ANOTHER INTERNET HOAX ENDS IN TRAGEDY
By Mark Stuart Ellison
Associated Content/The People’s Media Company
December 25, 2007
Another internet hoax has ended in tragedy. This one has the stench of a teenage Ku Klux Klan rally supported by a cast of “Twelve Angry Men” characters.
On December 23, 2007, The New York Post reported that John White was convicted of manslaughter in the August 2006 shooting death of 17-year-old Daniel Cicciaro. The incident took place in an upscale neighborhood of Suffolk County, New York. White faces up to 15 years in prison.
Mr. White, 54, is black. Ciccario was white. The killing stemmed from an internet chat room message that appeared to have come from Mr. White’s son, Aaron, now 20. The message contained a threat to rape Ciccario’s female friend. It turned out to be a hoax.
That hoax set in motion a series of events ending in Ciccario’s death. Aaron, who was also a friend of Ciccario’s, arrived at a party on that fateful August evening. When the female friend told Ciccario about the message, Aaron was asked to leave. He did. A short time later, Ciccario and four other young white men arrived at Mr. White’s driveway shouting racial epithets. Aaron told his father that the group was going to kill him. Mr. White, a slender man, confronted the teens with a handgun. When Ciccario challenged him, the gun somehow went off, killing the 17-year-old.
The key issue in this case involves the right of a man to defend his life and property from trespassers. But because of the racial makeup of the parties, the nearly all-white jury, and the epithets employed, it has become yet another black-white cause celebre.
The jurors–at least most of them–apparently believed that Mr. White was reckless in approaching the young men with a gun and that he should have stayed inside until police arrived. That would probably have been prudent, but in the heat of the moment, people don’t always do the most rational thing, especially when they’re afraid of dying. What if, before the police arrived, the teens threw a brick or molotov cocktail through Mr. White’s window? Or burned a cross on his lawn? Should he have also turned the cheek then?
It seems that the common law “Castle Doctrine” would apply here. According to this well-established principle, a person has no duty to retreat when he is being threatened on his or her property. Another well-established legal concept is that a person has a right to use deadly force when he or she is motally threatened, or has a reasonable belief that deadly force is imminent. Mr. White is a man of slight build who had five aggressive young men trespassing on his land. According to published reports, Aaron had told his father that they intended to kill him. It would, therefore, seem that Mr. White had a right to defend himself and his son.
Perhaps he went too far. I don’t know because I wasn’t on the scene, nor was I at the trial. We’ll probably never know for sure.
And there’s plenty of blame to go around. Ciccario could have calmly tried to confirm whether Aaron actually penned the message before going vigilante on him. The female friend could have told her parents or the police about the message instead of the hot-headed Ciccario. Then there are the four geniuses who accompanied Ciccario. Had he confronted Mr. White alone, Ciccario would have been less threatening. Under those conditions, use of a firearm would have been less likely.
But one thing is certain: the hoaxer set this deadly process in motion. If not for the hoaxer, none of the parties would have done what they did, and Ciccario would be alive today. Why isn’t anyone in the media talking about this?
In a previous piece, I discussed the case of Megan Meier, a 13-year-old Missouri girl driven to suicide by adults posing online as an amorous teenage boy. Because there was no applicable law, the adults were never charged with a crime.
There may yet be hope for John White. A December 24, 2007 New York Post article indicated that Francois Larche, a white South African immigrant, was bullied by fellow jurors to convict Mr. White. According to the article, Mr. Larche was repeatedly subjected to name-calling and other forms of intimidation. There is also evidence that the trial judge put undue pressure on the jury to come up with a verdict shortly before Christmas. If these allegations are true, they are excellent grounds for appeal.
While there is hope for John White, there is none for Megan Meier and Daniel Ciccario. They’re dead, and they’re not coming back.
Eleven of the twelve jurors in the White case were Caucasian. The lone black juror consistently voted for conviction. In addition to Mr. Larche, a white woman had been holding out for acquittal.
The White and Meier cases indicate the need to identify and punish senders of malicious electronic messages. People can communicate in harmful ways by more traditional means such as snail mail, but electronic communication is much faster and easier. It is also quickly disseminated around the world, posessing an impact unimaginable before the internet existed. Contrary to the old adage, words can kill. Numerous scenarios come to mind. The possibilities are endless.
There should be a Federal law requiring a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years for anyone communicating in any medium when they know, or should know, that their message is likely to result in serious bodily injury or death, and such injury or death occurs. In the Meier case, the adults knew Megan suffered from depression and was on medication. The message in the White matter would constitute “fighting words” in any sane court. Civil libertarians will scream First Amendment bloody murder, but with proper safeguards, a law like this can pass Constitutional muster. Call it the Malicious Communications Act of 2008. Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama, and Mr. McCain, are you listening?
THE RENATO HUGHES CASE:
Rachel, a fellow blogger at Rachels Tavern, originally brought the cases of John White and Renato Hughes to my attention. I posted my thoughts on her blog on the ramifications of both of these cases, and how black citizens fare horribly when it is they who find themselves trying to defend themselves when they kill a white, regardless as to which side of the law they are on.
These two cases(Renato Hughes and John White) do not surprise me.
�One thing I find striking about both cases is that in both cases black men were charged with crimes. In one case, the black man was part of the home invading group, and in the other case the black man was the home owner. The cases also bring up the issues related to self defense, gun rights, and over zealous sentencing.�
In the first case you mentioned there was marijuana in the white man�s home. Could it be possible that this was a drug deal gone bad? [�Depending on which account you believe, the three men went to the Edmonds� home to buy or steal marijuana (and there was marijuana in the home). The Edmonds� might have been selling drugs, but they are claiming the marijuana was for medicinal use.�]
In the case of drugs being involved, who is going to believe the word of a black man against the word of a white man?
