Texas “crowd” kills passenger in car that injured child
posted at 1:43 pm on June 20, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
It’s the top story at FoxNews.com right now, but the AP may be overselling it a bit.
Police believe 2,000 to 3,000 people were in the area for a Juneteenth celebration when the attack occurred Tuesday night. The man who was killed had been trying to stop the group from attacking the vehicle’s driver when the crowd turned on him, authorities said.
Did “the crowd” kill him, or did a few members of the crowd kill him? From CBS-Austin:
Police say preliminary investigation indicates that Morales was a passenger in a car that may have hit a small child in the parking lot of 900 Thompson Street. Immediately after the accident, somebody assaulted the driver of the car that struck the child. The child was taken to a hospital with non-life threatening injuries.
Witnesses said several black males assaulted Morales when he stepped out of the vehicle to try and stop the crowd from assaulting the driver of the car he was in. Police believe there were 2,000 to 3,000 people in the area when the driver and Morales were attacked.
The American-Statesman says the victim’s sister found him at the scene bleeding from the head. Obviously, the “crowd’s” culpability depends on what they were doing when it went down. Watching? Cheering? Or was the event spread out over such a wide area that only a few people in the immediate vicinity knew what was happening? I can’t find any details online.
Needless to say, if they were watching and/or cheering, this story will head straight down the memory hole with the Christian-Newsom murders, rejected on account of Improper Narrative.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Here’s the thing, Esthier. You didn’t just ask; your questions contained the presumptions that my question about race-knowledge would somehow change the heinousness of the crime, that I was trying to provoke racism and that I was sure that some racism was contained somewhere herein.
You had already answered the questions in your own mind before you typed them up and hit the ’send’ button. “Asking” “me” was just a formality; so that you’d be able to say “I was just asking.” Nice try.
baldilocks on June 20, 2007 at 5:27 PM
The very fact that the officials declared “this was Not a hate crime” spells out that the killers at least were not white.
Bearhopi on June 20, 2007 at 5:27 PM
I’m so effing sick of all this race crap. The problem is that people in most cities, even “enlightened” Austin, don’t know how to behave themselves in public.
I feel very blessed to live in my majority Mexican-American city, where a majority African-American NBA team just won its 4th championship in 9 years. We had the ususal street parties and parades–for the most part, it was brown people partying in honor of black athletes.
It was great fun. No one got hurt in several days of celebrating. In my town we celebrate everything; anything is an excuse to party, and the folks and the police know how to behave.
juliesa on June 20, 2007 at 5:35 PM
And so I guess you’re the mind reader, eh?
No, again, I was really asking a question. I couldn’t see a logical reason for the victim’s last name to be an issue here (as I’ve written before). You finally, after some serious defensive remarks, explained how race could be an issue here.
I now see what you were talking about.
Before I did not. Hence, I asked.
Take me at my word, or don’t. I have no reason to care what an online screen name has to say about me. If you’re deciding you know what exactly I meant by my question (the very thing you accused me of with my question), despite what I’ve since said, then fine.
Esthier on June 20, 2007 at 5:38 PM
I said:
You said:
That’s utterly ridiculous… The odds DON’T say whites are oppressive bigots, that’s old history. We’re talking about odds based on current stats and trends. Again, in all likelihood, if you see a black child he/she was probably born out of wedlock. Of course if the child was with parents who weren’t dressed gangsta style and speaking “street”, but looked like middle class normal people you might think the child wasn’t born out of wedlock… but if the child is being pushed in a stroller by a mother who looks like a hooker and a father who’s got gold teeth, can barely keep his pants on, and wears a shirt that makes him look like a small child in his father’s shirt (bonus points for hat with tags still on it), the odds of “out of wedlock birth” go back up. The same would be said for all those Eminem wannabe white kids out there, but this is all a tangent anyway.
Odds based on current stats and ancient history are two different things.
