• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Subscribe
  • RSS

Actual Details about the Owens Beating

Via the Press-RegisterPolice say 3 ‘active participants’ assaulted Matthew Owens; Jones reaches out to federal investigators

Mobile police today said that there were 3 “active participants” in the Saturday night beating of Matthew Owens on Delmar Drive. The number includes Terry Rawls, who was arrested today on a 1st-degree assault charge in connection with the case, Deputy Chief Lester Hargrove said.

[...]

Numerous media reports have said that at least one person reported hearing references made to the Trayvon Martin case in Sanford, Fla., in which a  community watch officer killed an unarmed black teenager in a gated community.

“So far that is an uncorroborated report,” Hargrove said. “This involved two neighbors who lived on the same street who’d had problems in the past and who got into a fight over kids playing basketball.

“It is our understanding that the person who made the claim about the Trayvon case was not even on the scene Saturday night.”

See also from the Press-RegisterArrest made in racially tinged beating of Mobile man; suspect and victim had feud (Updated)

“This here is an incident stemming from an ongoing dispute between neighbors,” [Mobile police spokesman Cpl. Christopher] Levy said. “We spend a lot of time defusing neighborhood disputes, neighbors who don’t get along. … That’s what this is. And unfortunately, this can lead to violence.”

Tucker expressed a similar sentiment. “That’s an important fact that needs to get out to the public. This was not some random event that came out of nowhere.”

Neighbors have said a large group of black people confronted Owens at about 8:30 p.m. near his home on Delmar Drive. Levy said many people appear to have been present, but he said most merely watched and did not participate in the violence.

[...]

It was not the first time violence erupted between Rawls and Owens. Levy said the 2 traded racist epithets in July 2009 and that Rawls assaulted Owens. While a witness initially told police that Rawls had used a baseball bat, Levy said the suspect denied that, insisting he had only used his hands. The witness later said he could not be sure a bat was used, Levy said.

So, a few key points:

1.  At least one arrest has been made already and the investigation continues.

2.  The nature of the assault was not the mob attack of 20+ people that early reports indicated.

3.  We do not have any evidence to this point that this was a Trayvon Martin inspired revenge attack (which heavily damages the assertions that this was media driven attack as per the Jim Treacher post I noted  the other day).

4.  Not only is there no evidence of this being Trayvon Martin related, the assailant and the victim have an established prior history of confrontation (which rather takes the air out of the hypothesis that this was a media driven revenger-for-Trayvon attack, again a la Treacher and his harping on NBC).

All of this sums (especially points 2-4) together to support my position from earlier in the week:  immediately jumping on this case to score political points was poor judgment (and certainly premature).

Of course, I doubt the facts will have much affect on the pontifications of persons who found my my first post problematic such as Dan Riehl and Da Tech Guy.  The latter’s indignation at my post is interesting, given the facts notes.  He wrote:

What is he calling out Glenn Reynolds, Stacy McCain and Jim Treacher out for? For daring to suggest that the MSM that pushed the Trayvon Martin case forward doing their best to turn it into a national racial incident (even to the point of altering evidence presented to the public) and the White House and the justice department, bear some responsibility for the “revenge” attacks that have since taken place and furthermore said racial attacks

But, of course, we now have pretty solid information that the attacks were not “revenge” attacks based on the MSM’s coverage of the Trayvon Martin case.  Instead, we see that the situation is one of long standing animus between Owens and Rawls.  As such, does this not underscore my case that immediately jumping on this story as a means of attacking the MSM and Obama over the Trayvon Martin case more than a bit problematic?  More to the point, does it not demonstrate some itchy keyboard fingers which are looking to use whatever they can find to score rhetorical points for their side?

What’s interesting, too, about the above-linked responses to my post:  they really aren’t about the substance of what I wrote.  The one from Da Tech Guy in particular is really more about the protection of people he sees as his ideological allies (and Riehl, with his erudite prose in ths title of his post, is just echoing Da Tech Guy).  This further underscores that all this is really about protecting the team and scoring points.  Another example of that came in the form of a tweet last night, in which I was informed of the two posts above:

Nothing like a little elevated discourse on serious topics, yes?

