphere, but clearly that was possible in the climate of fear generated by that premature publicity.
Because that story proved false — as did the later one of the UCD co-ed who claimed to have been attacked around 1st and A Streets — it’s easy to blame the reporting after the fact. I don’t know how I would have done things differently had I been in charge of those stories. However, I think all of us should take those ruses, as well as this one, as a lesson: things are not always what they first appear, and until facts are well established, it’s not a bad idea to procede with caution.
“I very much believe that this incident is far more insidious than an ordinary hate crime because it strikes at the very fabric of the community’s response–it serves to undermine community response, to blunt it, to dull it, to make it easier to negate in the future.”
I don’t know if it is “far more insidious,” but I agree that ruses like this could dull the community response in the future.
It is for that reason that I think diogenes makes a good point: it is more responsible of journalists to back off. Don’t make this kind of thing front page news before the facts are clear. Until intent is extablished, it should be reported as “a vandalism incident.”
Not too long ago, we had two highly publicized false rape allegations. Both made front page news, as if the rapes actually occurred. The first of these targetted “skateboarders.” Letters to the editor followed, saying “skateboarders” in Davis are a menace. I don’t know if teenaged boys who rode skateboards were threatened by the atmosphere, but clearly that was possible in the climate of fear generated by that premature publicity.
Because that story proved false — as did the later one of the UCD co-ed who claimed to have been attacked around 1st and A Streets — it’s easy to blame the reporting after the fact. I don’t know how I would have done things differently had I been in charge of those stories. However, I think all of us should take those ruses, as well as this one, as a lesson: things are not always what they first appear, and until facts are well established, it’s not a bad idea to procede with caution.
“I very much believe that this incident is far more insidious than an ordinary hate crime because it strikes at the very fabric of the community’s response–it serves to undermine community response, to blunt it, to dull it, to make it easier to negate in the future.”
I don’t know if it is “far more insidious,” but I agree that ruses like this could dull the community response in the future.
It is for that reason that I think diogenes makes a good point: it is more responsible of journalists to back off. Don’t make this kind of thing front page news before the facts are clear. Until intent is extablished, it should be reported as “a vandalism incident.”
Not too long ago, we had two highly publicized false rape allegations. Both made front page news, as if the rapes actually occurred. The first of these targetted “skateboarders.” Letters to the editor followed, saying “skateboarders” in Davis are a menace. I don’t know if teenaged boys who rode skateboards were threatened by the atmosphere, but clearly that was possible in the climate of fear generated by that premature publicity.
Because that story proved false — as did the later one of the UCD co-ed who claimed to have been attacked around 1st and A Streets — it’s easy to blame the reporting after the fact. I don’t know how I would have done things differently had I been in charge of those stories. However, I think all of us should take those ruses, as well as this one, as a lesson: things are not always what they first appear, and until facts are well established, it’s not a bad idea to procede with caution.
“I very much believe that this incident is far more insidious than an ordinary hate crime because it strikes at the very fabric of the community’s response–it serves to undermine community response, to blunt it, to dull it, to make it easier to negate in the future.”
I don’t know if it is “far more insidious,” but I agree that ruses like this could dull the community response in the future.
It is for that reason that I think diogenes makes a good point: it is more responsible of journalists to back off. Don’t make this kind of thing front page news before the facts are clear. Until intent is extablished, it should be reported as “a vandalism incident.”
Not too long ago, we had two highly publicized false rape allegations. Both made front page news, as if the rapes actually occurred. The first of these targetted “skateboarders.” Letters to the editor followed, saying “skateboarders” in Davis are a menace. I don’t know if teenaged boys who rode skateboards were threatened by the atmosphere, but clearly that was possible in the climate of fear generated by that premature publicity.
Because that story proved false — as did the later one of the UCD co-ed who claimed to have been attacked around 1st and A Streets — it’s easy to blame the reporting after the fact. I don’t know how I would have done things differently had I been in charge of those stories. However, I think all of us should take those ruses, as well as this one, as a lesson: things are not always what they first appear, and until facts are well established, it’s not a bad idea to procede with caution.
When the first graffiti incident occurred perpetrated by the high school kids, I thought the page 4 coverage in the Davis Enterprise was appropriate. Just a few weeks later a similar incident perpetrated by African American junior high students, obviously with a twist, gets front page coverage. Why? I have often given the Davis Enterprise the benefit of the doubt. They no longer get an automatic pass from me.
