There has been a shooting at a Temple in Los Angeles, click here for more details. Apparently two men were injured, but are recovering in the hospital, with no life threatening injuries. The police have arrested a 17 year old suspect. This act is being treated as a hate crime due to the lack of any other motive. This Temple is not far from the site where children were gunned down at a Jewish Community Center.
As a matter of fact, ADL is holding a Concert Against Hate, honoring one of the survivors of that tragedy, Mindy Finkelstein and the postal worker, Joseph Ileto, who was killed during the summer of hate.
LOS ANGELES – A gunman shot and wounded two men in the parking garage of a San Fernando Valley synagogue early Thursday and Jewish schools and temples were put on alert in case it was not an isolated attack.
Shayan Yaghoubi, 13, was walking with his mother to the synagogue’s adjoining school but wasn’t allowed to cross the police line.
“The cops told us we can’t go,” he said. “I feel very bad because this is my favorite school … I have a lot of friends over there. I hope everyone is OK. There’s never been a problem with fighting.”
The attack occurred 10 miles from Jewish community center where white supremacist Buford Furrow wounded three children, a teenager and an adult, in 1999. Furrow later killed a Filipino letter carrier on another street.
Furrow, who is serving a life sentence without chance of parole, told the Daily News of Los Angeles in a letter last month that he had renounced his racist views and regretted the pain he had caused.
Check out community responses to hate crimes at the Not In Our Town Web site: http://preview.niot.org. Local group Unity in the Community is featured.
What a powerful thing it would be if the students involved in the local hate incident could turn it around positive — like the students in this video:
http://preview.niot.org/niot-video/youth-leaders-share-strategies-standing-hate
Why would someone do something like this?
“This act is being treated as a hate crime due to the lack of any other motive.”
What a scary sentence. For lack of a motive, the default is “hate crime,” simply because of proximity to a site where a racist wacko committed a crime 10 years ago?
Let’s just throw the concept of equal protection right out the window right now. Why are we even pretending it exists?
Any chance of getting a thread started about the fact that shots were fired outside Lou Dobbs’ house today?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/29/new.jersey.dobbs.gunshot/index.html
Formerly, I think Elena was working on the Lou Dobbs story this afternoon.
Emma, do you not believe in the concept of hate crimes in general?
Wolfie, I have to agree with Emma here. The fact that there is no other motive, should bring an assumption that this was a random act by a crazy person rather than default to a hate crime. I am not sure what an incident 10 miles away has to do with it unless I am missing something. The article linked above even quotes the deputy chief of police. “There was no evidence the attack was a hate crime but the motive remains under investigation, Moore said.”
And I do believe that there are hate crimes and they are despicable.
Do I think some people are motivated by racial/gender/sexual orientation, whatever? Absolutely.
Do I find such crimes repugnant?
Absolutely.
But I also believe in hard evidence, especially where the death penalty might be involved. Of course there are what seem to be obvious cases, like the guy who had the shooting spree at the Holocaust Museum–there you had physical evidence in the form of his writings, etc., to possibly “prove” his motivations. But to assume that someone is motivated by “hate” just because of the religion/gender/orientation, etc. of the victim, and attempting to get into someone’s head to determine a possible “hate” motive, is a little too subjective and prone to politics and popular sentiment. That is not justice, no matter how execrable the crime.
I think it has been determined that the shot fired was from a hunter.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/29/lou-dobbs-shots-fired/
Ihave not had time to follow the story closely.
I think what we are saying here might boil down to something this simple…you beat the gay kid up because he stole your lunch money, not because he was gay?
I believe there are hate crimes. I also believe that bad things happen to people that are not motivated by hate.
I haven’t been following this thread as closely as I should. Thanks for clarifying. There is a natural tendency to believe that if people are going into a synagague and get shot, that there is a connection. It might not be an accurate assumption, but I can see why it happens.
I heard an interesting thing at work today concerning this. I’m down in Texas at Ft. Hood – and an African American woman I work with down here told me that one of the other African American people here said regarding this – “they got what they deserved” meaning the synagogue got what it deserved. She was shocked at this person’s statement to that effect. We were just talking about the news and she brought this up – I don’t think she knows I’m Jewish actually.
Hard to believe there’s people out there that think this kind of thing is OK but obviously there are!
I well remember the incident with Buford Furrow – who at the time seemed like an extremely hateful person and obviously caused a lot of pain and grief within the Jewish community – not only in LA but elsewhere. I had not heard that now he seems to be saying he regrets his actions. At the time he did not at all seem to be remorseful from what I observed and read.
GR, you might want to explain who Buford Furrow is. He might be hateful because of that horrible name..you know…like a boy named Sue.
That is horrible what the woman said. I expect she might be up in arms if someone had said that about a member of her ethnic group.
