Tuesday, February 13, 2007
|
|
A Tale of Two Rapes in Durham
|
|
Posted by:
Mary Katharine Ham at
5:47 PM
|
|
There's another accusation of rape floating around Durham this week. The accuser was allegedly attacked at a house party this Saturday.
The accuser is white. The suspect is black.
Heard anything about that? Yeah, I didn't think so.
The mainstream media has bent over backward to keep race out of this. Even those who first gave a description of the alleged rapist as a “black man” later redacted that from their reports. The News & Observer never printed it at all. And none has pointed out, as the Duke Chronicle has done, that the alleged victim was white, making this a mirror image of the Duke lacrosse case.
Some maintained all along last spring that their protests were not about race but about men’s violence against women. Still others tried to fan racial and class tensions by saying that if these were black men accused of raping a white woman, the man would be in jail. Well, now we know two things: it was always about race for the pot bangers and the Group of 88 professors at Duke, and it is demonstrably true, after Sunday’s incident, that a black man can be accused of raping a white woman and still be on the street.
It was never about protecting women. I know that because I live in a neighborhood that has the dubious honor of being the namesake of at least one serial rapist. There were few candlelight vigils; there was no national media attention; there were no pot-bangers when the women of my neighborhood couldn't take their dogs for walks at dusk. And, those black-on-white rapes just didn't bring the activist out in people the way the Duke non-rape did.
The News & Observer's omission of race is laughable:
The man is described as being in his late teens or early 20s, about 6-foot-1 and wearing a black do-rag, a gray sweatshirt and blue jeans, according to a police news release.
Why laughable? Because the same story appeared in the Charlotte Observer, written by the same reporter, with "black" included, since it was part of the original police report. It was clearly removed in the Raleigh edition:
Police had not charged anyone late Sunday in connection with the allegations but released a description of a suspect: a black male, in his late teens or early 20s, about 6-feet-1-inch tall and wearing a black do-rag, a gray sweat shirt and blue jeans, according to the news release.
And, isn't this uncharacteristically respectful of the judicial system, coming from Duke University?
Duke University administrators will wait for Durham police to finish their investigation of a freshman's allegations that she was raped at an off-campus party before doing an inquiry of their own.
What? Not disbanding the African-American fraternity-- Phi Beta Sigma-- whose members threw the party? I mean, we don't have to wait for anyone to be charged, do we?
K.C. Johnson notes a difference in treatment by the D.A.'s office, too. I'm shocked-- shocked!
"We haven't made any arrests or anything yet," said Maj. L.A. Russ of the Durham Police Department. "He would not get involved this early."
"But in the lacrosse case," Blythe correctly notes, "Nifong assumed control of the investigation, according to police reports, before any charges were filed."
I'm glad things will be handled more level-headedly this time in Durham, but I'm sad to say it's probably not because the people and politicians of Durham have learned any lessons. But regardless of the reason, it's good to know this case will go more fairly. I just hope the dear "victim" in last year's case hasn't made things harder for this girl if, in fact, her story is true.
The Duke lacrosse season starts in the next two weeks. Please support them as you can. I'll be going to a few games.