When the first graffiti incident occurred perpetrated by the high school kids, I thought the page 4 coverage in the Davis Enterprise was appropriate. Just a few weeks later a similar incident perpetrated by African American junior high students, obviously with a twist, gets front page coverage. Why? I have often given the Davis Enterprise the benefit of the doubt. They no longer get an automatic pass from me.
When the first graffiti incident occurred perpetrated by the high school kids, I thought the page 4 coverage in the Davis Enterprise was appropriate. Just a few weeks later a similar incident perpetrated by African American junior high students, obviously with a twist, gets front page coverage. Why? I have often given the Davis Enterprise the benefit of the doubt. They no longer get an automatic pass from me.
When the first graffiti incident occurred perpetrated by the high school kids, I thought the page 4 coverage in the Davis Enterprise was appropriate. Just a few weeks later a similar incident perpetrated by African American junior high students, obviously with a twist, gets front page coverage. Why? I have often given the Davis Enterprise the benefit of the doubt. They no longer get an automatic pass from me.
Rich:
You make a good point, the problem is when do we properly assume we know the facts and respond. If we wait until a month or two after an incident, there is no response. If we respond immediately, we may jump the gun. The other point that needs to be made is that the incident I reported on was not the Homes incident, it was an incident involving a private residence.
Rich:
You make a good point, the problem is when do we properly assume we know the facts and respond. If we wait until a month or two after an incident, there is no response. If we respond immediately, we may jump the gun. The other point that needs to be made is that the incident I reported on was not the Homes incident, it was an incident involving a private residence.
Rich:
You make a good point, the problem is when do we properly assume we know the facts and respond. If we wait until a month or two after an incident, there is no response. If we respond immediately, we may jump the gun. The other point that needs to be made is that the incident I reported on was not the Homes incident, it was an incident involving a private residence.
Rich:
You make a good point, the problem is when do we properly assume we know the facts and respond. If we wait until a month or two after an incident, there is no response. If we respond immediately, we may jump the gun. The other point that needs to be made is that the incident I reported on was not the Homes incident, it was an incident involving a private residence.
yawn… this continues to be a crusade in quest of a problem.
yawn… this continues to be a crusade in quest of a problem.
yawn… this continues to be a crusade in quest of a problem.
yawn… this continues to be a crusade in quest of a problem.
Mike: From my perspective I see one well-thought out response from Diogenes and then a bunch of rude comments. Do you think making derisive comments are going to convince those of us who have not made up their minds yet?
Mike: From my perspective I see one well-thought out response from Diogenes and then a bunch of rude comments. Do you think making derisive comments are going to convince those of us who have not made up their minds yet?
Mike: From my perspective I see one well-thought out response from Diogenes and then a bunch of rude comments. Do you think making derisive comments are going to convince those of us who have not made up their minds yet?
Mike: From my perspective I see one well-thought out response from Diogenes and then a bunch of rude comments. Do you think making derisive comments are going to convince those of us who have not made up their minds yet?
“yawn… this continues to be a crusade in quest of a problem.”
You’re absolutely correct Mike, there is no problem whatsoever with a bunch of kids defacing school property with racial epithets, whatever was he thinking.
“yawn… this continues to be a crusade in quest of a problem.”
You’re absolutely correct Mike, there is no problem whatsoever with a bunch of kids defacing school property with racial epithets, whatever was he thinking.
“yawn… this continues to be a crusade in quest of a problem.”
You’re absolutely correct Mike, there is no problem whatsoever with a bunch of kids defacing school property with racial epithets, whatever was he thinking.
“yawn… this continues to be a crusade in quest of a problem.”
You’re absolutely correct Mike, there is no problem whatsoever with a bunch of kids defacing school property with racial epithets, whatever was he thinking.
People who fabricate hate crimes should be treated the same way as those who commit real hate crime – the current law does not do that and therefore is flawed. Both real and false hate crime are intended to increase the level of racial fear/hatred, regardless of other underlying reasons.
I have counted four fabricated hate crimes in Davis (too many) and there is always more interest in the allegations than in the reality. In fact 5-6 years ago I think the Davis Police were actually encouraging people to fabricate this sort of thing. Now they seem to be interested in doing proper investigations rather than taking the easy approach and being politically correct.