(And yes, I have almost certainly started another round of Ridiculous Comment Thread Theater, so my apologies to the regulars).

Related Posts:

About Steven L. Taylor
Steven L. Taylor is Professor and Chair of Political Science at Troy University. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. He is the author of Voting Amid Violence: Electoral Democracy in Colombia and is currently working on a comparative study of the US to 29 other democracies. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging at PoliBlog since 2003. Follow Steven on Twitter

Comments

  1. PD Shaw says:

    This post smells like purple; I like it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  2. LaMont says:

    You got it Steven – too many people focused on left or right instead of right or wrong!!! This observation is the “proof in the pudding” – very well done.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  3. “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

    — John Adams, in his summation in the defense of the British soldiers accused of murder during the Boston Massacre, 1770

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0

  4. Boyd says:

    Da Tech Guy blew himself out of the water with the irony shotgun in his very first sentence. Or maybe he’s just not a fan of XKCD.

    I lol’d.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0

  5. DT says:

    The irony in your sole concern being the political points isn’t lost on me. Tawana Brawley approves of this message.

    Poorly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 29

  6. Franklin says:

    Taylor: 1
    Da Tech Guy: 0

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1

  7. Rob in CT says:

    @DT:

    Which would be ironic, if that’s what Steven was doing. But it’s quite clearly not, if you actually read his post, the last one, and his posts regarding the Martin/Zimmerman case. But reading is, like, hard and stuff, right?

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0

  8. @Rob in CT: Reading is fundamental!

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0

  9. So, are all the Republican media types that complained about the media raciallizing the Martin-Zimmerman case going to apologize for racializing the Owens case?

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1

  10. Rob in CT says:

    But boooring, Steve. Oh, so booring. It’s one of those liberal artsy things too, so it must be bad. Liberal! Arts!! Sounds Marxist to me! Alinksy was probably involved too.

    ;)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0

  11. @Rob in CT: Indeed.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  12. Rob in CT says:

    @Stormy Dragon:

    Of course not! They were merely illustrating why the librul media shouldn’t do certain things, by doing those very things (badly), unseriously of course. Just to teach people a lesson. See? SEE!? It’s brilliant I tell you!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0

  13. John Peabody says:

    I don’t have time to read. I just listen to the TV out of the corner of my ear. Hey, did you know the world was going to end this year?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

  14. al-Ameda says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    Reading is fundamental!

    Two observations:

    (1) Reading is so analog, so mid-20th Century.
    (2) As Gilda Radner’s SNL character, Emily Litella, would say following an off point ramble, “never mind”.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  15. MBunge says:

    At the risk of starting another pointless game of fetch, there is still an important distinction to be made here. While Steven L. Taylor is correct to point out the “team” mentalities at work here, the reactions are not entirely equivalent. The African-American response in this matter seems to be based on a not-at-all-irrational belief that black folks have been and are treated unfairly by our justice system. The white conservative response seems to be a bit more Pavlovian. They saw black people getting upset about something and apparently felt compelled to take the other side because…well, just because.

    Mike

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 0

  16. @MBunge:

    The African-American response in this matter seems to be based on a not-at-all-irrational belief that black folks have been and are treated unfairly by our justice system.

    I agree. This has been my view on the Trayvon Martin case from the beginning.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0

  17. DMan says:

    Meanwhile a few minutes ago at Reynolds place:

    MORE RESULTS FROM OUR POLITICO-MEDIA LEADERS’ CAMPAIGN OF RACIAL INCITEMENT: 2 charged in Oak Park beating motivated by Trayvon Martin killing, official says. How many people might have been spared if the press had reported accurately, and non-sensationally, and had avoided deliberate falshehood in covering this case?

    Given the irresponsibility — and downright evil — displayed by our political and media “elites” in this matter, why should we trust their judgment on, well, anything?

