13-year-old burnt alive because of race in Missouri

[Agorism]

13-year-old burnt alive for being white

http://www.thenewamerican.com/opinion/selwyn-duke/11046-media-selective-in-reporting-qhate-crimesq


“This is what you deserve. You get what you deserve, white boy.” So spewed the attackers of Melissa Coon’s 13-year-old son, as they doused him with gasoline and set him alight.

Police, they say, are “investigating” whether this is a hate crime.

Yes, and I’m investigating whether the media is biased and if hate-crime law is applied equally. I’ll get back to you on that — in about two paragraphs.

The attack on the boy took place on the east side of Kansas City, Missouri. Fox 4 Kansas City provides some (sanitized) details, writing, “The victim is a student at East High School and regularly walks home after class. When he reached his porch, two older teens grabbed him, pinned his arms behind his back and then poured gas from a gas can on the boy. They then set the boy on fire.”

Thankfully, the teen victim had the presence of mind to pull his shirt up over his head and snuff out the flames. He was treated at Children’s Mercy hospital, having suffered first-degree burns to his face and head. And police said they were concerned about possible damage to his eyes and lungs.

The concern, however, isn’t translating into national media coverage — or honest coverage anywhere.

Of course, if you scrutinize the few local outlets reporting the story and cut and paste, you can piece the picture together. The Fox article I excerpted above provides only the vaguest hint of the attack’s racial nature by quoting Mrs. Coons as saying that her family was told “it’s a hate crime.” KCTV 5 did a bit better, reporting that the victim was white and the assailants black; however, while they quoted the attackers as stating “This is what you get,” for some reason they omitted the “white boy” part. Then there was KMBC.com, which presented the latter but neglected to explicitly identify the race of the criminals, leaving the reader to wonder if the attackers were self-hating Norwegian immigrants. But I’ve played the game and figured out that Colonel Mustard did it in the library with the candlestick.

But we’ve seen this bias before. It’s much as when Muslims rioted in France a couple of years ago and burned thousands of cars, and the media reported the rioters as “youths.” Yes, just teen angst, I suppose.

Some may say that the media are reluctant to stir up racial unrest, but this never seems to stop them when the races of the victim and attackers are reversed. Could you imagine the hue and cry if two older white teenagers had set an innocent black child alight while saying, “You get what you deserve, black boy”? The headlines coast to coast would be cast in neon, and the media would love it — it would give them another chance to agitate for more hate-crime legislation.

This is exactly what happened after the horrible dragging death of black victim James Byrd by three white men in 1998; it was headline news for months and led to the creation of a Texas hate-crime law. Meanwhile, when two “youths” beat a cab driver and his passenger while shouting racial epithets in Philadelphia recently, D.A. spokeswoman Tasha Jamerson said that hate-crime charges wouldn’t be forthcoming “because there was no evidence that the assault had been motivated by the race of the victims” (no, just the racial hatred of the assailants). Also in 1998, there was the murder of homosexual Matthew Shepard, which became an even bigger story and likewise was used to justify hate-crime law. Yet what about the brutal death of 13-year-old Jesse Derkhising, who was sexually tortured by two homosexual predators in Arkansas a year later? Oh, you don’t know what I’m talking about?

Exactly.

WorldNetDaily.com reports that a Nexis search shows a disparity in the story counts between the Shepard and Derkhising cases of 18 to 1.

Of course, any time you report on a crime motivated by group hatred it can foment unrest, as hate begets hate. But if some think this a justification for suppressing truth, they should note that peddling only half of it can be far more dangerous. As Jack Cashill observed when commenting on the refusal to report politically incorrect “hate crimes,” “The cumulative effect of such routine suppression leads minorities, especially blacks, to think themselves uniquely victimized.” And when you thus believe, you’re more likely to lash out.

