Police Backpedal on Race Attacks

Charlottesville Police Chief Timothy Longo has begun to backpedal on statements that the string of attacks by black teenagers on white UVa students were racially motivated, despite confessions from the arrested suspects. The topic became hot after David Duke’s white supremacy organization got involved on Thursday, demanding that the suspects be charged under § 18.2-57 B., which is Virginia’s hate crime statute. Reed Williams has a story on the matter in today’s Progress.

13 thoughts on “Police Backpedal on Race Attacks”

  1. So, wait, what exactly did the article say? I don’t get the paper, because I’m poor. : P I’ve been saying all along that I didn’t think that claim that the crimes were racially motivated was accurate, does this confirm that suspicion? Or is the police chief just saying, “Maybe the kids aren’t telling the truth?” Or perhaps something else?

  2. It is a shame that the NAACP and other members of the “black community” get an audience and a voice, but no one seems to be able to broach the polarization between the sides (David Duke for God’s sake! Please, just stay home!) in order to speak for the victims.

    If the accused have stated that they selected victims of a race other than their own, how is that not a race crime?

  3. Methinks this will just get more and more ugly . . .

    It reminds me of the “wilding” attacks in NYC / Central Park a few years ago: just senseless violence

    Perhaps the white girls — perhaps girlfriends, apparently present but not participating in the assaults — haven’t been changed as the local black notables would like because these gals are co-operating with the investigation. That is, they’ve struck a deal?

    And here only speculating further: perhaps the named, adult “star” athlete from CHS hadn’t yet signed a commitment to play at the college level because he hadn’t yet met the minimum NCAA academic requirements to play? Or isn’t expected to ever meet that requirement? The recruitment signing-time is nigh.

  4. I’m curious as to why the mayor is involving himself in this criminal matter. Seems way outside his purview.

  5. Because it is ALL political now.

    Reread, five times, the first sentence from today’s Daily Regress article:

    “Charlottesville Police Chief Timothy J. Longo said Friday that it is premature to conclude that race was a motive in a series of attacks against college students, though authorities have said three black suspects admitted they chose only white targets.”

    Whoever wrote that had a great sense of (subversive) humor!

    I would guess that the Police Dept.’s Lt. J.W. Gibson — who was quoted in the original Regress (and then Cavalier Daily follow-up) article, indicating the attacks were racially motivated — must now be in the hot-seat . . . for having spoken so candidly, and relaying that the assailants THEMSELVES explained that their attacks were racially-motivated. The ugly truth can be inconvenient. Then the politicians (chief, mayor) dithered, and this time-lapse and ambiguity invited the David Duke crowd in.

    In short, another disappoinment from local politicans.

  6. How’s this for a headline –

    Charlottesville officials castigated for speaking the truth.

  7. Hate-crimes, if they are going to be used, should be applied equanamiously. Justice and the law should be color-blind, as was originally intended. Unfortunately, as is often the case, both law and justice tend to be greatly influenced by those who are not.
  8. The mayor has no business speaking publicly about this matter. He is not part of the judicial process.
    Those who are non-politicians (law enforcement) should feel free to speak the facts without fear of reprisal from political groups such as the NAACP, ACLU, and whatever other thought-control groups wish to enter the fray.
  9. What these people did is wrong. They should be punished without undue influence from outside groups. Unfortunately, I doubt that will be the case.


  10. I will predict that the next scene is this local drama is a long period of silence in the local media.

    Anyone else care to predict?

  11. No question! There doesn’t seem to be much media stickiness to most stories around here. Why should this prove any different?

  12. “Why should this prove any different?”

    Because it should.

    This issue should cause the people to speak up for what is right, because it is obvious that those who have been selected/elected do not have the moral fortitude to say what is right.

    Some media outlet should do a story inviting the public’s opinion on their definition of what reverse discrimination means to them. (answer – it’s the same as good old, run-of-the-mill discrimination!)


Comments are closed.