Friday, May 20, 2016

Marcus Owens Fake Hate Fake Apology

Marcus Owens claimed he was attacked by 3 whites in a racially motivated attack as a University of Iowa student, sparking an outcry against racism and the school's failure to protect black students.  

"The Iowa City Police Department is investigating a reported racially motivated attack on a black University of Iowa student, an incident that has sparked outcry over the university's failure to inform the campus about it for two days.
UI officials acknowledge they could have handled the situation better when UI freshman Marcus Owens of Naperville, Ill., came to the campus police station Monday evening to report the Saturday night assault. He was directed to the city's police department without being fully questioned, and the university did not issue a campuswide crime alert until Wednesday, when the story gained attention.
No arrests have been made in the attack, and the university's response disappointed some black students.
The incident first came to light Tuesday night, when Chicago's WLS-TV reported that Owens was attacked between 10 and 11 p.m. Saturday by three white men who were shouting racial slurs. The assault was in the alleyway of the 200 block of Iowa Avenue. According to the report, Owens required nearly a dozen stitches to his lip, had a damaged eye socket and had his front teeth knocked out. He was released from the hospital Monday night.

Owens reported the attack to UI police Monday night and was sent to Iowa City police because it occurred off-campus. Owens told the TV station that he was texting a friend when three white men yelled the n-word and began punching him."

The problem?  

He was lying.  

Video shows that he went around picking fights that night.  He was the violent criminal, not three white men.  

Fake Hate not only has the "cry wolf" impact upon future victims, but they also put innocent lives at risk and cause the expenditure of tax payer dollars and man-hours investigating such claims.  

In the twisted "victim status" something Americans now find desirable (recall the budding black law student who said the pigmentation of his skin was a "calling" and a "heavy burden to bear", in spite of his personal wealth and affluence), there is lesser chargers (if any) claimed against protected status of criminals, which serves to pervert justice and empower criminal behavior, and cause the public to lose confidence in the criminal justice system.  

Innocent citizens can be wrongly arrested when false allegations are made.  

Beyond all of this, there is a resentment that builds up in the general public who are made to said to be 'guilty by pigmentation' overall.  

Will the liar take responsibility?  Will the family apologize to the community for stirring racial animosity and seek to heal that which is torn?

The family has written the letter and it gives insight into the life of Marcus Owens.  

 Here is the apology letter, written by the family:  

“To Marcus Owens’s friends, the Iowa City Community, the University of Iowa, and the Iowa City Police Department:

note the order:  police last.  
note what is missing:  the innocent falsely accused 

Marcus Owens and the entire Owens family would like to issue their deepest apologies to Marcus’s friends, the Iowa City community, the University of Iowa, and the Iowa City Police Department for the misunderstandings and anxiety stemming from Marcus’s involvement in a violent incident in downtown Iowa City on May 1. Upon learning more details of the case, and while racial slurs served to fuel the violence, 

note that racial slurs were "served", in passive voice; withholding the responsibility for who made them.  

Why were police listed last?  The family lets us know:  

Marcus now knows that his account of events was inconsistent with police findings, 

Not that Marcus lied, but that his account was "inconsistent" with "police findings."
Note the timing of this:  Marcus did not acknowledge that he lied at the time of making up the lie; but "now" he knows. 
Question:   How is this timing possible?
Answer:  from police reporting their "findings." 

Why did he lie?  Or, why was his account inconsistent with police findings?

in part due to alcohol being involved, his embarrassment at his behavior, as well as the injuries he sustained. 

Note the reason why his account was inconsistent:

1.  alcohol 
2.  embarrassment
3.  injuries

Note there is no responsibility taken for the alcohol, nor the cause of injuries. 

In light of this, it was concluded that this incident was not a hate crime as originally believed, 

"it was concluded" is to use passivity; again, the concealment of responsibility.  
Note "hate crime" status as to read the emotion of those in battle.  When one injures another, it is an assault, but if he adds a word or if the government can read his mind and it may be "hate" (versus what, exactly?) it is a newly classified crime.  

but rather a case of excessive underage drinking 

This gives us insight into the family that brought Marcus to this point:  "excessive underage drinking" is used.  This is to say that there is an appropriate, or proper limit to under age drinking in their understanding.  We now have a new crime:  underage drinking as well as the assault.  

and extremely poor judgment on the part of many people, Marcus included. 

"Marcus" with poor judgement, comes after "many people" in the priority.  This, too, reveals the thinking behind the family that raised him.  