I am wondering why the woman thought those shot got what they deserved. Wonder what she thinks they did to deserve getting shot.
Actually, Obama just signed off on that hate crime legislation, which seems to expand the definition of what a hate crime is. Some people are saying almost any attack on a gay person, even if not motivated by the fact they are gay, will now be considered a hate crime.
My opinion is that a murder or attack is just as bad whether it is motivated by racial/gender/religious motivations or just for any other reason. Making the penalties higher for hate crimes seems to possibly suggest that other murders or attacks are somehow less bad. I’m not sure that is such a good thing. And I don’t think higher penalties for hate crimes is going to stop those kinds of people or provide any kind of disincentive. Perhaps the victims or those of the same race/gender/religion/etc. will feel like justice has been better served by the harsher penalty – but other than that I’m not sure what it accomplishes. I don’t think it is any kind of deterrent.
In the same discussion today this came up – and the person I was having lunch with – she was of the opinion that this new hate crime legislation is paving the way for getting rid of the military’s don’t ask/don’t tell policy. The only problem is the military is quite different than civilian life – and she is of the opinion that gays who come out in the military will be targeted – especially those overseas, and it will be easy for it to be made to cover up that for the overseas troops.
I’m just repeating what I heard – I see a certain logic in it – I’m not sure I agree with it but I found it an interesting opinion. This person is ex-military and apparently as an African American experienced some discrimination at the hands of a white superior in the military. Never have been in the military – although working closely with them the past 7 years, i really don’t have a good frame of reference compared to this person.
Anyway, it was an interesting discussion – and I had not made any connection myself with this recent legislation – and the “don’t ask/don’t tell” policy – which I have heard that Obama would like to do away with.
Wow, GR, that is hard to believe that someone would say “they got what they deserved”.
Emma,
The reality is that the person did not ask for money, did not try to carjack the vehicle, he simply shot two people that were headed to services. The parking lot is specifically for the synagogue, not for anyone else. Do we know enough to say it was BECAUSE they were Jewish, no, but for whatever reason the police are behaving as if it were a motivated by hate.
Actually, it wasn’t the woman I had lunch with who thought that – she said it was another person here at Ft. Hood where we are working this week (an African American man). She was shocked at what this man said to her. I gathered this man thought that the people who got shot, because they were Jewish, somehow deserved it. She said that he said since they frequented “that temple” they got what they deserved! Obviously he knew the temple was a Jewish synagogue. Just goes to show there’s plenty of racism and anti-semitism going around, even if the crime itself wasn’t really targeting a Jewish synagogue and just happened to be there.
Regarding Buford Furrow – he targeted that Jewish Community Center in Los Angeles – he made statements to the fact he specifically targeted it, where he shot several people including 4 children. He also had documents saying he was going to target Jewish people, and had planned that attack for some time. Kind of a similar case to the more recent shooting at the Holocaust Museum in some ways.
I had not heard the latest news that now he is regretting his actions and saying he no longer has racist feelings or whatever. An interesting change – maybe he’s had a lot of time to think and reflect sitting in prison. Unfortunately, a little too late in coming, if you ask me. I don’t have any sympathy for him at all, and glad he’s locked away for the rest of his life.
I have been following the story VERY closey about Dobbs. There was ONE shot fired, it was THREE WEEKS ago, and the police are not calling it an attempt on anyones life. Dobbs lives in a very rural area, there is a preserve near his house and hunting season had just begun. The bullet was fired from so far away that it bounced off the siding of the attic and landed on the ground. From the police report, it was not a handgun or a shotgun, it was a long gun, probably a rifle, which may be why the police are leaning towards a hunting incident.
What I find interesing is that Dobbs is now crying about the hostile climate and rhetoric being directed at him. He wants to know why you can’t have a reasonable discussion about immigration. It’s weird, that sounds oddly familiar, oh wait, I think WE have been saying that here on anti for a long long time! We have pointed to the rising violence towards latino’s as indicated by the FBI and the rising hate crimes across the nation.
Why did he WAIT three weeks to suddenly bring this up on his radio show, was it because Geraldo came out against him in the last couple of days?
A quick google search on Buford Furrow turned up a Wikipedia article which seems accurate enough at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buford_O._Furrow,_Jr.
As it says, he was a member of Aryan Nations, and when arrested after the shootings stated he expressed no regrets for what he did. That’s how I remember it. It also mentions his recent statements referenced above in which he now does have regrets and is renouncing his prior racist/anti-semitic views.
GR, Thanks for that update. Maybe he has become someone’s bitch in prison and has had a change of heart? I understand there are lots of ARyan nation gang types in prison. I wonder why he changed.