Obviously, the job of the media is to report what’s newsworthy. This means not just picking the relevant stories, but also the relevant facts within them. If “people” are attacked for going to school in Afghanistan, it is absolutely relevant that all the victims happen to be female and all the assailants male fundamentalists; this lends the story perspective. Likewise, if virtually every one of thousands of rioters is of a specific group or a victim’s attackers are of a different race and shouted racial epithets, these facts are relevant, too.

The refusal to reveal such facts makes a mockery of journalism. And if we won’t report that rioters are Muslims, why state that they’re youths? If reporting the race of an assailant is out of bounds, why disclose that they’re male? Why expose any groups to possible ridicule? Maybe a rape should be reported thus: “Sentient biped accuses other sentient biped of undocumented-lover status.”

Perhaps the worst violence here is the kind that hate-crime laws do to the principle of equality before the law. Because besides being an effort at thought control, they’re never applied equally. They’re not about eliminating hate, but are just vehicles through which the Left can express its hate through law. With hate-crime legislation, leftists now have the latitude to discriminate legally as they cherry-pick sentient bipeds for harsher punishment based on sexual inclination, race, creed, or color.

[eduardo89]

White victim means its not a hate crime. Unless he was gay.

[rockerrockstar]

Obviously they hated the kid why else would they set him on fire. It should be attempted murder.

[fisharmor]

Obviously they hated the kid why else would they set him on fire. It should be attempted murder.

Oh, come now. It's not like the black teenagers were SMOKING POT or anything serious like that. THEN they'd have a problem.

[otherone]

I'm not certain that hyperbole is helpful. We get first degree burns from sitting in the sun too long. Rarely is that considered being "burnt alive". It's inappropriate to compare this to a dragging death.

[jmdrake]

When Tara Cole (black) was pushed into a river by two white guys and drowned it wasn't prosecuted or reported as a "hate crime" and it didn't get much national press.

http://freedomtracks.com/taracole.html

So for the record not all attacks of blacks by whites are treated as hate crimes. (And yes I know the interracial crime stats). In the case of the boy set on fire, I would count this as a hate crime. No it's not as bad as the dragging death from an outcomes point of view, but it is as bad from an intent point of view. However this part is a bit over the top:

Also in 1998, there was the murder of homosexual Matthew Shepard, which became an even bigger story and likewise was used to justify hate-crime law. Yet what about the brutal death of 13-year-old Jesse Derkhising, who was sexually tortured by two homosexual predators in Arkansas a year later? Oh, you don’t know what I’m talking about?

Unless there is some evidence that the predators in Arkansas knew Jesse Derkhising was straight......?

[azxd]

I blame this on Obama ... He has created the greatest divide this nation has ever experienced, IMO.
Not even gonna embed it, because I hate racism - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9FZMHNhJ80
And that sure seems to be the motive ... As chickens come home to roost.

[azxd]

I'm not certain that hyperbole is helpful. We get first degree burns from sitting in the sun too long. Rarely is that considered being "burnt alive". It's inappropriate to compare this to a dragging death.
Sure it is ... Division is a tool, and it is used as effective in race issues as it is in political issues.
It's intentional by design.

[azxd]

When Tara Cole (black) was pushed into a river by two white guys and drowned it wasn't prosecuted or reported as a "hate crime" and it didn't get much national press.

http://freedomtracks.com/taracole.html

So for the record not all attacks of blacks by whites are treated as hate crimes. (And yes I know the interracial crime stats). In the case of the boy set on fire, I would count this as a hate crime. No it's not as bad as the dragging death from an outcomes point of view, but it is as bad from an intent point of view. However this part is a bit over the top:

Also in 1998, there was the murder of homosexual Matthew Shepard, which became an even bigger story and likewise was used to justify hate-crime law. Yet what about the brutal death of 13-year-old Jesse Derkhising, who was sexually tortured by two homosexual predators in Arkansas a year later? Oh, you don’t know what I’m talking about?

Unless there is some evidence that the predators in Arkansas knew Jesse Derkhising was straight......?
The problem is,
We have laws that state assault and murder are not what society condones ... We don't need more laws that make HATE an additional penalty.