    The man seems to be on a mission to find a story that confirms a narrative he’s made up in his head. What a hack.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0

  18. @DMan:

    “Politico-media Leaders”? Doesn’t Reynolds realize he’s starting to sound like a parody of a 60s left-wing college professor?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0

  19. Rob in CT says:

    The guy in Chicago was, apparently, immediately arrested and charged with a hate crime*, in addition robbery & battery.

    The authorities appear to be on top of the incident, unlike the Martin/Zimmerman case.

    I wonder if the moron actually thought that citing the M/Z case would somehow mitigate his crime, rather than compound it?

    * – I’m actually not a fan of hate crime laws. However, as this clearly falls under that category and it’s on the books, pressing the charge is proper.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  20. Anderson says:

    The man seems to be on a mission to find a story that confirms a narrative he’s made up in his head.

    The party man.— The genuine party man no longer learns, he only experiences things and judges them: whereas Solon, who was never a party man but pursued his aims beside and above the parties or in opposition to them, is significantly the father of that simple saying in which there lies enclosed the health and inexhaustibility of Athens: ‘I grow old and still I go on learning.’

    –Friedrich Nietzsche, Human, All Too Human, II.1, §301 (tr. R.J. Hollingdale)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  21. Ebenezer Arvigenius says:

    On a related note: Treacher is not only a random internet poster but actually speaks on NBC??? The American press must be even deeper is the shitter than I thought o.O.

    I mean so far I considered him one of the lesser blog comment section nuisances hereabouts and now I find out that he’s a respectable media voice? Bloody hell…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  22. al-Ameda says:

    @Ebenezer Arvigenius:

    Treacher is not only a random internet poster but actually speaks on NBC

    So, it really is the “lame stream media” after all?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

  23. anjin-san says:

    Remarkable how quite this thread is compared to yesterday’s…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  24. Davebo says:

    I firmly believe Treacher’s presence on NBC has to objectives. NBC can boast of it’s open minded policy concerning talking heads while also promoting and promulgating what can kindly be referred to as Medlocks rather incoherent rants. A classic example of playing both sides I’d say.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  25. datechguy says:

    Have no fear, rather than submit your readers gentle eyes to my counter arguments here I have put up a full post where they can read them or not.or consider them or not.

    http://datechguyblog.com/2012/04/26/steven-taylor-strikes-back-and-wiffs/

    And yes Doug facts are stubborn things, that’s why I use them.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8

  26. James says:

    “It is our understanding that the person who made the claim about the Trayvon case was not even on the scene [where Owens was assaulted] Saturday night.”

    My surprised faced.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0

  27. Rufus T. Firefly says:

    No way Treacher is on NBC. Are you sure you weren’t watching a Food Network show about making gnocchi?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  28. @datechguy:

    Did you even bother reading the news reports from Alabama? It is patently obvious that the Owens case has nothing at all to do with Trayvon Martin, and may not even have anything to do with race at all, but instead was the culmination of a long-standing conflict between these two men.

    There was no mob of 20 people

    There was no evidence that anyone said “That’s for Trayvon.”

    Or are facts irrelevant now?

    You and Treacher and the others are making the same mistake that people who prejudged George Zimmerman made. You are basing your conclusions on an incomplete set of facts clouded by ideology. It was wrong when they did it, and it’s wrong now.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0

  29. @datechguy:

    Steven Taylor strikes back…and wiffs

    “Merely a flesh wound!”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  30. Rob in CT says:

    Your leg’s come off!
    No it hasn’t!
    What’s that then?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  31. Moosebreath says:

    DMan,

    “The man seems to be on a mission to find a story that confirms a narrative he’s made up in his head. What a hack.”

    This is Glenn Reynolds we’re talking about. How is this anything different than his normal course of affairs since at least 2002?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  32. @datechguy:

    By the way, you may be interested in my own thoughts on this matter.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  33. Neil Hudelson says:

    Steven,

    To be fair, has the internet, as a whole, voted that you are an asshole? If they have, then Da Tech Guy is owed an apology.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  34. Ben Wolf says:

    @Neil Hudelson: Unquestionably yes, and I’ll continue my push to have Steven Taylor and Other Malcontents branded for their marxism, socialism, communism and educationism.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  35. @Neil Hudelson:

    To be fair, has the internet, as a whole, voted that you are an asshole? If they have, then Da Tech Guy is owed an apology.