Esthier, keep in mind I don’t agree with (or even understand the angle) the talk of the driver being a drunk illegal. You’ll notice that I disagreed with both you and baldilocks… I said that the comparison of drunk driving Mexicans to black children born out of wedlock was stupid:
But it’s not
RightWinged on June 20, 2007 at 5:42 PM
How so? Race crimes aren’t only black on white (or the reverse), and even crimes that are black on white aren’t always labelled hate crimes.
Esthier on June 20, 2007 at 5:43 PM
Esthier on June 20, 2007 at 5:38 PMYou couldn’t at least be man/woman enough to admit that you put your presumptions in your questions, because right there on this page.
I could at least respect that.
baldilocks on June 20, 2007 at 5:46 PM
Couldn’t=could
baldilocks on June 20, 2007 at 5:47 PM
And that’s true no matter the race of the kid. There are significant incentives for poor parents to remain unmarried, hence the assumption there makes sense.
But there’s no reason to assume black people are born out of wedlock without a little more information.
Esthier on June 20, 2007 at 5:49 PM
This is a real problem. When I was in highschool in the Bayarrhea waaay back when, they shut down the public school for a week because of black vs. hispanic race riots. It was a mess. It’s not often reported since it doesn’t fit the “whitey vs. all other races” mainstream media mold.
NTWR on June 20, 2007 at 5:49 PM
Sounds like the reverse of the late 1800s/early 1900s lynchings in the South.
Tim Burton on June 20, 2007 at 5:52 PM
Again, the specific example of looking at one’s appearance (gangsta attire, etc.) was just a tangent, as I noted.
And yes there is reason to assume black people are born out of wedlock… because generally speaking they are… the same way they generally vote Democrat. These are simply statistics and easily proven.
RightWinged on June 20, 2007 at 5:53 PM
Woman, to answer your implied question.
And in all, 100% honesty, I admitted that I didn’t know why you were bringing it up. I saw no reason for you to bring up race the way you were doing it.
I admitted that.
Can you at least admit that you were unclear?
Esthier on June 20, 2007 at 5:53 PM
One more time.
You could at least be man/woman enough to admit that you put your presumptions about me in your questions, because they don’t stem from me trying to read your mind; you put them right here on this page.
I could at least respect an admission of wrong.
Have a nice evening.
baldilocks on June 20, 2007 at 5:55 PM
And the reason to assume this is….? How does that assumption help you?
Does assuming all blacks are b@st@rds until proven wrong somehow make your life or the lives of black people any easier? Does it help you understand another culture?
What? Where’s the benefit?
Esthier on June 20, 2007 at 5:55 PM
Oh, and Esthier, don’t think I didn’t notice that you quoted me out of context (again on the total tangent, which I fully identified) so that you could make it look like I was only talking about blacks, where I noted that the same could be said about whites. You deliberately quoted me out of context so you could act like you made some counterpoint, when in fact I’d already made it. It’s sad to see you use such a dishonest tactic. When I first scanned through this thread, I thought I was going to be on your side of this thing, but you’ve not only said some ridiculous things but now you’re being dishonest out of some kind of desperation.
RightWinged on June 20, 2007 at 5:56 PM
Yes I was unclear. Goodbye…for now.
baldilocks on June 20, 2007 at 5:56 PM
Just a side note (though if you look just above your post, you’ll see that I already responded to this), mentioning racial tensions between blacks and hispanics DOES change the crime.
So half of my question was right.
Had you taken the chip of your shoulder and simply said, “Yes, Esthier, the man’s last name does indicate something else about the crime that others might not have noticed.” Then all of this could have been avoided.
Instead, you brought up drunk illegal discussions.
Esthier on June 20, 2007 at 5:59 PM
That’s probably what all the white people at the Dallas Cowboys ‘92 Superbowl victory parade thought too. Until some “young people” (all black) decided to go through the crowd beating the hell out of people. Old or young, male or female, didn’t matter. But what did matter was the color of your skin, because they only went after white people. It was the biggest race riot Dallas has ever had. And these “young people” afterwards said flat out that they just wanted to crack whitey’s head open.
forged rite on June 20, 2007 at 6:04 PM
You said Eminem wannabes. I didn’t assume that anyone would read our discussion and without reading your own words. I was quoting you and talking to you, specifically addressing the specific words I had quoted.