Update: Welcome, Instapundit readers! Please enjoy my "Tour of Things That Did Not Happen In Durham" if you haven't seen it yet:
|
|
|
It is very difficult for me to accuse you of being ignorant, since I don't know you, however your opinions clearly are. Were you at the party? How do you know the victim was white? I go to Duke, and I can definitely say that I have more insight to this than you. I myself wasn't at that party either, but I can say for certain that it is highly unlikely that the victim was white. Why? It's not because blacks don't hang out with whites (or other races of course), but I know that social scene at Duke A LOT better than you (obviously because I go there). I have been to a few sigma parties myself, including house parties. All of the sigma house parties that I have ever been to (yes, I have a large enough sample size not to make a hasty generalization) that I have only seen one white male (who is in fact one of the sigma's roommates). There have of course been other races, such as asian or hispanic, but this is completely irrelevant. Its not racism, just unintentional self-segregation (not just blacks and whites, but indians, asians, hispanics, etc). Second of all, Duke isn't doing anything differently than in the lacrosse situation; at least initially. If you'd stop and think about it, President Brodhead said that actions would not be taken until the investigation was completed as well. However, there were changes in the lacrosse case about each week (ie, the letter, the DNA evidence, etc). Also, the investigation is very different this time because the DA, Mike Nifong, is under investigation for his conduct. So don't sit there and say, oh why aren't they jumping on this case like they did the lacrosse case. Tell me, what investigator would want to put him/herself on the line to have the same charges that Nifong currently faces? Race was an issue in the lacrosse case because it was said that racial slurs could be heard from the house that night of the party (whether or not this is true remains a mystery to most of us). And the three lacrosse players were expelled not because Duke was certain of their guilt, but because Duke has a policy that no student can be at Duke and be indicted for a crime. Truthfully, this case is riding on the tail of the lacrosse case and wouldn't be anywhere were it not for the lacrosse case. Also, Duke informs us through email of all the sexual assaults that they know of through email WITHOUT EVER DESCRIBING THE RACE OF THE VICTIM. Yeah, the sigmas through the party, so what? There were a number of other people at that party who were #1 not sigmas #2 not males, and #3 not duke students. I would suggest doing more research and possible insight before making crude assumptions because that makes your judgement no different than Nifong's |
|
This happened in my town:
Do you all recall the time at a university a few years back, there was a huge scare because black students were getting death threats via the mail from supposed white students who wanted them out? It was a huge racial hoo ha on the MSM.
SWAT teams were dragged out to find the evil white perps who caused this mayhem. It cost the city close to million dollars, the school was shut down. Black students were removed for safety purposes and sent to stay in guarded hotels. Remember?
Do you remember when they discovered there was no threat? It was discovered the one who was mailing death to black students an teachers threats was a black female student.
She didn't want to go to school there any more and decided to pull this stunt so her parents would remove her from that university because she wanted to go to Florida instead.
The news was HUGE when we thought white students wanted to kill black students. It caused riots, blacks were threatening and beating up white kids who were innocent.
When we discovered it was a black female student who caused the hub-bub, the MSM fizzled out the story. I still have no clue what happened to her and if she were punished. See? I think it's even a greater story to see what became of this girl, did she get put into jail, was she fined, did she seek therapy, and did her parents send her to that university in Florida? The MSM didn't cover it. They didn't want to hurt HER feelings or any black person's feelings. It's okay to make Whitie evil before all evidence has been sought, but if a black person did wrong....sshhh, let's not go there... >.>
A criminal is a criminal is a criminal, period. In the courts, it shouldn't matter what skin color you have, what sex you are, what you prefer to have sex with---all these Leftist political correctness agendas and the ACLU have made our judcial system impodent of dealing with crimes properly.
|
|
I can tell you unequivocally that race distorts cases in criminal cases. What is disregarded in the coverage of the Duke Debacle is that it hasn't reached a proper trial. The players were indicted by a grand jury...and everyone knows how Holmesian grand juries (in both senses, for you Supreme Court and Detective buffs) can be. Grand juries are a right's trap. They are called in political cases and make political determinations. They also divert responsibility from the Prosecutor, who retains the privilege of dropping a case.
It is far more indicative of our legal morass when trials become infected with bias.
Hate crime statutes bring the madness of the Lacrossed case into the inner sanctum of American justice. What differentiates Nifong from a similarly predisposed judge? Judges, like DAs, rely upon their popularity. Now imagine appearing before Mike Nifong in a hate crimes case. Do you think you would get a fair trial? |
|
Kimberly writes: Tuesday, February, 13, 2007 11:10 PM
College Republican rapes colleague
A Cuyahoga County grand jury charged a Michigan attorney and political activist Wednesday with raping a fellow delegate at last July's National Federation of Young Republicans convention in Cleveland.
Michael A. Flory, 32, of Jackson, Mich., faces charges of rape, kidnapping, aggravated burglary, gross sexual imposition and witness intimidation.
Anyone hear about this one? Didn't think so. The accused was a College republicant, the accuser was a colleague of unknown political affiliation. Think it might be a case of rightwing media bias because it's not in the mainstream press? I do.
"Police and prosecutors say he escorted a drunken 21-year-old colleague to her hotel room after an evening of partying in the Warehouse District. She told police he attacked her when she was feeling sick and on the verge of passing out.
(snip)
Flory gained attention at age 18 when he gave a televised speech to the Republican National Convention in the Houston Astrodome. He served as vice chairman of the National Federation of Young Republicans and ran unsuccessfully for the top spot in 2003."