Obviously, hate crimes are horrible. However, when I hear about an alleged hate crime in Davis I am always skeptical. Clearly, when someone writes a racial slur on someone’s garage door that seems conclusive. In most cases there is no real evidence, it is just one person’s word against another person’s word. It is important to listen to both sides before drawing any conclusions.
People who fabricate hate crimes should be treated the same way as those who commit real hate crime – the current law does not do that and therefore is flawed. Both real and false hate crime are intended to increase the level of racial fear/hatred, regardless of other underlying reasons.
I have counted four fabricated hate crimes in Davis (too many) and there is always more interest in the allegations than in the reality. In fact 5-6 years ago I think the Davis Police were actually encouraging people to fabricate this sort of thing. Now they seem to be interested in doing proper investigations rather than taking the easy approach and being politically correct.
Obviously, hate crimes are horrible. However, when I hear about an alleged hate crime in Davis I am always skeptical. Clearly, when someone writes a racial slur on someone’s garage door that seems conclusive. In most cases there is no real evidence, it is just one person’s word against another person’s word. It is important to listen to both sides before drawing any conclusions.
People who fabricate hate crimes should be treated the same way as those who commit real hate crime – the current law does not do that and therefore is flawed. Both real and false hate crime are intended to increase the level of racial fear/hatred, regardless of other underlying reasons.
I have counted four fabricated hate crimes in Davis (too many) and there is always more interest in the allegations than in the reality. In fact 5-6 years ago I think the Davis Police were actually encouraging people to fabricate this sort of thing. Now they seem to be interested in doing proper investigations rather than taking the easy approach and being politically correct.
Obviously, hate crimes are horrible. However, when I hear about an alleged hate crime in Davis I am always skeptical. Clearly, when someone writes a racial slur on someone’s garage door that seems conclusive. In most cases there is no real evidence, it is just one person’s word against another person’s word. It is important to listen to both sides before drawing any conclusions.
People who fabricate hate crimes should be treated the same way as those who commit real hate crime – the current law does not do that and therefore is flawed. Both real and false hate crime are intended to increase the level of racial fear/hatred, regardless of other underlying reasons.
I have counted four fabricated hate crimes in Davis (too many) and there is always more interest in the allegations than in the reality. In fact 5-6 years ago I think the Davis Police were actually encouraging people to fabricate this sort of thing. Now they seem to be interested in doing proper investigations rather than taking the easy approach and being politically correct.
Obviously, hate crimes are horrible. However, when I hear about an alleged hate crime in Davis I am always skeptical. Clearly, when someone writes a racial slur on someone’s garage door that seems conclusive. In most cases there is no real evidence, it is just one person’s word against another person’s word. It is important to listen to both sides before drawing any conclusions.
Why can’t we all just get along? Why must we have this text-on-text violence?
You know, I once had a kid in Junior High accuse me of ‘not liking him because (he) was Jewish.’
I had no idea he was Jewish. I didn’t like him because he was a jerk.
Don’t be too quick to play the hate crime card.
Why can’t we all just get along? Why must we have this text-on-text violence?
You know, I once had a kid in Junior High accuse me of ‘not liking him because (he) was Jewish.’
I had no idea he was Jewish. I didn’t like him because he was a jerk.
Don’t be too quick to play the hate crime card.
Why can’t we all just get along? Why must we have this text-on-text violence?
You know, I once had a kid in Junior High accuse me of ‘not liking him because (he) was Jewish.’
I had no idea he was Jewish. I didn’t like him because he was a jerk.
Don’t be too quick to play the hate crime card.
Why can’t we all just get along? Why must we have this text-on-text violence?
You know, I once had a kid in Junior High accuse me of ‘not liking him because (he) was Jewish.’
I had no idea he was Jewish. I didn’t like him because he was a jerk.
Don’t be too quick to play the hate crime card.
Thanks to the davis vanguard, and murray-garcia, people are being taught how to make mountains of mole hills within the vanguard.
Thanks to the davis vanguard, and murray-garcia, people are being taught how to make mountains of mole hills within the vanguard.
Thanks to the davis vanguard, and murray-garcia, people are being taught how to make mountains of mole hills within the vanguard.
Thanks to the davis vanguard, and murray-garcia, people are being taught how to make mountains of mole hills within the vanguard.
