Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a bunch of suburban white kids started attacking a stranger in front of a Hilton in DC, and a white teenage girl went so far as to spit a victim who was knocked out, the first thing everyone would do was ask why these kids did what they did and assume the victim did something to provoke an attack by kids, especially young women.

But I guess because they're young black kids, no one cares to explore their motives, what provoked them to do what they did, etc.

Oh come on. If a group of white kids attacked a black man and kicked him in the head and spit on him, you KNOW what the narrative would be.

The victim from what I read was black, so your analogy doesn't apply.

If a bunch of a 13-14 year old white kids yelled "that's him" and beat up a white man as he was walking into a hotel, and girls in the group spit on the victim as he was lying unconscious after almost getting killed, A LOT of people on this forum would assume the victim did some very heinous stuff do warrant such a savage attack. I think everyone knows what kinds of theoretical violations by the victim would be floated around by posters on here because they would at least give the children the benefit of the doubt and be puzzled by what would lead them to commit such a brutal attack on a man they identified by saying "that's him!"

For some reason this same benefit of the doubt and curiosity as to motives is not being extended to these very young black children. It's odd when you think of it, especially when it's not being extended by supposed "enlightened" and "liberal" white people on here.

Um ... they engaged in a coordinated aggravated assault. on camera. what's there to doubt or be curious about? About 95% sure you're a very clever troll.

Anonymous wrote:I’m betting the girls are at the center of all this if you wanna contemplate provocation. Betting there was some kind of confrontation earlier involving the girls and some dude on the street, they “call their homies” who show up ready to wage war on whoever said or did something disrespectful to one of the girls BUT in all likelihood a case of mistaken identity and they pounced on the wrong guy’s. I’m thinking the girls are central because they joined in on the assault and the chick spitting on the guy at the end isn’t something you see done in cases of a random arbitrary assault, that act has “this is personal” written all over it.

which has f-all to do with what they will be charged with. you don't kick people in the head while they are on the ground.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a bunch of suburban white kids started attacking a stranger in front of a Hilton in DC, and a white teenage girl went so far as to spit a victim who was knocked out, the first thing everyone would do was ask why these kids did what they did and assume the victim did something to provoke an attack by kids, especially young women.

But I guess because they're young black kids, no one cares to explore their motives, what provoked them to do what they did, etc.

Oh come on. If a group of white kids attacked a black man and kicked him in the head and spit on him, you KNOW what the narrative would be.

The victim from what I read was black, so your analogy doesn't apply.

If a bunch of a 13-14 year old white kids yelled "that's him" and beat up a white man as he was walking into a hotel, and girls in the group spit on the victim as he was lying unconscious after almost getting killed, A LOT of people on this forum would assume the victim did some very heinous stuff do warrant such a savage attack. I think everyone knows what kinds of theoretical violations by the victim would be floated around by posters on here because they would at least give the children the benefit of the doubt and be puzzled by what would lead them to commit such a brutal attack on a man they identified by saying "that's him!"

For some reason this same benefit of the doubt and curiosity as to motives is not being extended to these very young black children. It's odd when you think of it, especially when it's not being extended by supposed "enlightened" and "liberal" white people on here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a bunch of suburban white kids started attacking a stranger in front of a Hilton in DC, and a white teenage girl went so far as to spit a victim who was knocked out, the first thing everyone would do was ask why these kids did what they did and assume the victim did something to provoke an attack by kids, especially young women.

But I guess because they're young black kids, no one cares to explore their motives, what provoked them to do what they did, etc.

No, whatever their race, whatever their motives, it does not matter. What matters is they beat the sh!t out of someone for absolutely no good reason. Are you saying that black kids get a pass because there might be a reason they beat the sh!t out of someone? What reason would be sufficient? What provocation would be an excuse for what they did? What was the good reason a bunch of young men shot a 10 yr old last summer? There is none.

I never said there was an excuse or it isn't horrible. I'm just making the point that if 13 year old white kids beat someone like this and young white girls spit on someone who was knocked out, the public would at least posit the question about whether or not the victim had done something horrible to one of the kids to lead them to act like this, even if the public conceded that the attack was horrific and uncalled for regardless of the provocation.

Sometimes it's what people don't say, rather than what they do say, that's very telling...

I think you must be a really clever troll. There are frequent reports of groups of DC kids engaging in completely unprovoked aggression on the metro and on the streets. Every so often it happens in my neighborhood. That's why people's minds don't immediately to to "oh, the guy being attacked by 15 teenagers must have done something to deserve it!" I say this as someone who is a confirmed SJW and is appalled how this incident is being used by the right wingers.

I’m betting the girls are at the center of all this if you wanna contemplate provocation. Betting there was some kind of confrontation earlier involving the girls and some dude on the street, they “call their homies” who show up ready to wage war on whoever said or did something disrespectful to one of the girls BUT in all likelihood a case of mistaken identity and they pounced on the wrong guy’s. I’m thinking the girls are central because they joined in on the assault and the chick spitting on the guy at the end isn’t something you see done in cases of a random arbitrary assault, that act has “this is personal” written all over it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a bunch of suburban white kids started attacking a stranger in front of a Hilton in DC, and a white teenage girl went so far as to spit a victim who was knocked out, the first thing everyone would do was ask why these kids did what they did and assume the victim did something to provoke an attack by kids, especially young women.

But I guess because they're young black kids, no one cares to explore their motives, what provoked them to do what they did, etc.