Again, we would like to apologize and thank the University (especially President Bruce Harreld and his staff) and the Iowa City Police Department for their attention, sensitivity, diligence in investigating this matter, and in thoroughly addressing our many concerns. 

"Sensitivity"?  This is an appeal to not only alleviate Marcus of responsibility but to see that he is not charged with making a false report, as well as stirring racial animosity in a country that has become, in just 7 short years, ripped in two.  

"our many concerns" are not named.  Nothing about falsely blaming another race or the trouble it could have caused,  is mentioned.  

If you did not think the family could be further from being responsible, they continue to shift blame away from their son: 

Just as we have learned many life-changing lessons, we hope too that the community will continue to examine the many issues raised by this unfortunate incident.
— Marcus Owens and The Owens Family”

This is to justify the lie; not to own it.  This is to state what other "fake hate" perpetrators state when they are impenitent:  

It is still someone else's fault.  

This "the many issues raised..." pushes, even further away, the main crime of false reporting (and the attendant crimes including underaged drinking and violence) from the attention and on to the actual fraudulent claim of race based violence. 

There is nothing that Marcus learned except, perhaps, to be more careful with his lies due to video tape.  There is no responsibility taken for this ugly deception.  

Analysis Conclusion:

Marcus learned his deception and  racial animosity from his family.  


lynda said...

Grrr..another one! I am getting sick of these fake hate complaints!! As you pointed out, they take NO responsibility and do not even mention or apologize to the 3 white guys! If the situation was reversed, the white guys had better make a media apology or there may be riots. I wish we as a society would stop accepting all these false claims and start charging these racist idiots. If somebody else reported that their home was robbed and it wasn't, LE would charge them with filing a false report!
The parents should be ashamed! Their "concerns"?? What concerns? That your kid is a liar and a stupid one at that? ugh

Anonymous said...

I'm so damned tired of the fake-hate and pathetic non-apologies. He should be charged for filing a racist false police report. Enough!

My Sew Imperfect Life said...

OT: Ivanka Trump responds to NYT article about Trump & his treatment of women. Notice neither she nor his campaign gives a reliable denial!

"I found it to be pretty disturbing, based on the facts as I know them," Trump’s daughter told CBS host Norah O'Donnell in an interview that will air in full on Wednesday's "This Morning" show.

"And obviously, I very much know (the facts), both in the capacity as a daughter and in the capacity as an executive who's worked alongside of him at this company for over a decade . . . I was bothered by (the story)."


Peter, you've changed my perspective on everything. I was listening for a few hours yesterday to an audiobook version of "Ruthless: Scientology, My Son David Miscavige, and Me." I dislike the cult very much & I read about them quite a bit. I had preordered the book and was I believe conditioned to believe his version of events. I was prepared to be very supportive of Ron Miscavige & his story. He had a co-writer, but I could detect where there was sensitivity & possible deception. There was also a circular pattern of blaming his bad behavior & abuse that his growing children witnessed on his now deceased wife (who is not around to defend herself). It was irksome and I'm unsure if I can finish it. I spent $15 on it too!

Last week I was disappointed to hear one of my favorite musicians (who is a Christian) use both "honestly" and a similar one I forget in a short interview. I've used "honestly" once since I started reading Peter's blog. It jumped out at me after I said it & I had to analyze why. I was embarrassed about the truth I was entrusting to my BFF.

Do other readers use those expressions when not deceiving, or when you are an honest person? I love this singer, and it changes my viewpoint on people when I know they're lying.

John Mc Gowan said...


Raleigh Police investigating 2-year-old boy’s death

RALEIGH, N.C. (WNCN) – Raleigh police are investigating the death of a 2-year-old boy at a home on Somerset Mill Lane in Raleigh.

Shortly before 2 p.m. Thursday, Raleigh police officers were dispatched to a “code blue” call at a home in the 5200 block of Somerset Mill Lane.

According to 911 calls released Friday, a female caller that was not the boy’s mother was the person who called 911.

“I have a child here that’s 2 years old and there’s no heartbeat, no pulse,” the woman told the 911 dispatcher.

The dispatcher asked the woman if she knew what happened, but the caller said she wasn’t sure.

“I don’t know [what happened]. He was playing and then he just fell ill, he’s…just laying there, not moving or nothing,” she said.

The caller told the dispatcher that the boy’s eyes were barely open, he was barely conscious and not alert or moving. The woman said the boy’s mother was on the way.