    It would appear that Douglas’ definition of “The Internet” is Dan Riehl, Da Tech Guy, and presumably Douglas himself. Granted, estimates vary, but I am pretty hopeful, at least, that the internet is bigger than that. Of course, should it be the case that they are the internet, I can save some money each month by turning the darn thing off.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  36. anjin-san says:

    Steven Taylor and Other Malcontents branded for their marxism, socialism, communism

    Now that I think of it, Steven’s beard is highly suspicious. Lenin had a beard.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1

  37. Tillman says:

    Does anyone else think he looks vaguely like Joel McHale?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  38. @anjin-san:

    Am I alone in thinking “Steven Taylor and Other Malcontents” would be a cool name for a rock band?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  39. anjin-san says:

    @Doug Mataconis

    You need to shorten it to something more snappy. “Steven and the Malcontents”.

    I see them doing a lot of Ramones covers.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  40. EddieInCA says:

    Since Steven would be the star, I vote for “The Malcontents, featuring Little Stevie Taylor, Ph.d”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  41. anjin-san says:

    Well, Little Stevie has been done by Stevie Wonder and Little Steven, by that Van Zandt dude…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1ctug20gio

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  42. the Q says:

    Hey where’s the Tsar, Terrye and Jenos et al apologizing for their rush to judgement and premature jumping to conclusions in their rabid game of tit for tat?

    Will they not do (apologize) what they insisted that Sharpton and Jessie Jaxson do since they are guilty of the same sin?

    Pointless, meandering rbullshit rationalizing why their hypocritical responses are different in 5….4….3….2

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  43. EddieInCA says:

    @anjin-san:

    It would be an homage band to the music of Stevie Wonder and Steve Van Zandt.

    Motown meets Jersey Shore.

    Alright, alright… I apologize. That’s a bad idea.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  44. An Interested Party says:

    @DMan: I would imagine that Glenn Reynolds is in a Knoxville hospital tonight suffering from a severe case of whiplash…meanwhile, the Parade of Fools, led by Jenos Idanian,Tsar Nicholas, and Terrye, among others, are all also in hospitals tonight, suffering from severe cases of crow indigestion…Jim Treacher isn’t in a hospital because he’s still stuck under the slimy rock he crawled out from under and then retreated back to yesterday…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

  45. anjin-san says:

    the Parade of Fools, led by Jenos Idanian,Tsar Nicholas, and Terrye, among others, are all also in hospitals tonight, suffering from severe cases of crow indigestion

    I think you are attributing a level of self-awareness to some of these folks that does not exist.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  46. Jib says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: I want it known that my vote IS for sale!

    But be warned, I’m easy but I am not cheap.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  47. Miscreant says:

    @Doug Mataconis:

    There was no evidence that anyone said “That’s for Trayvon.”

    I apologize for injecting facts into the discussion here, but WKRG reported that two witnesses are claiming that Trayvon Martin’s name was invoked by one of the suspects…

    “…Police continue to downplay the Trayvon Martin connection to the beating. But a neighbor confirms what his sister told News 5. The neighbor, too scared to go on camera, told News 5′s Lauren Vargas that they heard one of the suspects say “This is justice for Trayvon” as she drove away.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  48. Ben Wolf says:

    @Miscreant: So you give us a third-hand account from a person who isn’t named and think that’s evidence?

    Are you drunk?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  49. Miscreant says:

    @Ben Wolf:

    “@Miscreant: So you give us a third-hand account from a person who isn’t named and think that’s evidence? Are you drunk?”

    People who have the ability to comprehend what they read- unlike those named “Ben Wolf”- would understand that I cited a first-hand account from a witness at the scene. (They both claim they heard the statement).