Courtesy of the Cleveland Plain Dealer Newspaper
Did anyone hear from kimberlty when BILL CLINTON was accused of rape? nah that was ok......he was framed I tell ya....one maybe but several accusations? hmmm depends on what the definition of is is I guess |
|
I agree that the Lacrosse players are victims of an over-eager press and a very over-eager prosecutor, but how does that make them heroes? They hired strippers whom they expected to perform a live sex show for them, is that heroic?
And after they mis-behaved and the dancers canceled the show, they filmed one of the women leaving in a stupor. Is that heroic?
This whole story stinks, and when the charges are dropped the smell will remain. I do not consider myself an angel, and maybe I don't understand Lacrosse or Duke, or parties, but this case makes me sick. |
|
Information that a suspect is black MIGHT help others identify the guy. Party affiliation is a little less useful as a visual cue.
But, if we want to get into famous political rapists, you could talk to Juanita Broadrick. Of course, you might want to put some ice on that..... |
|
The contrast between the way the allegations against the lacrosse players was handled and the allegations in the more recent case were presented simply to contrast. To read the contrast as "the white boys had their rights trampled upon so the black guy should, too" makes no sense. I would hope that all accused of so heinous an act would receive the same discretion, deliberate investigation and presumption of innocence apparently being given the latter fellow. To conclude that "conservatives" or the post author is, instead, suggesting the exact opposite has no basis other than one's own bias and prejudice against "conservatives."
As for pointedly removing references to the accused's race, this practice often has the opposite desired effect as well as being just plain stupid. Like it or not, a person's skin tone is probably the single most apparent identifying characteristic. I always note how ridiculous it is when citizens are asked to be on the lookout for a possibly dangerous suspect and the full description is given except for identifying race. I sure, in this circumstance, I am not alone in wondering if race was specifically excluded because the news organization didn't want to look like they were saying black people are criminals. In the end, if the race was omitted intentionally or not many assume the suspect is black, which is probably the exact opposite of what they were trying to achieve.
You see, news organizations expect their public to be so stupid and narrow-minded that if they say "a black man was accused" they expect most of us will jump to the conclusion that all black people are criminals. The truth, however, is that narrow bigotted people are going to believe that regardless of what they report and the rest (majority) will simply conclude that that one specific black person was a criminal. |
|
|
Thanks for laying it out so well. I must admit, I usually skip Kimberly's posts because I am afraid of damaging my eye muscles (that much eye rolling cannot be good for me). I happened to read that one and am wondering if she is actually becoming less intelligent with each post! |
|
"Sort of like the way they won't mention that the shooter in Salt Lake City was a Bosnian MUSLIM immigrant. That M-word just disappears in the coverage..."
Clyde, I owe you a beer. I KNEW there was a reason they hadn't splashed his name and face all over the place. I figured, Utah, white guy...where's his pasty face? I KNEW something was up because he wasn't being shown or named.
I've gotten to the point where I can read FAR more between the lines from the MSM than I can from their controlled PR-as-news. |
|
I'm not a Republican (in fact I despise both wings of the Statist Party), and not particularly conservative, but I can help disabusing the naive of junyo's clever lies (Kimberly's unclever lies need no illumination).
Notice that he nowhere addresses the issues behind the point at hand ("Does pointing out the glaring double standard of the left bother you?"). No, he just does a soft shoe dance by answering a question with an irrelevant question.
That's because he has no answer. Instead, he has a spurious argument about how the MSM has now mended its ways and is flying straight. What a crock. Where was the MSM's mea culpa? Where did they set the record straight? Where did the Observer print the fact that as far as whites and blacks are concerned, interracial gang rape is an overwhelmingly black-on-white affair (the data on this is as stark as any I've encountered in racial crime disparities: roughly 3000 black-on-white gang rapes a year in America, vs. roughly 0 white-on-black)? Where is the MSM and the Times' and the Observer's admission that if they gave anything remotely resembling a damn about interracial crime in general, and interracial gang rape in particular, they'd already have known that the only place white-on-black gang rape occurs is in the MSM's imagination (Tawana Brawley, Crystal Mangum) and that the case was a hoax, because white men simply do not gang rape black women.
At the time of the Duke rape hoax (before junyo's mythical MSM race-reform) there were several college rape cases involving athletes that would've been grist fot the MSM's mill if race per se was the juicy sensation leftist liars make it out to be. In fact race per se hasn't ever been very juicy to the MSM; no, what's juicy is white malfeasance, particularly when it victimizes non-whites.