“In fact 5-6 years ago I think the Davis Police were actually encouraging people to fabricate this sort of thing.”
Sah,
That’s an outrageous claim. Do you have any evidence?
I assume you are just blowing smoke.
“In fact 5-6 years ago I think the Davis Police were actually encouraging people to fabricate this sort of thing.”
Sah,
That’s an outrageous claim. Do you have any evidence?
I assume you are just blowing smoke.
“In fact 5-6 years ago I think the Davis Police were actually encouraging people to fabricate this sort of thing.”
Sah,
That’s an outrageous claim. Do you have any evidence?
I assume you are just blowing smoke.
“In fact 5-6 years ago I think the Davis Police were actually encouraging people to fabricate this sort of thing.”
Sah,
That’s an outrageous claim. Do you have any evidence?
I assume you are just blowing smoke.
Rich,
There you go again believing everything you think. Sometimes you make sense and other times you make ridiculous statements. Are you blowing smoke or just “smokin”?
Rich,
There you go again believing everything you think. Sometimes you make sense and other times you make ridiculous statements. Are you blowing smoke or just “smokin”?
Rich,
There you go again believing everything you think. Sometimes you make sense and other times you make ridiculous statements. Are you blowing smoke or just “smokin”?
Rich,
There you go again believing everything you think. Sometimes you make sense and other times you make ridiculous statements. Are you blowing smoke or just “smokin”?
“There you go again believing everything you think.”
How crazy of me.
Anonymous and SAH – I guess I am smoking too. Why would the Davis Police Department encourage people to fabricate such stories?
To Moderate – I guess you must be new to this blog. The comments today are rather mild. A bunch of rude comments? Maybe one at best!
“There you go again believing everything you think.”
How crazy of me.
Anonymous and SAH – I guess I am smoking too. Why would the Davis Police Department encourage people to fabricate such stories?
To Moderate – I guess you must be new to this blog. The comments today are rather mild. A bunch of rude comments? Maybe one at best!
“There you go again believing everything you think.”
How crazy of me.
Anonymous and SAH – I guess I am smoking too. Why would the Davis Police Department encourage people to fabricate such stories?
To Moderate – I guess you must be new to this blog. The comments today are rather mild. A bunch of rude comments? Maybe one at best!
“There you go again believing everything you think.”
How crazy of me.
Anonymous and SAH – I guess I am smoking too. Why would the Davis Police Department encourage people to fabricate such stories?
To Moderate – I guess you must be new to this blog. The comments today are rather mild. A bunch of rude comments? Maybe one at best!
Rich
Why don’t you look into the Oxford Circle Park case involving 3 quasi homeless people – one black and two white. The police officer involved sought out and encouraged the black person to file a false hate crime charge even though the black person was the one who started the fight. The same police officers completely/intentionally ignored the independent witnesses. The case was almost immediately thrown out when the witnesses went to the DA. I think the police officer was given a policeman of the year award. This was a case of self promotion and complete disregard of the truth. Would you like his name?
Rich
Why don’t you look into the Oxford Circle Park case involving 3 quasi homeless people – one black and two white. The police officer involved sought out and encouraged the black person to file a false hate crime charge even though the black person was the one who started the fight. The same police officers completely/intentionally ignored the independent witnesses. The case was almost immediately thrown out when the witnesses went to the DA. I think the police officer was given a policeman of the year award. This was a case of self promotion and complete disregard of the truth. Would you like his name?
Rich
Why don’t you look into the Oxford Circle Park case involving 3 quasi homeless people – one black and two white. The police officer involved sought out and encouraged the black person to file a false hate crime charge even though the black person was the one who started the fight. The same police officers completely/intentionally ignored the independent witnesses. The case was almost immediately thrown out when the witnesses went to the DA. I think the police officer was given a policeman of the year award. This was a case of self promotion and complete disregard of the truth. Would you like his name?
Rich
Why don’t you look into the Oxford Circle Park case involving 3 quasi homeless people – one black and two white. The police officer involved sought out and encouraged the black person to file a false hate crime charge even though the black person was the one who started the fight. The same police officers completely/intentionally ignored the independent witnesses. The case was almost immediately thrown out when the witnesses went to the DA. I think the police officer was given a policeman of the year award. This was a case of self promotion and complete disregard of the truth. Would you like his name?