Elena, perhaps Lou Dobbs hasn’t learned yet about he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword. I finally got a chance to listen to his spiel. He really doesn’t get it does he.
GR, that was a mighty interesting lunch you had. You came back with all sorts of info.
Back when Clinton was first in office, he did not want to stop with ‘don’t ask don’t tell.’ That was a compromise. He wanted to do away with the ban on gays in the military all together. He went with ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ because had he signed an executive order, the conservatives in congress were going to pass legislation that was far more restrictive.
The gays never forgave Clinton, but he did the best he could at the time for them. I can remember seeing all sorts of Clinton masks about town with Pinoccio noses about that time.
The military will always be more conservative on this issue than the general population. In my lifetime, there have been literal witch hunts for people in federal service who were gay. There was the feeling that they were a security risk…blackmail and all. That old cross-dresser J. Edgar Hoover seemed to propagate that feeling.
Acceptance of gays in the military will be gradual, I suppose. As for singling out of gays overseas, that tells me there might be some mighty weak commands. A strong unit should not have that kind of breakdown in discipline.
Yes, this was only one person’s (an African American woman who claims she has several gay relatives and who served in the military) opinion.
I do remember don’t ask/don’t tell was a compromise.
Also, used to be that being gay precluded you from high level clearances, at least those with the “life-style polygraph” which are for the Top Secret with Polygraph or higher compartmentalized clearances. Or maybe if you didn’t admit it and were found to be lying on the polygraph. They used to ask that question anyway – but I don’t think they do anymore. I have a feeling that it no longer is a factor in even Top Secret with Polygraph clearances. I do know back in the late 80’s/early 90’s that question was asked, and at least if you were found to be lying, that would probably cause you to flunk the polygraph test and the clearance would then be denied. Given don’t ask/don’t tell – I bet that question got removed – as military personnel sometimes get these clearances – particularly those that handle cryptographic equipment and so on.
Indeed, I would agree that a strong military unit should not have that kind of problem with some new policy where it is OK to come out as gay and then singling them out for discrimination.
You can only blackmail what you require to hide! Gay people ARE in the military. The idiocy of allowing one of our few arabic interpreters to be dischaged because he is gay is beyond stupid, actually criminal in my mind. Ah yes, keep the “gays” out and damn national security and keeping Americans safe…….safe from gay people though, now THAT is important, they are so much more dangerous than the people who fly planes into buildings.
Indeed, this woman works for my customer up in Ft. Monmouth, NJ and knows how to operate the receive side of the satellite broadcast system – so she comes down here to do that for these tests – or has the past 2 trips – which has alleviated me from doing that as that’s not the part of the system I’m responsible for. She definitely makes interesting conversation at lunch/dinner as I’ve found out the past few days.
I can’t argue with any of that. Indeed, things you try to hide and can be blackmailed for are the primary things that disqualify people from security clearances. If you don’t have to hide being gay, you can’t be blackmailed for it – so that definitely make sense.
It would be interesting to gain more insight as to why his feelings on this have changed. It is not that often you hear of someone denouncing such strong racist feelings as this man seemed to have. At the time, he expressly said he had no regrets for what he did, which was quite shocking given he shot at several young children! No regrets for doing that? Hard to imagine someone like that. Well, maybe someone in prison taught him a lesson for that behavior. The fact that he shot at young children may not have been well received by other prisoners. I’ve read that prisoners don’t look very favorably on child molestors for example, so may be the same for someone who’s shot at children.
Then again Timothy Mcveigh also had no regrets for the deaths of children at the day care center in that Federal building – so must have been the same kind of twisted logic these types of people have. So maybe I shouldn’t be so surprised, now that I think of it.
Still, would be interesting to know what made Furrow see the light, as it were.
McVeigh admitted that he deliberately looked for a building that would involve a day care center. What a bastard. At least he is a dead bastard!
Yeah, Mcveigh was a really cold-hearted bastard for sure! Somehow to him children of federal gov’t workers were valid targets! And, even at the end his final statement – he didn’t at all back down from basically saying he thought what he did was right. Definitely someone with no redeeming value, if you ask me.
I guess the no redeeming value sure justifies the death penalty in his case.
I will never forget the woman that lost BOTH her children that day. I just can’t imagine living after that, how do you go on as a parent?
I can’t imagine how any parent goes on after losing even one child, let alone both her children. I do remember that woman too. I hope somehow she has been able to move on in the years since then but bet it had to be a very tough road. A lot of families were victimized that day when husbands, wives, or children were killed. The fact he had no regrets about that even at the end shows what kind of person he was.
It does seem like if ever there was justification for the death penalty in a particular case – this one was it. Mass murder and no remorse at all, and feeling that the murder of all those innocent people was completely justified. Really, a terrorist attack by a US Citizen on US soil, which is even more reprehensible.