Later on in the call, the woman described the child as “all swollen” and asked the dispatcher to “get an ambulance down” to the home.

Just before the call ended the woman said to the dispatcher “He’s not breathing!…Oh my God!” and someone crying hysterically could be heard in the background.

The call then cut out.

Police are investigating the death and have not released any further information.

9-1-1 call

Hey Jude said...

The letter was probably drafted by the family's lawyer. It's sad how the student's family shields their son from the need to admit the truth, speak on his own behalf. and to make a real apology. He will never learn to be truthful, or know how to take responsibility so long as his parents choose to find it unnecessary.

It seems it was decided that charges would not be laid against him so long as an apology was made - in order that the truth could be reported in the media before the lie of the hate crime grew too strong. That is no sort of apology, and sad if it is acceptable - it does not even come from Marcus Owens - i wonder if he has needed to utter one single word himself to account for why he lied.

Nic said...

we hope too that the community will continue to examine the many issues raised by this unfortunate incident.
— Marcus Owens and The Owens Family”

Peter said:
This is to justify the lie; not to own it. This is to state what other "fake hate" perpetrators state when they are impenitent:

So they feel Marcus Owens' behaviour is justified:

..."continue to examine the many issues raised by this unfortunate incident."

IMO, these (unidentified/vague) issues mentioned in the family's statement sound perceived, fore had they been in existence in the first place, Owens would not have been the instigator, alcohol or not.

Owens reported the attack to UI police Monday night and was sent to Iowa City police because it occurred off-campus. ...No arrests have been made in the attack, and the university's response disappointed some black students.

Is the university responsible for what occurs off campus? Would they have been advised by LE?

Tania Cadogan said...

Fake haters should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and sentenced to the maximum number of years and fines that those they claimed committed the crime would have been sentenced to if they had been found guilty.
The years total should be the total of the number of people falsely accused, so if they claim 3 people allegedly attacked them then it should be three times the maximum sentence and so on.

Make it so that people will be afraid to file a fake hate crime knowing that when they are found out there will be severe consequences.

The apology is a non apology, the wording not said but implied is that if is everyone Else's fault that he felt the need to claim what he did.
He made the claim because he is black and blacks have suffered under the white man for centuries.
They are justifying his cause without saying it outright.
he was entitled to make the claim for all the timrs when he never made a claim.
He was owed it and had he not been found out, three innocent people would have faced jail time and compensation, they deserved to be punished even though they did nothing except be white.
He deserved the money because he was black and the white man owed him.

Personally i would be suing him if it was I he accused and then he didn't apologize but his family did.

Anonymous said...

Those are the grossest pictures ever. I cannot stand to even look at them.

rjb said...

Fake hate stories seem to dominate the news to a point where I cannot help but wonder how many real instances of "hate crimes" exist. It seems that every instance of racial/sexual orientation attack I hear of was fabricated.

My husband worked as a university police officer for several years. During that time he investigated at least four sexual assault cases per year. Of the 25+ reported rapes that he investigated, only two were found to have merit; one where the victim was dragged into the wood's and violently assaulted by a stranger, the other where a girl was so drunk the night before that she didn't recall what happened the night before (it turned out that she so persistently pursuered the young man in question that she wouldn't take no for answer, he took her home for sex, and was devastated the next day to learn that her enthusiastic consent the night before didn't count due to her blood alcohol level. She declined to press charges and chalked it up to bad decision making while under the influence.)

That's the lives of over 24 men ruined due to jealousy on the part of an ex-girlfriend, the guilt of a girl cheating on her boyfriend and not wanting to get caught, academic jealousy, and poor decisions being made due to intoxication.

God only knows how many real rapes went unreported during that time due to the victims' fear that nothing would be done about it due largely on part to the nothing that came out of the false accusations. Surely the same level of non-reporting goes for real "hate crimes as well.

(And yes, I put "hate crimes" in quotes because I find the whole "hate crime" thing ridiculous.)

Anonymous said...

Wikipedia definition of hate crime:

A hate crime (also known as a bias-motivated crime) is a prejudice-motivated crime, often violent, which occurs when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her membership (or perceived membership) in a certain social group.

Examples of such groups can include but are not limited to: sex, ethnicity, disability, language, nationality, physical appearance, religion, gender identity or sexual orientation.[1][2][3] Non-criminal actions that are motivated by these reasons are often called "bias incidents".