I should have pointed out in January (2003 or 2004)the police officer was given officer of the year award. Then a month later the officer’s “great work” was tossed because it was not true.
I know this story is in the record of the Davis Enterprise, just look it up.
I do not smoke anything, although I suppose I may be a little high after just finishing a box of Good and Plenty.
I should have pointed out in January (2003 or 2004)the police officer was given officer of the year award. Then a month later the officer’s “great work” was tossed because it was not true.
I know this story is in the record of the Davis Enterprise, just look it up.
I do not smoke anything, although I suppose I may be a little high after just finishing a box of Good and Plenty.
I should have pointed out in January (2003 or 2004)the police officer was given officer of the year award. Then a month later the officer’s “great work” was tossed because it was not true.
I know this story is in the record of the Davis Enterprise, just look it up.
I do not smoke anything, although I suppose I may be a little high after just finishing a box of Good and Plenty.
I should have pointed out in January (2003 or 2004)the police officer was given officer of the year award. Then a month later the officer’s “great work” was tossed because it was not true.
I know this story is in the record of the Davis Enterprise, just look it up.
I do not smoke anything, although I suppose I may be a little high after just finishing a box of Good and Plenty.
The vandalism at Holmes Junior High was not a minor crime. There was over $3000 worth of damage to the school – racial slurs, hateful messages directed at specific teachers, broken windows, etc. The girl was angry, yes. She recruited and involved others in her crime, yes. She did it to strike back at the school in general and, yes, strike fear in the students and staff. It doesn’t matter that she is black and felt that the police would be sure that only a white person would commit a crime in this manner. This was a hate crime, pure and simple. Thank god she didn’t do something more violent. Mike and other annonymous posters who brush this off are misguided in their response.
The vandalism at Holmes Junior High was not a minor crime. There was over $3000 worth of damage to the school – racial slurs, hateful messages directed at specific teachers, broken windows, etc. The girl was angry, yes. She recruited and involved others in her crime, yes. She did it to strike back at the school in general and, yes, strike fear in the students and staff. It doesn’t matter that she is black and felt that the police would be sure that only a white person would commit a crime in this manner. This was a hate crime, pure and simple. Thank god she didn’t do something more violent. Mike and other annonymous posters who brush this off are misguided in their response.
The vandalism at Holmes Junior High was not a minor crime. There was over $3000 worth of damage to the school – racial slurs, hateful messages directed at specific teachers, broken windows, etc. The girl was angry, yes. She recruited and involved others in her crime, yes. She did it to strike back at the school in general and, yes, strike fear in the students and staff. It doesn’t matter that she is black and felt that the police would be sure that only a white person would commit a crime in this manner. This was a hate crime, pure and simple. Thank god she didn’t do something more violent. Mike and other annonymous posters who brush this off are misguided in their response.
The vandalism at Holmes Junior High was not a minor crime. There was over $3000 worth of damage to the school – racial slurs, hateful messages directed at specific teachers, broken windows, etc. The girl was angry, yes. She recruited and involved others in her crime, yes. She did it to strike back at the school in general and, yes, strike fear in the students and staff. It doesn’t matter that she is black and felt that the police would be sure that only a white person would commit a crime in this manner. This was a hate crime, pure and simple. Thank god she didn’t do something more violent. Mike and other annonymous posters who brush this off are misguided in their response.
Let us not over-analyze here. I think you have spoiled brat teenagers whom commit a crime and use whatever means at their disposal to avoid getting caught. I don’t think they did it because of a dislike of whites, they did it to get the police to chase phantoms. It backfired.
Let us not over-analyze here. I think you have spoiled brat teenagers whom commit a crime and use whatever means at their disposal to avoid getting caught. I don’t think they did it because of a dislike of whites, they did it to get the police to chase phantoms. It backfired.
Let us not over-analyze here. I think you have spoiled brat teenagers whom commit a crime and use whatever means at their disposal to avoid getting caught. I don’t think they did it because of a dislike of whites, they did it to get the police to chase phantoms. It backfired.
Let us not over-analyze here. I think you have spoiled brat teenagers whom commit a crime and use whatever means at their disposal to avoid getting caught. I don’t think they did it because of a dislike of whites, they did it to get the police to chase phantoms. It backfired.
“I know this story is in the record of the Davis Enterprise, just look it up.”
Fair enough, Sah. I’ll look into it.
