More stunning revelations today from the ongoing investigation into white racism that is galvanizing the mainstream media. From the Associated Press:
Shooter in Conn. massacre claimed racism in call
By STEPHEN SINGER (AP) – 49 minutes ago
HARTFORD, Conn. — The man who went on a shooting rampage at a beer distributor calmly told a 911 operator that it was "a racist place" and that he had taken matters into his own hands to "handle the problem."
Omar Thornton, 34, called 911 after shooting 10 co-workers — eight fatally — on Tuesday morning at Hartford Distributors. He introduced himself as "the shooter over in Manchester" and said he was hiding in the building, but would not say where.
"You probably want to know the reason why I shot this place up," he said, his voice steady. "This place is a racist place. They treat me bad over here. They treat all the black employees bad over here, too.
"So I took into my own hands and handled the problem," he said. "I wish I could have got more of the people."
Connecticut State Police released the audio of the 911 call on Thursday, the same day company and union officials rebutted suggestions that the company had ignored Thornton's complaints of racism.
Thornton went on his rampage moments after he was forced to resign when confronted with videotaped evidence that he had been stealing beer and selling it.
His relatives and girlfriend had suggested his anger was fueled by racial bias in the workplace, but the 911 call confirmed Thornton believed he was avenging racist treatment.
Hartford Distributors president Ross Hollander said there was no record to support claims of "racial insensitivity" made through the internal anti-harassment policy, the union grievance process or state or federal agencies.
"Nonetheless, these ugly allegations have been raised and the company will cooperate with any investigation," Hollander said.
The union said 14 of 69 dock workers, or 20 percent, were racial minorities — four black, nine Hispanic, one Asian.
Clearly, we must drop everything and investigate these allegations of racism. The EEOC, for a start, should calculate whether this employment pattern violates their Four-Fifths Rule. If only Hartford Distributors had hired more blacks, this whole inappropriate event could have been avoided.
Posts
28 comments:
His white bosses set him up to fail by leaving beer out where he would be tempted to steal it. Institutional racism strikes again.
never miss a change for some faux-outrage, isn't that right, Steve?
hm. it's clear that the article doesn't support the shooter's argument.
it just reported what happened.
but we're so outrAGED!!!!
flaming the chorus of OUTRAGE!!! yippee!!!!
let's just say that Mr. Thornton handled his bidness! like a man! not like a sissy with a lawsuit
the story is pretty neutral. i did not get the impression of sympathy for the shooter--just straight-up reporting!
yet, your outrage was directed more towards the MSM than anything else.
WHY???
Another brick in the wall. The common person sees these stories about supposed racism and thinks something along the lines of, "these blacks are getting more crazy and more dangerous".
This story is most certainly NOT garnering any sympathy for blacks using the race card.
http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=749286&page=1
I believe Steve's criticism is unwarranted.
See link - I remember this shooting from back in 2005 - where the white worker at a Lockheed Martin plant targeted black co-workers. The MSM did a pretty thorough job of trying to describe the workplace environment that preceded the shootings. I think they are doing the same thing with the Hartford Shootings. In no way do I believe the articles that you have cited imply that racial harassmment in the workplace justifies murder. Another example -The MSM described Joe Stack's (Austin IRS Suicide Bomber)concerns about taxes in the same manner. Tell me what you think is different. They also interviewed Stacks wife and others who described him as a quiet person who they never believed would kill anyone. Additionally, the MSM published interviews with Stacks wife who said that the IRS pushed him over the edge. Stack's lone victim was black.
Another teachable moment.
never miss a change for some faux-outrage, isn't that right, Steve?
Some bigot murders a bunch of people, and you think that any outrage is faux?
Until every white guy who's gotten into a bar fight after losing a job due to race preferences has his violence explained away as "institutional racism", the Singer article Sailer quoted will be tendentious and anti-white.
yeah, I think most Americans realize that Thornton, his family, and his girlfriend are far from good, respectable people who should be taken seriously (most of the articles emphasize Thornton and his family's destitute life).
Regardless, it's still aggravating.
What kind of fools are these who pretend that this twisted Newspeak propaganda style "coverage" is not an utter, complete outrage and an insult to anyone with a pulse?
"2 legs bad (white) 4 legs good (everybody else)!" bleat the media sheep on an endless loop.
Pravda in its Soviet prime would not have been so blatantly mendacious, and The Onion could not print such nonsense with a straight face.
This is truly the bottom of the well.
"Some bigot murders a bunch of people, and you think that any outrage is faux?"
Whether a "bigot" murders a bunch of white people or some disgruntled honky murders a bunch of white people (as is usually the case) what's the difference, they're still dead white people;
Or don't you care about dead white people?
Or are Thornton's victims a little bit more dead?
"never miss a change for some faux-outrage, isn't that right, Steve?"