Per the news article:
“On Thursday, a judge granted a defense motion for a change of venue. The defense had argued that he would not be able to get a fair trial because of extensive local media coverage and the unlikelihood that Hughes could get a jury of his peers in the county. A new location for the trial will be selected Dec. 14.
“The sparsely populated county of 13,000 people is 91 percent white and 2 percent black.”
I would definitely say he cannot receive a fair trial by a jury of his peers with the population 91 per cent white and 2 per cent black.
In the second case, it still holds that in the eyes of white-run America back citizens are still not to defend themselves even when they are up against possible murder from a lynch mob/posse of whites.
For centuries, America has said to black citizens [via Justice Taney�s court] that black citizens �have no rights that a white man was bound to respect�. That still holds true in 2007 America.
It has long been understood that black citizens had no right whatsoever to defend themselves against murderous lynch mob whites; that mentality still exists in American society. Never mind that white America is the one that has shown the face of brutality and vicious race hatred against black America for 400 years. Anytime it comes down to blacks defending themselves from whites, in the eyes of America, in the eyes of the courts, blacks always will come out on the short end of the shitty stick in this country.
�Initially, the prosecutor�s charged Mr. White with murder, but the grand jury subsequently reduced charges to manslaughter. Prosecutors have suggested that Mr. White should have locked his doors and called 911, rather than confronting the teenagers with a handgun.
So what do you think?�
Mr. White should not be charged with manslaughter or any charge. He and his son were threatened on their own property. Mr. White had the right to use deadly force. These humans came to HIS home intent on attacking his son. What was he supposed to do? Fall down, beg and plead, �No, no, Massa, please, don�t hurt me or my son?�
Black people are sick and damn tired of white racists who still think they can run rough-shod over black citizens; white racists who still think that the WRITTEN law still states that it is still okay to murder and destroy black citizens, on their own property, such as Mr. White.
Maybe not on paper anymore, but, most definitely still in the minds of racists white supremacists. Obviously 400 years of white rage/hatred against black America always shows its true colors when altercations between black and white occur.
Whites still think they can destroy black life and get off with minimal sentencing.
What the hell, they can, and often do.
Black people can be rest assured that THEY will be painted as the horrible criminals no matter what led up to the incidents, especially in the case of Mr. White.
�One day a black teenager goes to a party where alcohol is served and a white teenage girl asks him to leave because she feels �uncomfortable� around him. He complies and goes home, but the girl then tells a male teenager at the party that the black teen had threatened her once before in an Internet chat room. The white teen then calls the black teen on his cell phone and yells at him using the N-word. Unsatisfied, the white teen then gathers four other white teenagers and they drive to the black teen�s house.�
On the “words” of this fake website by Longo, on the word of the white girl, these �humans� went to the young man�s house, forming a lynch mob bent on attacking him. Ah, yes, the supposed inviolable �purity� of the defenseless, virginal, pure white woman. Her word is always right and true. Many a black man AND woman have lost their lives behind the words of white women.
And white males.
Just as white men could lie on many an innocent black man or woman, and be believed, this case is no different.
On her word……alone.
On his word……alone.
Martin could have reacted differently to this supposed threat of rape from Aaron; she could have alerted her parents/the cops to check out this site instead of telling her boyfriend, but, unfortunately she did not. Did Martin really believe that her boyfriend was not going to go wild and not confront and attack Aaron when she told him of the “rape” threats on the fake myspace site?:
“Those phony messages were soon spotted by the girl. One of them, which threatened rape, particularly disturbed her. She then told Cicciaro what she thought Aaron was planning to do.”
But, she did not tell an adult/parent, and Ciccario is dead.
And Longo, the liar who created this hell that led to Ciccario’s death.
He is the one who is guilty and responsible for Cicciaro’s death.
HE set into motion the chain of events that led up to this murderous altercation.
The blame for Cicciaro’s death lays squarely at his feet, and no one else’s.
Because of Longo, a black father was put into the crucial situation of defending his son against a murderous lynch-mob gang of bloodthirsty whites.
Oh, I forgot.
The word of a white person is inviolable.
The word of a white person reigns supreme over the word of a black person in the good ‘ol USA.
On my blog, I was viciously attacked by male commentors who considered Joe Horn as justified in killing the two alleged burglars who were OUTSIDE his home. Many of the commentors insulted me and railed against the Texas law on the use of �reasonable force� and �deadly force�, showing their utter, complete ignorance of laws that protect BOTH them and the alleged burglars, and that you use deadly force as a last resort, when you are under attack.
I asked one angry commentor if the tables were turned and if Horn was a black man, and the two thieves were UNARMED white males, would he still be calling Mr. Black Horn a �hero�?
I have yet to receive an answer from this commentor.
In America�s eyes, ALL black citizens (male AND female) are murderous brutes who should be put down by any means necessary. Which is why this little known draconian California law is being applied against the black car driver, and which is why the black homeowner is now charged with manslaughter for defending himself against a pack of savage mob depraved, sadistic whites who still think it is open season on black citizens.
Who am I kidding?
America STILL thinks that way towards her black citizens.
She is still intent on wiping us off the face of the earth in whatever way, shape and form she can do it in.
Especially when she gets the law, no matter how racistly it is applied, on her side.