I didn’t include the part about whites, because even there, you only mentioned a specific segment of whites, ones that act like gansters, basically whites that act like blacks.
And really, that ignores every other poor segment of whites who might likely have had children out of wedlock.
I assume, right or wrong, that people do not judge anyone here by something one of us chooses to quote.
Just to be clear, I wasn’t being dishonest. I was only quoting the part of your response that I was responding to specifically without ignoring the rest of what you’d written. I only quoted that for you, not for the benefit of anyone else.
Esthier on June 20, 2007 at 6:08 PM
The “reason” to assume it is because in all likelihood, if you see a black child he was born out of wedlock.
Who says the assumption helps anyone? Does the assumption that a homeless person is a drunk or a crackhead “help” or “benefit” anyone? Does recognizing that dropouts are more likely to be on welfare “help” or “benefit” anyone? Does assuming a serial killer is white “help” or “benefit” anyone?
WTF are you even talking about? You’re spinning around like crazy now… that has nothing to do with anything. What, do you think I see a black kid with his mother on the street and say “that kid’s parents must not be married!”… The issue was brought up by baldilocks, and I responded specifically… It’s not that I dwell on the out of wedlock birthrate among blacks. However if you want to be stupid about the “benefit”, one could make the case that recognizing a problem is the first step to solving it, rather than pretending it’s not there (the same could be said for all those other examples I used to mock your complaint of lack of benefit for recognizing odds).
RightWinged on June 20, 2007 at 6:08 PM
To clarify, I think your problem here, Esthier, is that you think recognizing statistics/odds is somehow “judging” someone. Again, it’s irrelevant, but there is a benefit in recognizing a problem in order to move towards a solution. Being in denial about a problem doesn’t get anyone anywhere. But the point (originally) was a disagreement with baldilocks. She tried to compare the likelihood of a Mexican driver to be drunk with a black child being born out of wedlock. I said this was ridiculous because an extreme majority of black children are born out of wedlock, while you’d struggle to make a case that even a noticeable minority of Mexicans drive drunk. I spoke the truth, the vast majority of blacks are born out of wedlock. You can get mad and say that acknowledging this doesn’t benefit anyone (which again isn’t actual correct), but then I guess anyone who reads or studies odds or stats should just stop wasting their time right?
RightWinged on June 20, 2007 at 6:12 PM
What I mean is, what’s the purpose?
No, so again, why are we even discussing this? Why is it that upon learning the victim’s last name, the question of him being illegal and/or drunk is being brought up?
Look, it’s a racial stereotype which is, by definition, racist. That’s the point I was making.
Esthier on June 20, 2007 at 6:14 PM
ANd the reason for this is that anyone with morals and a work ethic worked their way out of inner city ghettos and moved into neighborhoods filled with people who shared those qualities. People who had bad habits stayed put. The Left used to wring their hands about “Black flight” from the cities – those would be the people with their heads screwed on right who didn’t want their impressionable children to learn gangsta habits.
The Left revealed their racism by trying to come up with ways to keep the Black people inside the cities – all one confined group, making no allowances for people who understood that removing their kids and settling them into better neighborhoods was the best solution to raise decent and productive citizens.
Therefore, trying to predict people’s behavior on color alone is poor judgment. It’s ethnicity/culture that trumps all. What does that person BELIEVE? People are social creatures, like-minded hang out with like minded. A neighborhood of Black white collar professionals is not going to riot, no matter what the provocation. A neighborhood of skilled contractors, salaried people of any “color” ain’t going to riot either. Like everyone else, they are used to working in the system.
All bets are off in a marginal, cruddy section of town with high unemployment and crime – no matter what “race.”
naliaka on June 20, 2007 at 6:15 PM
I’m not angry, and that’s certainly not the point.
Acknowledging statistics is one thing, making assumptions based on those statistics is another.