You are a moron, sir. There's nothing "faux" about our outrage, and if you don't have a clue why we are outraged, you are an even bigger moron.
Or are Thornton's victims a little bit more dead?
No, Thornton's victims are not even buried yet and they are having their reputations besmirched.
Where exactly was anyone's reputation besmirched?
I went to J-school as did Steve, he's been out of the game a little longer, so let me explain to you the way journalism works:
When a man takes a gun to work and kills a bunch of white people what is the first logical question the readers / viewers will ask?
"Why did he do it"
What is the (ostensible) answer?
"Because he felt that he was discriminated against."
When a woman takes a gun to her job as a college professor, and murders her black colleagues, what's the first question people ask?
"Why did she do it?"
The answer:
"Because she felt discriminated against."
No one's reputation is being besmirched, it this point in time, it's not even important as to whether the discrimination was real (that comes down the road in a series of features that you will milk to sell more Hartford Courants)
What is important is that he FELT discrimination (as did she)and in HIS mind, this gave him the rationale to kill people.
Mr. Anon will handle any further questions on the theory of modern journalism.
Anonymous,
Maybe you want to check your exclamation key? I think it must be stuck.
The problem here for the MSM (and the elites) is that they have milked the 'racism' and 'discrimination' shit too much.
Now, even dumb people are using it as an excuse for the stupid behavior. Too dumb to realize that those things high on the wall or in the little bubbles on to ceiling are security cameras and you might be caught stealing? No problem, just claim that racism made you do it. Everyone will believe that.
And after that spate of cases where the dumb were planting nooses and claiming racism, it's getting to the point where it's dawning on the rest of us what this 'racism' stuff was all about.
BTW, UnTruth, we understand you.
Truth said..."Whether a "bigot" murders a bunch of white people or some disgruntled honky murders a bunch of white people (as is usually the case) what's the difference, they're still dead white people;
Or don't you care about dead white people?
Or are Thornton's victims a little bit more dead?"
Beautiful.
What a great argument for wiping hate crime laws off the books and quite close to what many of us have been saying for years. Here, let me help you out by making it more comprehensive:
Whether a "bigot" murders a bunch of black people or some disgruntled black murders a bunch of black people (as is usually the case) what's the difference, they're still dead black people;
Or don't you care about dead black people?
Or are a white bigot's victims a little bit more dead?
Let me help you out even further and add that our judicial system currently functions as if dead black people are actually deader if murdered by whites. So as long as those pesky hate crime laws are on the books, it's only fair to apply them equitably and proceed as if dead white people are actually deader if murdered by blacks.
This story illustrates the current mode in reactions to deaths where the shooter and the shootee(s) are of different races.
Will this pattern persist or will there be a break?
Recently a white BART cop shot and killed a black man that he was arresting. It was probably an accident as he claimed because there were at least two and maybe three or more people filming the incident at the time. Its hard to imagine that this cop was trying to administer some "street justice" on what was essentially a spontaneous movie set.
The cop was convicted and given a jail term. The reaction of the black community was to riot.
Now we have a black man who shot a bunch of white people because someone, somewhere had offended him - or so he said. Yet there has not been a riot or demonstration by white people in the streets.
The government at all levels recognizes that blacks take to the streets for offenses against one of their own, but whites don't. This gives the blacks natural advantages in all sorts of conflicts.
But white people are not inherently peaceful and civilized. They have just adopted those traits lately. White people are fierce and vicious when need be. There's a lot of history that tells that tale.
White reaction to racial injustice when it comes and if it comes, is likely to be quite bloody and rather better organized than black street riots.
The day of the first Tea Party a year ago last April, I bought a gun. The Tea Partyers seem to be mild mannered and peaceful center right mostly white people. They don't appear dangerous at all. But they are organizing outside of the normal channels of the political parties. Dissatisfied white people are getting to meet one another. Perhaps this will lead to other organizations with less mellow and reasonable agendas.
It's impossible to predict the future of course but some of the things going on now seem to look like a run up to Committees of Vigilance and secret societies. In California we have had a history of this sort of thing usually around immigrants and minorities (Irish and Chinese). Maybe we are more civilized now. We'll see.
The real danger of Barack Obama is that he will potentiate a new civil conflict on racial lines. If he and others were wise they would step into this case and come down hard on the perpetrator. The feds did this a half century ago against the white murderers in the South who killed the Freedom Riders. That action probably saved lives by establishing faith in the government.
It's hard to remember a period in my lifetime when there has been so little faith in the justice of government. The feds defy the will of the people on the border question and the judiciary defies the will of the public on the gay marriage issue. If we now add differences in the handling of crime on racial grounds, this can only add to the feelings of disenfranchisement and possibly hasten public unrest.
The function of government is to govern. Part of that means preempting personal disputes so as to assure level headed resolutions rather than actions taken in the heat of the moment. The thing that scares me, is that too much of the national government seems to want to exacerbate disputes.