    Furthermore, WKRG knows the identity of the neighbor-witness, and felt the claim was credible enough to report. (When the case goes to trial, it is likely that this witness will be questioned on this matter to determine its veracity.) Until then, his/her account should some more weight than the sanctimonious assumptions of OTB bloggers who weren’t at the scene…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  50. @Miscreant: The thing is, however, if the strength of your argument is based on local reporting, you have to weigh heavily the following quoted above:

    “So far that is an uncorroborated report,” Hargrove said. “This involved two neighbors who lived on the same street who’d had problems in the past and who got into a fight over kids playing basketball.
    “It is our understanding that the person who made the claim about the Trayvon case was not even on the scene Saturday night.”

    That’s from the Mobile newspaper quoting Deputy Chief Lester Hargrove. You can’t just assert that a local TV station had a report and that settles the discussion.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  51. mattb says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: This speaks to a broader problem in all of this – the emphasis on content that supports a side’s argument without any consideration of the source of that content (or the implications on the broader discussion of presenting one category of source as more authoritative than another).

    Again if someone wants to claim that they are concerned with more than scoring points, a great first step is responsibly dealing with sources.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  52. @mattb:

    Again if someone wants to claim that they are concerned with more than scoring points, a great first step is responsibly dealing with sources.

    Yup.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  53. Miscreant says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    That’s from the Mobile newspaper quoting Deputy Chief Lester Hargrove. You can’t just assert that a local TV station had a report and that settles the discussion.”

    Unfortunately, I did not make that assertion. I specifically stated in my second comment that the veracity of the witness’ statement would need to be examined if there was a trial on the matter.

    “@Miscreant: The thing is, however, if the strength of your argument is based on local reporting, you have to weigh heavily the following quoted above…”

    …“It is our understanding that the person who made the claim about the Trayvon case was not even on the scene Saturday night.”

    As the report I cited stated, there are two different people making the “Justice for Trayvon” claim. The quote you cite refers to only one individual (as part of an ongoing investigation), and does not address the second supposed witness.

    (Also, a side note: it seems a bit odd that many people on the left who were suggesting that the cops were “lying” and mishandling the Martin-Zimmerman matter a month ago are fully willing to believe police statements now that we have a white victim. But I digress).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  54. Miscreant says:

    @mattb:

    Again if someone wants to claim that they are concerned with more than scoring points, a great first step is responsibly dealing with sources.”

    Where were you a month ago when ABC News had “proof” that George Zimmerman didn’t have a gash on his head after the shooting, and when NBC News implied that he hunted down Martin because “he looks black”, and when CNN had an “expert” on who “proved” that it was really Martin’s voice screaming for help??!!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  55. James says:

    @Miscreant:

    I cited a first-hand account from a witness at the scene.

    You didn’t cite. There’s no citation. Just your claim on what WKRG is reporting what a witness said. Also, the police reports (as reported by the Press-Resister) do not corroborate this (alleged) witnesses’ claim.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  56. @Miscreant:

    (Also, a side note: it seems a bit odd that many people on the left who were suggesting that the cops were “lying” and mishandling the Martin-Zimmerman matter a month ago are fully willing to believe police statements now that we have a white victim. But I digress).

    Two thoughts:

    1. I have never claimed that the police lied. I have claimed that an insufficient investigation took place in the Martin case.

    2. This kind of “logic” is silly because it would equally apply to you: if the police were paragons of perfection in the Martin case, why isn’t their word good enough in this case?

    The fundamental problem in all of this: we know that Zimmerman killed Martin–the only question is whether it was justified or not. Still, note: DEAD BODY (and a teenager at that). In the Owens case it seems that someone at the scene said something about justice for Trayvon. There is no allegation that the assailant said it, just that someone said it. Further, at the moment the police do not believe that said person was directly involved.

    Do you perhaps see the distinction between the two situations?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  57. Miscreant says:

    @James:

    You didn’t cite. There’s no citation. Just your claim on what WKRG is reporting what a witness said.”