Esthier on June 20, 2007 at 6:17 PM
Hey, Austin’s a very liberal city–especially by Texas standards. See what a colorblind, social utopia liberalism has created here?
aero on June 20, 2007 at 6:19 PM
Don’t ascribe this to me:
That was baldilocks’ beef, and I never indicated by any stretch of the imagination that I was on her side of that (which again, is why I thought I was going to come down on your side of the debate with her… at first)
I couldn’t care less about what the guy’s last name means, etc. etc. Drop that, because that was entirely baldilocks, and she’s gone.
I simply argued with her, AGAIN:
Oh, and this is a gem:
So you’re advocating burying our heads in the sand? It’s simply odds, most blacks are born out of wedlock. Acknowledging that isn’t racist or bigoted or relating to ancient history of “white oppression” as you tried to compare it to earlier. It’s simply a fact. Now someone might have a problem if seeing a black child immediately makes them wonder whether the child was born out of wedlock, instead of just walking on by, not seeing something other than another person… but that’s irrelevant to the discussion, all together. I’m simply stating the fact that the extreme majority of black children are born out of wedlock, but acknowledging this bothers you for some reason or else you wouldn’t keep whining about it… I’m just not sure what irritates you about me stating a known fact, especially when it was DONE ORIGINALLY TO COUNTER THE CLAIM ABOUT DRUNK MEXICAN DRIVERS!
RightWinged on June 20, 2007 at 6:28 PM
I am willing to bet that it was left over Katrina “victims” who were transported to Texas after the storm.
SouthernGent on June 20, 2007 at 6:51 PM
Anything’s possible, but I’m inclined to doubt it. The east side of Austin has long been, well, let’s just say, a frontier.
RushBaby on June 20, 2007 at 6:56 PM
Back.
Esthier said:
How?
baldilocks on June 20, 2007 at 8:38 PM
I don’t see why I have jump to answer the questions about my motives when the questioner indicates by the very wording of the question that he had already made up his/mind about my motives. “Are you trying to make excuses for black crime or are you a victicrat looking for racists under the bed? Which is it?”
You didn’t ask me what my motives were, not really. You said under the guise of “asking a question” that my motives for making the statement were to hurl accusations of racism at HA’s mostly white guests or look for racism that’s not there.
You insulted me without any reason for doing so. So, yeah, I got PO’d. Still am.
baldilocks on June 20, 2007 at 8:56 PM
Rightwinged
Actually I didn’t compare likelihood; I compared the “racism” of the statements.
baldilocks on June 20, 2007 at 9:06 PM
baldilocks on June 20, 2007 at 8:56 PM
Glad you popped back in the thread. I am with you all the way. See, I think that the Conservatives in this country are united by values, despite the fact that we can sure go at each other while discussing issues or events in the news.
And I contend that those values included conceding when you’re bested, apologizing when you’re wrong, shaking hands afterwards, and joining in solidarity to face our real opponents.
Big Hug from Texas for you, Baldilocks.
RushBaby on June 20, 2007 at 9:15 PM
Eh maybe. :-)
Thanks RB.
baldilocks on June 20, 2007 at 9:17 PM
Well, you said:
All I was saying is that saying these two thinks aren’t really close at all… You’d be hard pressed to find any statistics even showing that a significant MINORITY of Mexicans drive drunk, while it’s an established fact that the vast majority of blacks are born out of wedlock. This doesn’t mean anything or have anything to do with the conversation you and Esthier were having really, I just don’t buy the comparison of the two things. It was basically over and done with when I said it, except that Esthier for some reason couldn’t stand a fact being reported, and had to make up (still not understood) reasons for objecting to the simple idea of stating facts.
RightWinged on June 20, 2007 at 10:11 PM
‘Lots’ and ‘most’ aren’t synonyms. I was comparing the “race-baiting” quality of the two statements (which E. accused me of). It’s necessary to keep in mind what was being discussed. You brought up the fact that the quantity (of black illegitimate babies) being discussed was a majority. While true, it had no bearing on the definition of “race-baiting.”
If you’re talking about the ‘lots versus most’ idea, then there’s no reason to buy it; but that isn’t what was being compared. It isn’t what we were talking about. You disagreeing with something I didn’t say and an idea that I didn’t have.