If it is the case that what you’ve described is true and was the actions of one officer, unbeknownst to his supervisors (regardless of any awards he received), that would be one thing. It would be something else if he was encouraged to fabricate a story or encourage witnesses to lie. That, I am quite sure, is a crime; and it is for that reason that (at this point) I doubt the veracity of your charge.
“I know this story is in the record of the Davis Enterprise, just look it up.”
Fair enough, Sah. I’ll look into it.
If it is the case that what you’ve described is true and was the actions of one officer, unbeknownst to his supervisors (regardless of any awards he received), that would be one thing. It would be something else if he was encouraged to fabricate a story or encourage witnesses to lie. That, I am quite sure, is a crime; and it is for that reason that (at this point) I doubt the veracity of your charge.
“I know this story is in the record of the Davis Enterprise, just look it up.”
Fair enough, Sah. I’ll look into it.
If it is the case that what you’ve described is true and was the actions of one officer, unbeknownst to his supervisors (regardless of any awards he received), that would be one thing. It would be something else if he was encouraged to fabricate a story or encourage witnesses to lie. That, I am quite sure, is a crime; and it is for that reason that (at this point) I doubt the veracity of your charge.
“I know this story is in the record of the Davis Enterprise, just look it up.”
Fair enough, Sah. I’ll look into it.
If it is the case that what you’ve described is true and was the actions of one officer, unbeknownst to his supervisors (regardless of any awards he received), that would be one thing. It would be something else if he was encouraged to fabricate a story or encourage witnesses to lie. That, I am quite sure, is a crime; and it is for that reason that (at this point) I doubt the veracity of your charge.
Rich,
After you look up the story in the empty prize could you also get a copy of the police report and interview the officer that took it? Maybe even look up the homeless person who made the statements and verfiy the facts and comment on his previous history.
That would present both sides of the story so that readers could decide for themsekves.
That would be a novel event for persons accused by the users of this site. What do you think Rich?
Rich,
After you look up the story in the empty prize could you also get a copy of the police report and interview the officer that took it? Maybe even look up the homeless person who made the statements and verfiy the facts and comment on his previous history.
That would present both sides of the story so that readers could decide for themsekves.
That would be a novel event for persons accused by the users of this site. What do you think Rich?
Rich,
After you look up the story in the empty prize could you also get a copy of the police report and interview the officer that took it? Maybe even look up the homeless person who made the statements and verfiy the facts and comment on his previous history.
That would present both sides of the story so that readers could decide for themsekves.
That would be a novel event for persons accused by the users of this site. What do you think Rich?
Rich,
After you look up the story in the empty prize could you also get a copy of the police report and interview the officer that took it? Maybe even look up the homeless person who made the statements and verfiy the facts and comment on his previous history.
That would present both sides of the story so that readers could decide for themsekves.
That would be a novel event for persons accused by the users of this site. What do you think Rich?
“Please note that any posts that use profanity or engage in name-calling or other potentially slanderous attacks will be subject to deletion.”
“Please note that any posts that use profanity or engage in name-calling or other potentially slanderous attacks will be subject to deletion.”
“Please note that any posts that use profanity or engage in name-calling or other potentially slanderous attacks will be subject to deletion.”
“Please note that any posts that use profanity or engage in name-calling or other potentially slanderous attacks will be subject to deletion.”
Deletions only happen if the commentaries are offensive to the FODs (friends of Doug).
Deletions only happen if the commentaries are offensive to the FODs (friends of Doug).
Deletions only happen if the commentaries are offensive to the FODs (friends of Doug).
Deletions only happen if the commentaries are offensive to the FODs (friends of Doug).
Please note that I was gone all day and while I can read my email and comments, I cannot moderate the blog from my phone.
Mike please email if you’d like to assist by being a moderator, I seem to be in need of one.
Please note that I was gone all day and while I can read my email and comments, I cannot moderate the blog from my phone.
Mike please email if you’d like to assist by being a moderator, I seem to be in need of one.
Please note that I was gone all day and while I can read my email and comments, I cannot moderate the blog from my phone.
Mike please email if you’d like to assist by being a moderator, I seem to be in need of one.
Please note that I was gone all day and while I can read my email and comments, I cannot moderate the blog from my phone.
Mike please email if you’d like to assist by being a moderator, I seem to be in need of one.