If race (and bad boy athletes (from far bigger sports than obscure lacrosse)) per se mattered to the MSM, these would've been big news:
http://www.student.richmond.edu/publications/collegian/current/archives/02Feb2006/news1.html
http://blogs.kansascity.com/crime_scene/2006/04/avila_basketbal.html
Me, I DON'T want race-blind reporting or race-blind politics or race-blind anything. Race-blindness is just another form of PC lying. I want the truth. For example, I want the fact that the interracial rape statistics are overwhelmingly skewed towards black-on-white to be widely known, a household fact. I was brought up hearing about how whites abused blacks in the past. I'm always hearing about how whites are currently abusing blacks via phantom racism. Now I want to hear about how blacks are victimizing whites via violent crime. Ever looked into the racial aspects of prison rape? Take a nice long Google into that territory, lots of interesting tidbits there, I assure you.
Let's put all the cards on the table. Dealing with reality should be just that. |
|
I said "deflect attention" and she deliberately misquotes me by ranting about deflecting blame... and goes on a rant about the usual liberal talking points. In other words: deflecting attention.
It's like watching an aircraft launch a huge swarm of flares and chaff.
Though it's funny that she claims Ham is using this posting to hide all the stuff about Iraq when she's already got an article on Bill Ardolino's recent trip to Iraq. Yep, she doesn't want people paying attention to Iraq so she posts something about... Iraq. |
|
|
Compare and contrast the coverage of the Duke lacrosse team "rape" case in the MSM with the recent incident in Knoxville, where three black men allegedly carjacked a white couple, killed the man and dumped his body by the railroad tracks, and kept the woman prisoner for a couple of days, raping her repeatedly and then killing her. Not a peep on that one, even though it was far mor horrendous. Wouldn't want to stir anyone up, right? Sort of like the way they won't mention that the shooter in Salt Lake City was a Bosnian MUSLIM immigrant. That M-word just disappears in the coverage... |
|
"I think perhaps you misunderstood, and need to reread the article."
Perhaps I did, and i reread the post,looking for some trace of creditting the coverage as a "measured, appropriate response" and frankly, I don't see it. I see lots of snark, but not a whole lot of 'maybe they should handle it this way next time'.
I don't disagree with your suggestions as the need for an apology and punishment for the DA; I'd just add that if we were truly talking about a colorblind society, there'd be a lot of outrage at a lot more DA's for the same kind of media and electorate pandering prosecutions? |
|
"Conservatives want a color-blind society..." so badly that the conservative blogsphere is lit up with the outrage - outrage! - over the fact that a black suspect is accused of raping a white woman and how dare the media a) not report his race, and b) pump the story nationally. What part of the "Duke community" constitutes the government who's preferences you denounce? Duke's a private university, and last I checked, conservatives weren't big on imposing values on private institutions, like schools or country clubs. Your entire argument is rationalizations, red herrings and gibberish.
"Do you deny that theses suspects were presumed guilty by the court of public opinion, the students and staff of Duke University, and much of the media?" And so the solution is to pummel the media when they actually handle a case appropriately? Either you want blind justice and a presumption of innocence until trial, or you don't. It's a binary choice. If it's the former, then the media is handling this case correctly; nothing can be done about the Duke case without a time machine. If it's the latter, then proceed, but at least acknowledge the hypocrisy."Never attempted to impose a remedy." You're attempting to impose a remedy now, by proscribing what and how the media will report. Their compliance with your views, in the world of free markets, either values or devalues their reporting, makes or loses them money, and eventually makes the creation of alternative media outlets that report the news the way you'd like viable (Townhall.com for instance). So one way or another you're attempting to impose a solution. "Does pointing out the glaring double standard of the left bother you?" Does participating in the glaring double standard of the right bother you? I understand that everybody in America wants to play the victim card, but when the right wing majority starts to frame their arguments with it, it's just kind of stupid. |
|
I think perhaps you misunderstood, and need to reread the article.
MKH was very clear in stating that the response in the current case is appropriate -- except for the newspaper's mincing steps around the fact that the alleged attacker was black. She simply compared this measured, appropriate response against the year-long hysteria that occurred when the race of the victim and alleged attackers was reversed.