Disparities in justice on racial lines is a very dangerous practice. With affirmative action we have disparities in the job and education spheres. People don't seem to kill one another over these issues (at least so far). But murder is different. It is very dangerous for the authorities to turn a blind eye to the murder of whites by blacks.
Expect gun sales to rise.
Albertosaurus
News update:
I got a different take on it from some sistahs at work when we were out drinking last night. And remember, these ladies have decades of experience dealing with your typical trifling' black man.
Ol' Omar, he got no game for a real sistah, couldn't satisfy her if he tried, so he hook up with this scrawny pasty-face white girl who don't know no better. He pokes her for eight years (the fool). After awhile she starts up with the "Omar, when we gonna get married" , an ol' Omar, he got to do something, you see, he don't want to give up this white p-hole, cause she works, takes care of him, and puts up with his shuckin' and jivin' WAY longer than any normal sistah do.
So Omar, he starts with the, "oh baby, you know I'd like to, but the white man he keep beating me down and oppressin' me!"
And, sho'nuff he shows her the photos he took of the noose, and tells her how he heard alla them white folks tryna get rid of him, and "you ain't gonna oppress a hard-workin brutha, too, are ya baby?". And she, feelin sorta guilty like white girls do, says, "Omar, you poor baby, of course I won't. I'll stay right here by your side!"
But she remembers Omar's photos and all the Evil White Oppression done to him, and she tells that Jewish reporter kid, Stephen Singer, when he comes around askin question about the dead racist white folks.
Anon said:
Recently a white BART cop shot and killed a black man that he was arresting. It was probably an accident as he claimed because there were at least two and maybe three or more people filming the incident at the time. Its hard to imagine that this cop was trying to administer some "street justice" on what was essentially a spontaneous movie set.
It's actually more interesting than that, because a few years ago a Hispanic female officer shot an killed a male who was in the back seat of a police cruiser. She clearly did it by accident, meaning to pull out her Taser to shop him from kicking the shot out of the cruiser.
She was never charged. Never.
What is the difference between the two cases. The dead man was hispanic, BTW.
I went to J-school as did Steve, he's been out of the game a little longer, so let me explain to you the way journalism works:
When a man takes a gun to work and kills a bunch of white people what is the first logical question the readers / viewers will ask?
"Why did he do it"
Exactly! When a redneck drags a black to death, the media asks, "why did he do it?" Oh wait, they never asked. They just chalked it up to racism. Never mind that he told his lawyer (apparently nobody from J-school bothered to ask) that he was gang-raped by homosexual blacks in prison.
Please, do go on with your bullshit explanation, I didn't mean to interrupt.
"When a redneck drags a black to death, the media asks, "why did he do it?" Oh wait, they never asked. They just chalked it up to racism."
Yea Svigolino and maybe there was a good reason for that; In a jailhouse letter to Brewer that was intercepted by jail officials, King expressed pride in the crime and said he realized in committing the murder he might have to die. "Regardless of the outcome of this, we have made history. Death before dishonor. Sieg Heil!"
All three of them were long-term members of Neo-Nazi gangs, had Swastikas and Iron cross tattoos, and one had a tattoo of a black man being lynched.
Does it take a genius?
Never mind that he told his lawyer (apparently nobody from J-school bothered to ask) that he was gang-raped by homosexual blacks in prison."
Great, then he should have called 911 and told them (before offing himself), rather than his lawyer a month later when the story was cold.
Great, then he should have called 911 and told them (before offing himself), rather than his lawyer a month later when the story was cold
Another enterprising gymnast. Do you really think nobody told the press? I think that story went on much longer than a month, but that's beside the point; why is it still practically a state secret? Can you bring me someone in the MSM who's talked about it?
When white racism causes black racism (current story), that's news.
When black racism causes white racism (old story), that's not news.
I just go through the comments now and search for "albertosaurus"
"Anonymous said...
And after that spate of cases where the dumb were planting nooses and claiming racism, it's getting to the point where it's dawning on the rest of us what this 'racism' stuff was all about."
This time it was even less substantial than that - just a cell phone picture of a stick figure in a noose, which could have been a game of hangman for all anyone knows, assuming that the murderer didn't just scribble it himself.
This story has a much greater echo now because of blogs. Liberal blogs amplify the most sympathetic articles about the shooting and give them a grotesquely biased headline. That in turn attracts and encourages their already anti-white liberal readership to pile on in the comments. We don’t need to ask people for their opinions. They volunteer it gladly and write it down very carefully for anyone to see.
>This is exactly the kind of comment that lefties point to as justification for crackdowns of all kinds--on gun ownship, free speech, etc.<
Gulp. We had better shut up, then!
Or maybe the crackdowners had better calm down, before someone gets hurt.
Post a Comment