[phill4paul]

There are laws against burning people, beating people, killing people. I fail to see why 'hate crime' laws are needed.

[jmdrake]

The problem is,
We have laws that state assault and murder are not what society condones ... We don't need more laws that make HATE an additional penalty.

Oh I don't disagree. (And I don't think I said anything to imply I did). That said motivation does come into murder laws in ways that it shouldn't. I remember years ago what particularly violent hate crime (black man burned to death by klansman) where the prosecutor tried to prove that the crime was motivated by a robbery (apparently the black man's watch was missing) in order to get the death penalty and he failed. Just the fact that the crime involved torture should have been enough for the maximum penalty allowed. But the death penalty "enhancement" factors in that state didn't allow for that. What's really odd is that in New York if you kill a cop you can did the death penalty, but if you kill his family you don't. (That fact played a part in a plotline for TV show New York Undercover btw). So stuff is already not simple. But I agree that complicating things with "hate crime" elements is a bad idea.

[The Free Hornet]

I'm not certain that hyperbole is helpful. We get first degree burns from sitting in the sun too long. Rarely is that considered being "burnt alive". It's inappropriate to compare this to a dragging death.

If they in fact used gasoline on the kid, then it was not for a lack of trying. Had the rope broken behind their pickup truck, would they get a free pass?

I can't compare a dragging death to living in a burn ward and suffering the affects for years. That this kid was - hopefully - able to escape mostly unharmed is great. Again, it was not for a lack of trying on those who lit him afire.

[KMX]

IF 2 white kids set a black kid on fire it would be EVERYWHERE!!!!

[phill4paul]

If they in fact used gasoline on the kid, then it was not for a lack of trying. Had the rope broken behind their pickup truck, would they get a free pass?

I can't compare a dragging death to living in a burn ward and suffering the affects for years. That this kid was - hopefully - able to escape mostly unharmed is great. Again, it was not for a lack of trying on those who lit him afire.

Which is why I don't get the charges for 'attempted' anything. If someone was trying to do something but failed in the attempt it should not absolve them of the original crime. Example: If I were of the mind to murder someone and shot them six times and they did not die then I don't believe that the fact that I was unsuccessful should be a mitigating factor.

[Intoxiklown]

The boy's (the victim) father should beat both of those kids with a ball bat until they can't even feed themslves for a good 6 months.

[otherone]

If they in fact used gasoline on the kid, then it was not for a lack of trying. Had the rope broken behind their pickup truck, would they get a free pass?


shouldacouldawoulda. It's up to a prosecutor to determine intent. Someone set my son's leg on fire when he was 14. A kid behind him at a pep rally was making a "flamethrower" from a perfume bottle and a lighter. My son's pant leg caught fire....second degree burns on his lower leg. If my son had died, the kid would have been charged with murder. But he didn't, so the kid was given a slap on the wrist. He wasn't charged with attempted murder.

[jmdrake]

Which is why I don't get the charges for 'attempted' anything. If someone was trying to do something but failed in the attempt it should not absolve them of the original crime. Example: If I were of the mind to murder someone and shot them six times and they did not die then I don't believe that the fact that I was unsuccessful should be a mitigating factor.

Say if you initially intended to kill them, shot them once, saw them begging for mercy and decided "Meh....I don't really need to kill them". What then? Does the law really need to be "If you start something you'd better finish it cause we're going to punish you the same whether you're successful or not"?

[jmdrake]

IF 2 white kids set a black kid on fire it would be EVERYWHERE!!!!

Except the story I posted of the homeless black girl who got drowned by 2 white guys wasn't "everywhere"? How do you explain that? I only know about this because it happened in my city, but it didn't make frontpage nationally.

[jmdrake]

shouldacouldawoulda. It's up to a prosecutor to determine intent. Someone set my son's leg on fire when he was 14. A kid behind him at a pep rally was making a "flamethrower" from a perfume bottle and a lighter. My son's pant leg caught fire....second degree burns on his lower leg. If my son had died, the kid would have been charged with murder. But he didn't, so the kid was given a slap on the wrist. He wasn't charged with attempted murder.

