Sunday, August 24, 2014

Hate Crime Blacks Against White Woman?



Woman hit in head with pellet gun in alleged hate crime while walking through Central Park: police

The 36-year-old victim told the Daily News she was attacked early Monday by a group of black youths who screamed that 'all white people suck.' The NYPD’s Hate Crimes Task Force is investigating.


From the NY Daily News:  Statement Analysis is added to the article in bold type.  




A 36-year-old woman says she was shot in the head with a pellet gun by verbally abusive black teenagers yelling racial epithets in Central Park.JOHN MARSHALL MANTEL FOR NEW YORK DAILY NEWSA 36-year-old woman says she was shot in the head with a pellet gun by verbally abusive black teenagers yelling racial epithets in Central Park.
A 36-year-old woman walking through Central Park was shot in the back of the head with a pellet gun in an apparent hate crime, police said Saturday.

The shaken victim told the Daily News she was leaving the park at W. 60th St. and West Drive about 12:05 a.m. Monday when she strolled past a group of black youths.

The two men and three women — all in their late teens or early 20s — said nothing as they passed by. But moments later, the woman felt a “horrible pain” in the back of her head.

“My hand went up to my head, and there was blood gushing everywhere,” said the woman, who asked to be identified only as Hanna.


Please note "my hand went to my head" is passive language.  This removes her from the responsibility of controlling her hand.  


“I turned around, and I said, ‘What are you doing? Why are you doing this to me? What's wrong with you people?’”

One of the women immediately unleashed a barrage of racial epithets.

“F---- you, you f------ white b----,” the woman hissed, Hanna recalled.

Did "Hanna" actually say the woman "hissed" these words?

Then one of the men popped his head out from behind a tree and joined in the racially fueled verbal attack.

All white people suck,” the man hollered. “F--- white people.”

The group fled, leaving Hanna bloodied and in tears.


Police released surveillance footage of three of the suspects in an attack in Central Park at W. 60th St. and West Drive early Monday.DCPIEnlarge
A sketch of one of the suspects in the apparent hate crime is seen.DCPIEnlarge
Police released surveillance footage of three of the suspects and a sketch of one in the attack in Central Park at W. 60th St. and West Drive early Monday.


“I was starting to go into shock,” she said. “There was a lot of blood.”

She was only "starting" to go into shock, not that she went into shock.

"I bled a lot" is personal.  "There was a lot of blood" is passive.  This is distancing language. 



After a crew of cops and paramedics arrived, Hanna was rushed to Roosevelt Hospital, where she was treated and released.

The police on Saturday released surveillance footage of three of the suspects and a sketch of one of them. The NYPD’s Hate Crimes Task Force is investigating.

"It's a hate crime — for no reason at all,” Hanna told The News. 

It is was a hate crime, hate is the reason.  "for no reason" is emphasized with "at all."

Police should question this woman's actions. 



“I was just walking by. There was no sort of eye movement. There was no altercation, confrontation, anything like that.”

She does not say 
"I was walking by" but "just" walking by.  The word "just" is used when comparing two or more things.  What is she comparing it to?
Why was she there?
She compares walking by with something and police need to know why. 

Note that within an attack, the woman tells us what did not happen and this non event is quite specific:  eye movement.   Most people say "eye contact"; for her to be there long enough to note "eye movement" tells me that there is more that happened than what she is saying. 

Someone was looking at something that caused a problem.  

Drug purchase?  I don't know, but there is more here than what she is saying.  

There is more to the account.  Did she say something racist?  

Time for Hanna to take a polygraph.  


Hanna, who lives in Manhattan with her husband and works in human resources, described herself as “a typical New Yorker.”

“I've lived here for awhile. I have not had these types of issues,” she said. “I have friends and family of all backgrounds. That’s what I find so amazing, that people are that hateful.
There’s no room for hate here,” Hanna added.
We all bleed red blood. There's no room for hatred. Not in New York. Not anywhere.”

Note the preaching attitude of the victim.  

There is enough here for police to doubt her account.  Did she antagonize the attackers?  The passivity suggests that, perhaps, there was more to her story than what she has said and police will have to learn what else this woman said, and why she feels the need to remove herself from something quite personal.  