    I originally attempted to post the link from WKRG, but it was blocked as spam, so there was nothing I could do about that. I copied the passage directly from the report, so if you have any doubts about it, check it out on Google. I have nothing to hide.

    Also, the police reports (as reported by the Press-Resister) do not corroborate this (alleged) witnesses’ claim.”

    As I have pointed out numerous times, there are two people making this claim. The police report you mention only questions the claims of one individual.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  58. Miscreant says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    “1. I have never claimed that the police lied.”

    I was referring to the numerous comments I saw from many people on the left, and not you personally.

    “2. This kind of “logic” is silly because it would equally apply to you: if the police were paragons of perfection in the Martin case, why isn’t their word good enough in this case?”

    I’m not casting doubt on the police in either case (Martin or Owens), merely making an observation. Perhaps the police are doing a stellar job down in Mobile- I certainly hope so. But I have no way of directly knowing, and as you have questioned the police’s handling of Martin investigation, I think it stands to reason that if there are problems with the Owens investigation, questions should be raised about that, as well (see below).

    The fundamental problem in all of this: we know that Zimmerman killed Martin–the only question is whether it was justified or not. Still, note: DEAD BODY (and a teenager at that). In the Owens case it seems that someone at the scene said something about justice for Trayvon. There is no allegation that the assailant said it, just that someone said it. Further, at the moment the police do not believe that said person was directly involved.

    The problem with that argument is that the “Justice for Trayvon” issue has been a bit of a red herring all along- by that I mean a distraction from the broader issue: This was not simply a personal dispute between two apparently volatile people (who had previous fights in the past). You don’t need a angry mob to handle a personal dispute. This is a case in which 10-20 people allegedly either attacked, or cheered on a brutal attack in which a man was almost killed.

    Regardless of whether somebody uttered the “Justice for Trayvon” line or not, it still doesn’t change the fact that there strongly appears to be a racial animus here (a mob of one race armed with chairs, etc. beating one individual of another race), and so the question is, if we are going to have “hate crimes” legislation, then why have the police in this case continually beat around the bush on this issue?

    I would have to think if the races were reversed and it was a mob of whites attacking a lone black man, the left would be (justifiably) asking questions of why the Mobile cops were continually denying the possibility that it was a hate crime.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  59. @Miscreant: First, to be as clear as possible: I am opposed to people beating up other people and the perpetrators we’d to be found and prosecuted.

    In regards to 10-20 attackers , I again give you the Mobile police;”:

    Mobile police today said that there were 3 “active participants” in the Saturday night beating of Matthew Owens on Delmar Drive

    And I agree: The “justice for trayvon” bit is a kind of a red herring—but then again, that’s part of my point: the people with whom I am primarily arguing find great significance to that comment.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  60. mattb says:

    @Miscreant:
    part of the thing with source review is that you have to, you know, keep reviewing your sources. Especially in an unfolding case. So by the time you posted your claim, there was evidence from a number of sources that failed to back up your story.

    So, btw, here’s how you acknowledge a change in the scenario:
    Ok, new evidence has come to light that suggests that X is no longer the case.

    And then you stop talking about “X”.

    What you don’t do is then add a “but…” and then continue to act as if X still isn’t the case.

    BTW, as far as “where was I when X” — that works a lot better if you can find me ever actually using that evidence. I never cited NBC or the ABC security footage. And, to the degree it’s tied into things I’ve posted here, I’ve been critical of the NBC editing.

    You on the other hand cited the report of “Justice for Trevon” and don’t want to let it go.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  61. mattb says:

    BTW, I think everyone needs to understand that “well, they did it” is not a viable defense for linking to old information or not taking responsibility for your own sourcing.

    Like it or not, you cannot directly change either left or right wing media. You can however change your own actions. And being responsible in that way will go along way to demonstrating that you’re not simply trying to tally points for your side.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  62. anjin-san says:

    the people with whom I am primarily arguing find great significance to that comment.