Under those circumstances the kid would most likely have been charged with manslaughter if your son had died. Technically under the "murder" heading, but not what most people think of as "murder".

[phill4paul]

Say if you initially intended to kill them, shot them once, saw them begging for mercy and decided "Meh....I don't really need to kill them". What then? Does the law really need to be "If you start something you'd better finish it cause we're going to punish you the same whether you're successful or not"?

I could see a difference in that instance. The individual in that instance would have shown remorse. So, yeah, I see your point. My reasoning was more along the lines of 'left for dead."

[pcosmar]

The boy's (the victim) father should beat both of those kids with a ball bat until they can't even feed themslves for a good 6 months.

Hell, the families of those boys should beat them to death, and deliver the remains with an apology.
They are a dishonor and disgrace to their families, community and race.

Perhaps not to death,, but this should not be acceptable to family and community and should be addressed by them before the State.

:(

[FritzforPaul]

Just when I think I have a grasp on things..something like this shows me I don't.

Teen Boy was Set on Fire; Police Investigating Hate Crime (http://voices.yahoo.com/teen-boy-was-set-fire-police-investigating-hate-11038956.html?cat=17)

[Kodaddy]

I saw nothing in the article about Tara Cole that stated she was pushed into the river by "two white guys". Is there another source where you got this information?

[catdd]

azxd

"I blame this on Obama ... He has created the greatest divide this nation has ever experienced, IMO."

agreed and fjmd

[tod evans]

Let's see........If I go shoot somebody or set them on fire, hell even if I just beat the hell out of them there's "hate" involved.
Why would I behave in that manner otherwise?

Those two boys deserve a fitting punishment without writing more laws.

[azxd]

The boy's (the victim) father should beat both of those kids with a ball bat until they can't even feed themslves for a good 6 months.
Purpose ?

In years past this form of conduct would have been dealt with, without question.

[azxd]

Say if you initially intended to kill them, shot them once, saw them begging for mercy and decided "Meh....I don't really need to kill them". What then? Does the law really need to be "If you start something you'd better finish it cause we're going to punish you the same whether you're successful or not"?
Dead men tell no tales ;)

[azxd]

Let's see........If I go shoot somebody or set them on fire, hell even if I just beat the hell out of them there's "hate" involved.
Why would I behave in that manner otherwise?

Those two boys deserve a fitting punishment without writing more laws.
Agreed ... To many laws already.

[awake]

Hate crime laws are special interest laws that are tailor made for certain 'oppressed minorities' to actually oppress non members. Similar to how affirmative action is used to legally discriminate while deceptively claiming legal equality.

[catdd]

Hate crime laws are special interest laws that that are tailor made for certain 'oppressed minorities' to actually oppress non members. Similar to how affirmative action is used to legally discriminate while deceptively claiming legal equality.

yup

[angelatc]

I'm not certain that hyperbole is helpful. We get first degree burns from sitting in the sun too long. Rarely is that considered being "burnt alive". It's inappropriate to compare this to a dragging death.

Bullshit. They poured gasoline on him and set him on fire. The fact that he wasn't burned "enough" to suit you has no real bearing on the case - it's their intent that is the crime.

[awake]

When a white male claims discrimination its a joke. When any identifiable minority claims as much, it is a horrific injustice. I have experienced this first hand, it is expected that I stay silent and take it, to pay for the sins of past white slave holders I never knew.

[otherone]

Bullshit. They poured gasoline on him and set him on fire. The fact that he wasn't burned "enough" to suit you* has no real bearing on the case - it's their intent that is the crime.

What is the difference between "murder", and "attempted murder"? Is first degree burns equal to being tied to the bumper of a pickup and dragged until dead? They should be punished equally? You have an austere view of justice.

