Commentaries, Global Warming, Opinions   Cover   •   Commentary   •   Books & Reviews   •   Climate Change   •   Site Links   •   Feedback
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." - John 8:32
WEBCommentary Contributor
Author:  Nicholas Stix
Bio: Nicholas Stix
Date:  April 11, 2010
Print article - Printer friendly version

Email article link to friend(s) - Email a link to this article to friends

Facebook - Facebook

Topic category:  Other/General

"Disrespect" in Chicago: 21-Year-Old Shoots 84-Year-Old (with a Surprise Ending!)

Was it racism? Read along, as I unpack the codes used by the MSM and prosecutors.

The other day I read somewhere, “5 [a.m.] is the new 1 a.m.” The relevance of that remark is that there are apparently some old codgers who get up and out before dawn to catch an early-bird breakfast. Time was, one would then encounter safe, quiet streets even in the most bustling metropolis. But in today’s diversitopias, there are no safe times. Which brings me to the April 6 Tribune Co. story from Chicago, “Prosecutors: Elderly man shot over a dollar,” that reader-researcher A.L. sent me, and on which he did some work.

A man charged with shooting an elderly man outside a South Side fast-food restaurant allegedly opened fire because he became angered when the victim ignored his request for a dollar, prosecutors said today.

The 84-year-old victim was leaving a McDonald’s restaurant in the 7800 block of South Western Avenue at 5:15 a.m. Monday when Melvin Hammond, 21, allegedly asked him for a dollar, Assistant State’s Attorney Lorraine Scaduto said at Hammond’s bond hearing.

“The victim is moderately hard of hearing and did not hear what the defendant said to him and waved at him… According to the defendant’s handwritten statement, he felt disrespected by the old man and he became angry, so he shot him.”

The gunshot passed through one of the victim’s legs, shattering his femur, and he remained hospitalized this afternoon. Police later recovered a 9mm handgun at the scene loaded with six live rounds…

Circuit Judge Donald Panarese set bail at $600,000 for Hammond… He faces a sentence of up to 30 years in prison if convicted of aggravated battery with a firearm, aggravated battery of a victim over age 60 and unlawful use of a weapon.

Reader Amber quipped, “Thank God we have a gun ban, we wouldnt want that eldely man shootting a gang banger.”

If a guy asks you for a dollar, and feels “disrespected” and justified in shooting you when you don’t give it to him, that means that he didn’t “ask” you for a dollar, he demanded it, and thus that this was not a case of “panhandling,” but a robbery, from the get-go, which turned into attempted murder. (I realize that they’re not charging the confessed perp with that, but that’s a combination of affirmative action criminal justice, and the desire to massage the crime stats. Every time you can substitute an “assault 1” or even an “aggravated battery with a firearm” for an attempted murder, your city just became a little bit safer … in Bizarro World!)

And why would the prosecutor say that the confessed robber-shooter “allegedly asked him for a dollar”? “Asking for a dollar” isn’t a crime.

The explanation is that the prosecutor is speaking in code, just as the MSM does.

At least since the Bernard Goetz case (Christmastime, 1984), the MSM in New York have lied about blacks’ and Hispanics’ robberies of whites, by saying that the robbers “asked” (or “requested”) the victim for money.

When four violent black criminals—each of whom had outstanding warrants on him, and later confessed to having tried to rob Goetz—surrounded and demanded money from Goetz in an attempted robbery, he turned the tables on them, shooting each man once.

In the Goetz case, it was Manhattan DA Robert Morgenthau who got the ball rolling with the phony story, which was the kind of racial fairy tale that you’d expect to hear from defense counsel, not from a prosecutor’s office. Morgenthau had his staff sell a pack of lies to the media (which identified them as “sources,” rather than reporting that Morgenthau orchestrated the campaign) to wit that:

  • The four blacks had only “requested” money from Goetz, and never intended to rob him;
  • Goetz was a “racist” who was “looking for trouble”;
  • Goetz shot one man a second time; and
  • Thus that Goetz was a vicious, racist criminal, and the four men his poor victims.

Morgenthau also had his staff prep the four to testify that they had never sought to rob Goetz.

The legal terms for what Morgenthau and his henchmen did are: Conspiracy to obstruct justice, and conspiracy to suborn perjury.

Whenever it may have begun, the media practice of lying on behalf of racist black and Hispanic robbers, took root.

I can recall during the almost one-year period (1995-1996) when I was researching my first big story on crime in New York for Chronicles magazine, being confused by a story in the “Police Blotter” of a local community newspaper. In the wee small hours one night in Brooklyn (in trendy Park Slope, if memory serves), one man approached another, “requesting” money from him. I recall complaining to my girlfriend, “How can they arrest him for robbery, if he only ‘requested’ money?”

It took me an embarrassingly long time to realize that the media uses the verbs “to request” and “to ask” as euphemisms for “to demand.” But hey, the whole point of the exercise was to confuse people.

Clearly, the same game has long been afoot in Cook County, Illinois, as well. Thus does Assistant State’s Attorney Lorraine Scaduto double down on the confusion by using the euphemism “ask” together with “allegedly,” which exposes the fakery behind the euphemism.

And who ever said, “Two confusions don’t make a clarity”? (Alright, nobody.)

With all of the word games, and the would-be killer’s demand for “respect,” the Melvin Hammond story had the smell of a black-on-white racial attack. My reader-researcher A.L. had the same hunch, and e-mailed the reporter, who responded regarding the victim, “Nope. Not white.”

Look for Melvin Hammond to “unconfess,” charge that his confession was coerced, and seek to get it suppressed, at his next court hearing. (Heck, even the prosecutor refrained from calling his confession a “confession”!) Or maybe he’ll say that his words were “taken out of context,” or that the confession just contained “snippets” of what he had said.

Nicholas Stix
Nicholas Stix, Uncensored

Send email feedback to Nicholas Stix


Biography - Nicholas Stix

Award-winning, New York-based freelancer Nicholas Stix founded A Different Drummer magazine (1989-93). Stix has written for Die Suedwest Presse, New York Daily News, New York Post, Newsday, Middle American News, Toogood Reports, Insight, Chronicles, the American Enterprise, Campus Reports, VDARE, the Weekly Standard, Front Page Magazine, Ideas on Liberty, National Review Online and the Illinois Leader. His column also appears at Men's News Daily, MichNews, Intellectual Conservative, Enter Stage Right and OpinioNet. Stix has studied at colleges and universities on two continents, and earned a couple of sheepskins, but he asks that the reader not hold that against him. His day jobs have included washing pots, building Daimler-Benzes on the assembly-line, tackling shoplifters and teaching college, but his favorite job was changing his son's diapers.


Read other commentaries by Nicholas Stix.

Visit Nicholas Stix's website at Nicholas Stix, Uncensored

Copyright © 2010 by Nicholas Stix
All Rights Reserved.

[ Back ]


© 2004-2017 by WEBCommentary(tm), All Rights Reserved