FBI's definition of hate crime:

A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. For the purposes of collecting statistics, the FBI has defined a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity.” Hate itself is not a crime—and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties.

Urban Dictionary's number one definition of hate crime:

when a WHITE PERSON, and ONLY A WHITE PERSON, commits any violent crime against any NON-WHITE(doesn't work the other way around)
black person shoots a white person = possession of a handgun (6 months jail)

white guy shoots a black person = violent HATE CRIME (150 years in jail)

John Mc Gowan said...


I didn’t shoot the judge,’ accused Berg gunman says

The man charged with the shooting of a U.S. District judge took the stand Thursday and denied he shot Terrence Berg.

I didn’t shoot the judge,” Kevin Andre Smith Jr., 23, said in Judge Timothy Kenny’s Wayne Circuit courtroom. “If I shot a judge sir I would have taken a plea agreement.

By all accounts this looks like an "RD"

The denial itself, is first person singular, past tense, without qualifiers. It is to be considered very strong if it was spoken freely, and not reflective language.
Was he asked a question "did you shoot the judge" If so, and he answered, “I didn’t shoot the judge,” It would be deemed "unreliable" as he would be using "reflective language" It is not to say the subject is guilty, nor does it mean he is innocent. If he said it in the "free editing" stage choosing his own words, it would be a strong denial.

If I shot a judge sir I would have taken a plea agreement.”

Note this could be an "embedded admission" The context is key. If he is using the language of another it is not deemed an admission of guilt. Again context is key. I would be interested to see the exchange that brought about his "denial."

Smith’s attorney, John McWilliams, said: “I was surprised that he (testified)” about the March 2015 shooting that injured Berg in the leg.

Smith added he was not into “robbing houses and families” and denied he was part of a crime ring’s robberies that included “walk in” home invasions that involved members of the group forcing victims at gunpoint to walk into their homes where they robbed them.

Under cross-examination Smith admitted he lied when questioned about robberies on the northwest side of Detroit.

The defendant also admitted to the robbery of a Roseville jewelry store but refused to answer questions by Assistant Wayne County Prosecutor Robert Moran about who was with him during that robbery in May 2015.

“I’m not getting ready to implicate (anyone else),” Smith said. “I’m manning up to what I did.”

Kenny admonished Smith for not cooperating with Moran saying he was only making himself look bad before jurors but “that’s your choice.”

Smith continues his testimony Monday. He faces numerous charges including assault with intent to commit murder, conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed robbery.

Smith’s co-conspirator, Robert Williams, took a plea deal and testified last week he saw Smith shoot the judge.

Williams said he and Smith quickly fled as Berg fell to the ground screaming for help. The pair ran to an awaiting car where two others were waiting.

“We was laughing about it,” Williams said about Berg being wounded. Williams also put Smith at “most” of the robberies the ring was being investigated for by Detroit police.

Smith of Detroit backed out of a plea deal May 9 for the shooting of Berg, the day his trial was scheduled to start, saying the prison sentence would have been too stiff.

Berg testified last week about what happened the night he was shot on his front porch after refusing to let an unknown man inside his home.

John Mc Gowan said...


“I said ‘no, no, no.’ Then he said ‘we have a gun.’ Everything happened quickly. I didn’t want them to come into the house,” Berg testified. “He had a gun. I was concerned he might harm my family or me.”

Berg said he was taking garbage cans to the side of his house and was walking back toward his front porch when he was approached by two men. One of the men followed him up on his porch, went into his jacket and pulled out a gun. Berg testified the gunman was no more than three feet away from him and showed him a firearm — a large, semi-automatic handgun with a wide barrel — before firing it.

“He went bam and shot me in the leg,” Berg said. “I fell on my right side. I started yelling, ‘Help, I’ve been shot. Call 911.’ ”

Berg has been in the courtroom throughout the trial.

Berg’s wife, Anita Sevier, ran to her husband’s side after hearing his cries after he was shot and lying on the family’s front porch, Berg said.

He said the two perpetrators got into a car parked on the street next to his house.

Neighbors, including an emergency room physician, ran to Berg’s aid before he was taken to the hospital by police.

Berg identified the perpetrator who shot him as an African-American male, 18-22 years old, with a slender build, distinctive eyes and slight facial hair in a goatee style.

The shooter wore something over his head, Berg said, which might have been a hoodie or a hat. Both perpetrators wore African-American. But, he testified, he could not positively identify the man who shot him.