*this is unwarranted. "Burnt alive" is an expression meaning "killed by burning". Using it to describe this incident is hyperbole.

[azxd]

Weeping

[catdd]

Yeah, just as Govt intervention in the middle east recruits more terrorists and makes us less safe, so does Govt intervention in domestic affairs create more problems than it eliminates. Evil begets evil. Most of the hell being raised in the world is due to "do-gooders" trying to set things straight.

[fisharmor]

When a white male claims discrimination its a joke. When any identifiable minority claims as much, it is a horrific injustice. I have experienced this first hand, it is expected that I stay silent and take it, to pay for the sins of past white slave holders I never knew.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0tzZ__Z5Qw

I'm sorry
For something I didn't do
Lynched somebody
But I don't know who
You blame me for slavery
A hundred years before I was born

Guilty of being white

I'm a convict
Of a racist crime
I've only served
19 years of my time

Guilty of being white

(And this song is 30 years old.....)

[PierzStyx]

I'm not certain that hyperbole is helpful. We get first degree burns from sitting in the sun too long. Rarely is that considered being "burnt alive". It's inappropriate to compare this to a dragging death.

Why? Because he was able to take off his shirt while the other person couldn't cut their ropes? The difference in intent seems purely circumstantial at best.

[otherone]

Why? Because he was able to take off his shirt while the other person couldn't cut their ropes? The difference in intent seems purely circumstantial at best.

Why what? Why is not being murdered better than being murdered? Really?

[Intoxiklown]

What is the difference between "murder", and "attempted murder"? Is first degree burns equal to being tied to the bumper of a pickup and dragged until dead? They should be punished equally? You have an austere view of justice.

*this is unwarranted. "Burnt alive" is an expression meaning "killed by burning". Using it to describe this incident is hyperbole.

The fact their plan didn't work, in no way reduces the fact of what they tried to do.

I'd put bullets in their little fucking heads. Whether they were white, black, brown, green, who cares. You are ignoring the complete evil in the act of what they tried to do. Who gives a damn if it failed. They TRIED THEIR BEST to kill a 13 year old child in a savage way.

Yes, they should be punished equally. They brought gasoline and matches, that means they PLANNED it. They planned to kill him by burning him to death. That is the death penalty in some states.

All I can say, is they better hope that boy's father is the kind of pussy to drink the milk if it's sour. Because God almighty himself couldn't save them from me if that was my son.

[catdd]

Just stop please. It's just too fuckn easy to sit there and make a case of "which is worse". If two wrongs make a right, then show me the mathematical formula to support that theory.

[patriot2008]

If you really read up on the dragging death, they were friends and hung out together. Read about it before you start comparing hate crimes. I for one hate the hate crime stupid law. Totally biased for minorities and unnecessary. As far as the media goes, if that kid were black this would be in every paper and on every channel. I abhor any racism, its all part of a larger system to divide the sheep.

[MJU1983]

Drudged.

[BlackTerrel]

There is a big difference between first degree burns and killing someone. Also - to the OP: what would be the advantage of making this a national news story? Who would benefit from that?

[bolil]

Motivation cannot be considered a factor in the commission of a crime. Otherwise justice is subjective and therefore compromised. Hate, monetary gain, thrill, irrelevant. The crime committed is the only thing to be judged

[BlackTerrel]

There are laws against burning people, beating people, killing people. I fail to see why 'hate crime' laws are needed.

You think there should be no difference between someone:

1. Accidentally running someone over in their car

2. Getting in a bar fight with someone and in a fit of rage hitting them with a glass bottle

3. Shooting someone five times because you didn't like the color of their skin

Let's say in all incidences the victim dies. Do you see no difference between the three? In each subsequent case not only is the crime greater but the general danger to society as a whole increases.

[bolil]

You think there should be no difference between someone:

1. Accidentally running someone over in their car

2. Getting in a bar fight with someone and in a fit of rage hitting them with a glass bottle

3. Shooting someone five times because you didn't like the color of their skin

Let's say in all incidences the victim dies. Do you see no difference between the three? In each subsequent case not only is the crime greater but the general danger to society as a whole increases.