Which goes back to the alleged “race-baiting” quality of my analogy and not to a numbers comparison. And I too still don’t understand where he was coming from.
baldilocks on June 20, 2007 at 10:47 PM
Why are they all hopping like that? They look like the little kids who used to rap with their pants backwards, Criss Cross, I think were their name. Remember “Jump! Jump!”
Alden Pyle on June 20, 2007 at 3:30 PM
The jumping seems to have an African tribal influence to me. The US has been receiving many people from Samolia and other African nations in recent years. I feel sorry for the unimmaginable emotional toll the hundreds of years of domination and degredation the American Blacks have endured and suffered. For African Americans to start to emerge with their own identity and holidays I think is healthy. Junteenth is a tribute to the Countries progress. I view it as a sign of healing and progress. What we should be looking at here is making life better. Alcohol could have played a part in the violence. I think for a beating death to occur is a tragedy for all concerned. Both the willing participants or apathy of bystanders is inexcusable. The fact is the Black community needs better leadership to challange individuals to a higher standard. We need Lt.Gov.Steele and people like him to take a stand here and denounce the bad apples and head off the likes of Jackson/Sharpton. God Bless our Black Bretheren. To assign this tragedy to racism only is like saying a victim who dies at the hands of a drunk driver got killed because the driver drank alcohol. The drinking is only a symptom of a deeper emotional dilemma. Black Leadership is the key to a Black solution.
sonnyspats1 on June 20, 2007 at 10:50 PM
I’ll accept your explanation, however I still don’t see it as a valid comparison really… One is based entirely on known statistics, the other isn’t. I suppose they could both be used for race baiting, but I guess simply making the statements (in context) doesn’t make them comparable, to me.
But yeah, I definitely have no idea what Esthier was talking about.
RightWinged on June 20, 2007 at 10:54 PM
Thanks.
May I offer assistance?
Say I have a coat that is red. And some other chick has one that’s the same design, except that it’s green. I say “hey, your coat is like mine.” She says “no it’s not; it’s a different color.” I’m comparing design and she’s comparing color. We’re talking about two different characteristics.
Just like I’m comparing “race-baiting” characteristics of the two statements (you’ll note that I never used the word ‘most’) while you’re comparing numbers.
Hope that helps.
baldilocks on June 20, 2007 at 11:06 PM
I understand what you’re saying completely baldilocks, I just think you could have used a better example than the out of wedlock birth rates of blacks, as this is an established fact. I know you didn’t say most (and saying “many” I suppose is a “fact” too), but saying “many” can be applied to any group or all people. And while the out of wedlock birth rates are too high in all communities, it is extremely disturbingly high among blacks. So there is something, factually based, when talking about black out of wedlock birth rates (as compared to others), while I don’t know of any stats that say Mexicans have any higher rate of drunk driving than any other group. One could of course use either statement to race-bait, and I know that’s what you’re saying, I just think it’s a slightly off example (based on what I’ve just explained).
If you had said:
I’d think the comparison in the two statements would make a lot more sense. Because they’re both stereotypes that one could use to race-bait, but neither is laid out in hard numbers.
You see what I’m saying? The “lazy” comment could be said about “lots” of people of any race, so it compares better to “lots” of Mexicans driving drunk, because that goes for any race too. But the out of wedlock birth rate among blacks DOES statistically stand out among races.
I understand the point you’re making, and that my objection to the comparison isn’t actually relevant to the discussion you two were having, I just thought you could have used something in place of the out of wedlock birth rates.
RightWinged on June 20, 2007 at 11:50 PM
A lot of illegals in this country come from underdeveloped countries. Less education and experiences with the trappings of living in our society. So, drinking and driving isn’t such a big deal because they haven’t grown up around it, nor do they have the possibility of knowing someone who has been adversely affected by DWI related incidents. When I lived and worked in southern CA, MOST of the illegals I knew did a lot of drinking and driving. It may not be statistically accurate, but that is my experience.
csdeven on June 21, 2007 at 7:53 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2