What should be done is this: those players from Duke should receive a formal apology from the District Attorney and compensation for their pain and suffering, which were caused entirely by the race-baiting of the DA in an attempt to win re-election. And then, the DA should be fired and jailed. |
|
This case does not merit a different standard of treatment. It merits blind justice. Do you deny that theses suspects were presumed guilty by the court of public opinion, the students and staff of Duke University, and much of the media? This presumption of guilt was impossed solely because of the race of the alleged victim.
I refer to any racially sensitive case where the alleged accussed is black. The first thing I hear from black leaders and court officials is a reminder that the accussed is innocent until proven guilty.
If this incredible double standard has to do with something other than race, I'd like to hear it.
No race baiting here. Interpretation of facts. Never attempted to impose a remedy. Does pointing out the glaring double standard of the left bother you? It should. |
|
|
Forder pointed out the "Duke community's" double standard and obsession with race which you seem to share, junyo. Conservatives want a color-blind society, and we don't think we'll get there with racial preferences by government. Others want to exploit a racial spoils system. |
|
The apparent injustice of the lacrosse team rape case was the rush to judgement, and potential destruction of the suspects lives, based on the respective races of the suspects and alleged victim. So what, precisely is the problem here? A crime has been alleged, and reported in a race neutral manner; theoretically this is how the conservative blogsphere would've had the Duke case handled. Yet we howl in agony over a double standard?
If what was done to the Duke lacrosse players was unjust, is the argument that the only way to balance that injustice is to subject others to it? That a black suspect has to suffer just as much as white suspects did? Or has this suspect been prejudged as guilty, ostensibly because of his race, and thus merits a different standard of treatment?
If you define an injustice, and propose a remedy to that injustice, you can't then use the implementation of the remedy as proof of further injustice. You guys really need to hire Al Sharpton as a consultant; if you're going to race-bait at least learn to do it effectively. |
|
Do you actually not know about the Duke lacrosse case, and how the young men were railroaded? I have heard nothing about their political affiliation, all I know is a great injustice was done.
You came up with some bizarre story and try to distract people from what is actually being addressed. Do you not know how to effectively debate? Denying the left leaning slant of the MSM is strange to say the least. You are either incredibly naive or not very smart (I will give you the benefit of the doubt and go with naive).
The only one I see whining is you. MKH simply points out the obvious. She is smart, funny, and she expresses her ideas very well. You on the other hand, come here to spew hate and venom. Your delusion of intellectual superiority would be insulting if we were not laughing at you. |
|
Kimberly, that would be "au contraire", meaning "to the contrary". "O contraire" means you're addressing the contrary. We may no like French, but some of us studied it a bit.
Also, Flory is a Young Republican. He may or may not be a rapist and a pig, but he apparently isn't a perpetual college student like some Democrats. |
|
|
This is very simple. I'll go slow. The first Duke rape case gained national attention ONLY because the accussed were white and the "alleged" victim was poor and black. Liberals live for such a combination and lost their mind, facts be damned. |
|
I will be waiting, with much anticipation, the students march down to the students house. Don't forget the posters, professing the guilt of those accussed. Shortly after that we will all read the letter, signed by the staff of Duke University, acknowledging their disgust with the racial undertones of this cime.
Double standard? Naaaaaah! |
|
Anything to deflect attention is fair game to the likes of Kimberly.
|
|
|
Just like the rest of the lying potbangers, lefticrats & MSM, you jump right in there with your headline; College Republican rapes colleague. Once again within your pea sized brain, you already have the defendent guilty as charged, long before any trial. |
|
|
Not a surprise about the significant omissions in the description of the suspect. Ironically I was just talking to a friend about George Orwell's 1984, and the "Ministry of Information." MININ was known for the famous terms of groupspeak, doublespeak and newspeak. It was also responsible for redacting information from newspaper articles and social memory that proved embarrassing for Big Brother. Although Orwell was writing an allegory about communism, his work was a prophetic piece of literature about America in the 21st Century. MSM equals MININ. It's worth reading or re-reading. |
|
|
|
The MSM has no morals, no integrity, no conscience, no backbone and no sense of professionalism.
They lie, spin, omit, avoid, suppress, downplay, minimize and diminish, all in honor of their worship of political correctness.
And then they say, "who us, biased?"
They stink. |
|
|
|
|
|