Smith has served time in prison for a 2010 home invasion in Oakland County. He also was sentenced to prison in December for a weapons violation and an armed robbery conviction in Wayne County.

There is no court in the trial Friday.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

This one is loaded:

S/A readers will appreciate this, particularly how it relates to mental health and fake hate.

rjb said...

One of my favouritev movie scenes is from Star Trek II: the Wrath of Khan. In it, Spock locks himself in a chamber full of radiation in order to perform a repair that will save the Enterprise, knowing full well that this action will kill him. He says to Captain Kirk, "The needs of the many outweigh..." and Kirk finishes, "The needs of the few."

Our society has flipped this concept on its head. The prevailing philosophy is now, "The needs of the few not only outweigh the needs of the many, but if the many object, they are not only wrong but evil." We live in a society where not only do the loudest voices get the most attention, they are given a special position of respect, a high platform from which to pontificate, and woe to those dare to speak out against them.

Anonymous said...

Better yet, "hate crimes" should not exist. Firstly, it doesn't matter whether a person beat you up for your race, your personality, the clothes you are wearing, or because they enjoy beating people or any other reason under the sun. It was still equally wrong. Additionally, hate crimes are never alleged when the victim is a white person - and white people are ridiculously over-represented as victims of non-White crime. If "hate crime" should be a concept, it should be applied fairly to protect the main victims, white people. False accusations of racism against white people are hate crimes in themselves.

I disagree that black people have suffered for centuries under whites. The main slave owners and traders were Jewish.

Tania Cadogan said...

Anon above.

Nic said...

tania said:
three innocent people would have faced jail time and compensation, they deserved to be punished even though they did nothing except be white.

I agree. It's reverse discrimination/racism.

Anonymous said...

It seems odd that the definition of "hate crime" talks about impersonal crimes (sometimes by strangers) against persons who are members of a certain group (gay, black, etc.). What about when someone kills someone they personally know and actually hate? To me, that's a "hate crime" - - someone assaulted or murdered by someone who personally hates them.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

God I'm such a dope.

Does "hate" apply only to certain groups of people (trans, black, gay, etc). Cannot a straight white blonde blue-eyed man be hated in exactly the same way (for his race, his appearance, etc)?

Oh forget it. Now I realize how stupid this comment is, but I'll post it anyway in case it might help further the conversation.

rjb said...

In my husband's police academy training unit on hate crimes, he asked a perfectly innocuous question for the sake of clarification. He was told that as an straight, white male he would never "get it" and the instructor went on a five minute tirade about "white privilege." She was not a police officer herself, but rather someone they brought in specifically to teachb that unit.

In his career, he has only encountered one case that was prosecuted as a hate crime, in which the suspect openly admitted that he chose his victim because he was "a Native American on a bicycle." Every other violent offense my husband has been involved with was one in which the attacker assaulted the victim due to "regular" anger/hate. I'm the state of Arizona at least for something to count as a "hate crime" the offender has to admit that he choose his victim due to the victim's status às a "minority."


Outrageous! Claim anything and expect to be believed, especially if this is racial. When the truth is found, deflect and blame on drinking. Never take responsibility after slamming an entire race. That's okay. Everyone can go on with their lives now. The family will brush this under the rug.

Does anyone ever look into the effect this has caused outside of this claim? How many still believe this was racially motivated and it fuels the rage and hatred? This time, police were able to prove he lied. But when it is a case and no video, the 3 white men would be crucified.

rob said...

The same people who are always blaming whites for everything under the sun, surprisingly are the same who always have their hand out to the same whites when then can't handle their life, pay their bills, go to college, get a job, WORK (God forbid), etc.
When will the pushback start. When will people finally get tired of it. When will their wallets snap shut.

I was once chewed on by a black co-worker, because 3 years before his retirement, he was taking a loan out of his retirement account and I had never taken a loan out of mine. (He asked me). He said people like me hurt people like him, because I wouldn't borrow money and use my retirement early, I would retire with more than him, and the gov't would think everybody had what I had and not help him more. This is a true story, I kid you not.
This has made me save better for retirement than any seminar I ever went to.

Also, this guy, and everyone else like him that files a fake report and makes it racial, should be charged with a serious crime. It is obvious that his family thinks it is justified whether he was attacked or not.

mom2many said...

One point from the initial press conference that has stuck with me is that LE stated that the first burglary "let to" the second. What might have led the thugs to the Blackburns' neighbor's house?

mom2many said...

Sorry, posted under the wrong item, somehow.