It may be that there was something that preceded the confrontation   

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

Victimizing the victim, eh?

No reason to shoot a jogger even had there been eye movement. Doubtful a lone white woman would have hurled racist remarks at a group of blacks.

People are knocked out-even killed-as a game and often a mere dare. To be attacked by a group of black youths and subjected to racist slurs wouldn't be unusual with Ferguson being fueled by the media and the lack of intestinal fortitude of those who run in packs such as black youths.

impulsive said...

OT: http://www.journal-news.com/news/news/crime-law/fairfield-police-seek-dna-test-on-katelyn-markhams/ng7S7/?__federated=1

(Katelyn markham case) I'm confused, how do they test one set of remains and it's positive, then another that's also her? Maybe I'm missing something. Were they not full bodies? Like it was really just one set of remains - just split up into different locations?

lgjproduct said...

did she roll her eyes at them?

Chris Hugh said...

Quakery.

Peter Hyatt said...

I believe she is withholding information and is not accurate in reporting what happened. Her passivity distances herself.

She has a reason to distance herself.

Anonymous said...

The shock most likely came from the realization she'd been shot (not knowing with what). That fact would be traumatizing even though it was JUST a pellet gun. What next? Yep.......real bullets at any jogger.

Anonymous said...

I highly doubt that this lone white-woman-jogger did or said anything that set off this gang. What white woman with half an ounce of brain matter would provoke an attack by a black gang in this area in a park with all the volatile white-hate unrest that is already in their predominately black city? Makes no sense.

In fact, it makes no sense that she was even out there alone. She's lucky it wasn't worse. Not wishing her any bad luck, but maybe the pellets knocked some sense into her stupid head....

Buckley said...

I totally agree with Peter. Obviously something happened to the woman- she was injured. But there is something big missing from the story. Without more information, I'm not going to begin to question what that might be.

Anonymous said...

doesnt that park close at 11?

Sus said...

I also agree there is something missing. She introduced eye movement.

Also look at her words about the incident:
"I turned around, and I said..."
I have trouble with this. It may not seem like it, but it is weak and passive, and possibly out of order. When something hits you in the back of the head it is a natural reaction to turn back. Yet she felt the pellet, put her hand up to feel blood "gushing everywhere" and then turned around. Then she SAID which is weak.

"What are you doing? Why are you doing this to me?"
'Doing' is repeated twice and evokes a continuation of the action. Though she said she was already hit by the pellet. She seems to feel no fear of someone who just shot her because she stopped to ask them what and why.

"What's wrong with you people?"
Again showing no fear for just being shot. 'you people' could be seen as a prejudiced label if no incident preceded it.

I wonder if she is telling her story out of order.

Anonymous said...

Hanna, who lives in Manhattan with her husband and works in human resources, described herself as “a typical New Yorker.”


A typical New Yorker huh? Then maybe she is a liberal in shock at seeing in action where her tax dollars go! Maybe that's why the distancing language? Possibility?

She works in Human Resources? Maybe she is guilty of being a liberal who didn't really exercise equal opportunity employment and the guilt is seeping out by way of distancing language. A passive aggressive who deliberately kept opportunities away from minorities, now shouts "Woe is me!"

Anonymous said...

Anon @9:23 p.m., 8/25, this is pure speculation of your wild imagination, that just because she lives in New York City and works in human resources, that she might be a liberal in shock at seeing where her tax dollars go; and might be guilty of failure to exercise equal opportunities in employment matters and now she is shouting 'woe is me!'

You have nothing to go on that would lead to such a ridiculous scenario, much less in thinking you are able to read her mind. Pure bunk.

Tim said...

"What are you doing? Why are you doing this to me? What's wrong with you people?"

Considering the situation, the injured victim's questions seem oddly rhetorical.

Anonymous said...

An arrest has been made and reportedly there was another attack on a white male jogger a few hours earlier.

andrea chiu said...

I accidentally viewed your blog and I was so amazed with your work that it touched the deepness of my heart and it made me sentimental. Thanks for posting. Visit my site too.

triciajoy.com

www.triciajoy.com

sarah lee said...

I really enjoyed reading your article. I found this as an informative and interesting post, so i think it is very useful and knowledgeable. I would like to thank you for the effort you have made in writing this article.


edupdf.org