Accidentally running someone over is not an intentional commission, but still a crime. The other two, provided the person in example two dies, are both instances of murder and motivation is irrelevant.

[1000-points-of-fright]

Motivation cannot be considered a factor in the commission of a crime. Otherwise justice is subjective and therefore compromised. Hate, monetary gain, thrill, irrelevant. The crime committed is the only thing to be judged

Establishing motive is a perfectly reasonable part of the process (in conjunction with physical evidence, witnesses, etc) when trying to prove someone is guilty of committing a crime. But once guilt has been established and you move on to the sentencing then it should not be a factor.

[tod evans]

If I shoot somebody 5 times because they kick my dog or grab my wifes ass how are those 5 shots different than in the scenario you painted?

My belief is that the overt act of actually shooting someone is the crime, now if "malice and forethought" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malice_aforethought) were an element of the offence then possibly a stiffer sentence should be sought by prosecutors.

Seeking to enhance sentencing of an overt act due to utterances or inferred motivation beyond premeditation is in my opinion granting prosecutors more power than is necessary. Especially given the discretion and inflammatory nature of the charges.

If we actually follow the logic of "hate-crime" allegations a woman who is an active feminist shoots her husband for making a misogynistic comment should be tried under these enhanced charges especially if she utters inflammatory statements about her husbands' sex.







You think there should be no difference between someone:

1. Accidentally running someone over in their car

2. Getting in a bar fight with someone and in a fit of rage hitting them with a glass bottle

3. Shooting someone five times because you didn't like the color of their skin

Let's say in all incidences the victim dies. Do you see no difference between the three? In each subsequent case not only is the crime greater but the general danger to society as a whole increases.

[Keith and stuff]

Hopefully, no one is charged under a hate crime law. Hate crime laws are bad and should all be abolished, immediately.

[basicopetsi]

This is the type of thing I'd love to share on my facebook but I dare wouldn't due to all of the people that would surely peg me as a racist for even mentioning such a taboo subject.

[basicopetsi]

You think there should be no difference between someone:

1. Accidentally running someone over in their car

2. Getting in a bar fight with someone and in a fit of rage hitting them with a glass bottle

3. Shooting someone five times because you didn't like the color of their skin

Let's say in all incidences the victim dies. Do you see no difference between the three? In each subsequent case not only is the crime greater but the general danger to society as a whole increases.

Sure there are differences between all of those. But I see no difference in shooting someone to death because of the color of their skin, or shooting someone to death just for fun. Exact same thing. Both should be charged with 1st degree murder.

The only consideration the law should give to motive is:

(a) was it intentional?
(b) was it premeditated?

Beyond that, considering anything else is getting much to close to thoughtcrime for my liking.

[BlackTerrel]

This is the type of thing I'd love to share on my facebook but I dare wouldn't due to all of the people that would surely peg me as a racist for even mentioning such a taboo subject.

Why would you love to share it on your facebook? Again - why the glee and who benefits from making this "viral"?

[basicopetsi]

Why would you love to share it on your facebook? Again - why the glee and who benefits from making this "viral"?

Because there is an epidemic of black on white (and black on Asian) violence in some areas that I think really needs to be called out and addressed. Please don't take this as a blanket statement, I know it's mostly confined to youth in only some areas. Also just to piss off some of my liberal friends. :)

[BlackTerrel]

Because there is an epidemic of black on white (and black on Asian) violence in some areas that I think really needs to be called out and addressed. Please don't take this as a blanket statement, I know it's mostly confined to youth in only some areas. Also just to piss off some of my liberal friends. :)

And publicizing it would stop the violence? How?

I also think you are exaggerating the issue.

[Roxi]

The word hate crime is seriously f**king stupid. When a person assaults, or kills another person, I think it a very rare situation where the said crime was done with love. So, adding the word hate is superfluous.