    Clearly, there are people out there who want very badly for it to be true…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  63. Miscreant says:

    @mattb: @mattb:

    “@Miscreant:
    part of the thing with source review is that you have to, you know, keep reviewing your sources. Especially in an unfolding case. So by the time you posted your claim, there was evidence from a number of sources that failed to back up your story.

    So, btw, here’s how you acknowledge a change in the scenario:
    Ok, new evidence has come to light that suggests that X is no longer the case.

    And then you stop talking about “X”.

    What you don’t do is then add a “but…” and then continue to act as if X still isn’t the case.”

    Why is it so difficult for you folks to comprehend what you read? There are two people that have made the “Justice” claim. I’ll repeat- two. Third time- two people. The police report that was quoted cast doubt one the claims of one person. Again- one person. Third time- one individual.

    That leaves what?… Yes, one person left whose claim has not been disputed by the police, as of the last time I checked.

    Now, granted, I don’t hold a claim such as this made to a news reporter with the same substantive weight as one made to the police, obviously. But on the other hand the news report I quoted seems to suggest that there were some problems with the police investigation, and that they had already predetermined that this was not a “hate crimes” case… before they had finished conducting their investigation. That may be a problem down the road (and explain why the other individual making the “Justice” claim went to the news instead of the police).

    If you have updated information showing that this second person’s claim has been proven to be inaccurate- let me know. Otherwise, I’d at least like to have some police interview of this second individual before we say one way or the other. I’m not saying the claim is true, or false, I’m just asking for some verification.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  64. James says:

    @Miscreant: WKRG’s latest report on the story:

    Police maintain the kids were playing basketball when a ball rolled into Parker’s yard. When they asked permission to retrieve the ball for a second time, Police say Owens said something that made Rawls and the rest of the mob angry.

    People living in the neighborhood woke up to find racist flyers littering their lawns.

    The flyers are actually an Aryan newsletter from 3 years ago. Police believe white supremacists are trying to take advantage of the racialy charged atmosphere to stir up more bad feelings.

    [...]

    Despite witnesses telling News 5 that one of the attackers said “This is justice for Trayvon” after the beating, police say the shooting of the unarmed teenager in Samford, Florida was not the reason for this attack.

    “I can tell you this without a doubt, 100% certainty, that Trayvon Martin was not the motivating factor in this incident,” says Cpl. Chris Levy.

    Deputy Chief Lester Hargrove says investigators believe only four people, including Terry Rawls, were directly involved. They believe the rest of the mob just watched.

    Police say the beating is the result of a three year neighborhood dispute between Rawls and Owens.

    Can we please now STFU on this ‘Justice for Trayvon’/MSM incitement angel.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  65. James says:

    *angle

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  66. Miscreant says:

    @James:

    “@Miscreant: WKRG’s latest report on the story…”

    Thanks for the update, James. That’s all I was looking for- some official confirmation, as opposed to opinions and unverified statements in the comments.

    You’ve addressed my question, and that settles the issue for me.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  67. mattb says:

    @Miscreant:

    Thanks for the update, James. That’s all I was looking for- some official confirmation, as opposed to opinions and unverified statements in the comments.

    You realize that the report that James cited was filed on the 23rd, three days before you made your claim. And considering how quickly it popped up on a google search, this get’s to my broader point about being responsible for sources…

    What I mean is that you say you were “looking” for confirmation that your belief was wrong. But the thing is you clearly were not looking too hard when you made your initial comment. And after that you continued to push the idea of a mob attack, when the police have also released multiple statements saying that only four people directly engaged in the attack (with the rest looking on).

    Basically, you had your version of the story and were not particularly interesting in actively seeking out the extremely available evidence that would undercut it.

    You realize that in doing that, you are doing everything you are accusing people across the aisle of doing. And that gets the broader point, you can’t control their behavior, but you can sure as hell control your own.

    Talk all you want about how this isn’t about pushing a meme that fits your own biases (ie. that this was a racially motivated attack and that the real racists are angry black folk out for street justice), then you need to be concerned about checking your facts before you frickin’ type.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0