I absolutely agree that black kids and teens are scrutinized completely different than white ones, assessed as older, not given the benefit of the doubt, punished more harshly. However, I don’t think you are at all right in your hypothetical case of white teens doing similar and it not be considered shocking and horrific. This is so far over the line of brutality that it couldn’t be shrugged off in any circumstance.

I wasn't saying that at all. If 14 year old Becky from Bethesda spit in someone's face as they were lying unconscious after getting beat by a bunch of 13-14 white kids, including girls, from Walt Whitman and it was caught on video the first thing people would do was question what their motives where and what the victim had done to provoke the attack.

The kids are on camera saying, "that's him!" before beating him. My point is why are their motives not even being theoretically discussed at all? If these were young white kids that did this, motive and provocation would have been the first thing that was discussed.

The attack of course is horrible and inexcusable, in case that needed to be said.

Because it doesn't matter, at all. I was on a jury trial for an aggravated assault that involved the victim being kicked in the head after he had already been beaten down to the ground. The defendants tried to claim self defense, and the victim and all witnesses refused to testify about what lead to the incident, which made pretty clear that the victim had had some role in it. But despite that, the jury had zero problem convicting the defendants for aggravated assault. Because no matter what happened to "provoke" the attack, kicking someone in the head when they are down on the ground is aggravated assault. Period.

Anonymous wrote:If a bunch of suburban white kids started attacking a stranger in front of a Hilton in DC, and a white teenage girl went so far as to spit a victim who was knocked out, the first thing everyone would do was ask why these kids did what they did and assume the victim did something to provoke an attack by kids, especially young women.

But I guess because they're young black kids, no one cares to explore their motives, what provoked them to do what they did, etc.

Oh come on. If a group of white kids attacked a black man and kicked him in the head and spit on him, you KNOW what the narrative would be.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a bunch of suburban white kids started attacking a stranger in front of a Hilton in DC, and a white teenage girl went so far as to spit a victim who was knocked out, the first thing everyone would do was ask why these kids did what they did and assume the victim did something to provoke an attack by kids, especially young women.

But I guess because they're young black kids, no one cares to explore their motives, what provoked them to do what they did, etc.

No, whatever their race, whatever their motives, it does not matter. What matters is they beat the sh!t out of someone for absolutely no good reason. Are you saying that black kids get a pass because there might be a reason they beat the sh!t out of someone? What reason would be sufficient? What provocation would be an excuse for what they did? What was the good reason a bunch of young men shot a 10 yr old last summer? There is none.

I never said there was an excuse or it isn't horrible. I'm just making the point that if 13 year old white kids beat someone like this and young white girls spit on someone who was knocked out, the public would at least posit the question about whether or not the victim had done something horrible to one of the kids to lead them to act like this, even if the public conceded that the attack was horrific and uncalled for regardless of the provocation.

Sometimes it's what people don't say, rather than what they do say, that's very telling...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a bunch of suburban white kids started attacking a stranger in front of a Hilton in DC, and a white teenage girl went so far as to spit a victim who was knocked out, the first thing everyone would do was ask why these kids did what they did and assume the victim did something to provoke an attack by kids, especially young women.

But I guess because they're young black kids, no one cares to explore their motives, what provoked them to do what they did, etc.

I absolutely agree that black kids and teens are scrutinized completely different than white ones, assessed as older, not given the benefit of the doubt, punished more harshly. However, I don’t think you are at all right in your hypothetical case of white teens doing similar and it not be considered shocking and horrific. This is so far over the line of brutality that it couldn’t be shrugged off in any circumstance.

I wasn't saying that at all. If 14 year old Becky from Bethesda spit in someone's face as they were lying unconscious after getting beat by a bunch of 13-14 white kids, including girls, from Walt Whitman and it was caught on video the first thing people would do was question what their motives where and what the victim had done to provoke the attack.

The kids are on camera saying, "that's him!" before beating him. My point is why are their motives not even being theoretically discussed at all? If these were young white kids that did this, motive and provocation would have been the first thing that was discussed.

The attack of course is horrible and inexcusable, in case that needed to be said.

Anonymous wrote:If a bunch of suburban white kids started attacking a stranger in front of a Hilton in DC, and a white teenage girl went so far as to spit a victim who was knocked out, the first thing everyone would do was ask why these kids did what they did and assume the victim did something to provoke an attack by kids, especially young women.

But I guess because they're young black kids, no one cares to explore their motives, what provoked them to do what they did, etc.

No, whatever their race, whatever their motives, it does not matter. What matters is they beat the sh!t out of someone for absolutely no good reason. Are you saying that black kids get a pass because there might be a reason they beat the sh!t out of someone? What reason would be sufficient? What provocation would be an excuse for what they did? What was the good reason a bunch of young men shot a 10 yr old last summer? There is none.

Anonymous wrote:If a bunch of suburban white kids started attacking a stranger in front of a Hilton in DC, and a white teenage girl went so far as to spit a victim who was knocked out, the first thing everyone would do was ask why these kids did what they did and assume the victim did something to provoke an attack by kids, especially young women.

But I guess because they're young black kids, no one cares to explore their motives, what provoked them to do what they did, etc.

I absolutely agree that black kids and teens are scrutinized completely different than white ones, assessed as older, not given the benefit of the doubt, punished more harshly. However, I don’t think you are at all right in your hypothetical case of white teens doing similar and it not be considered shocking and horrific. This is so far over the line of brutality that it couldn’t be shrugged off in any circumstance.

If a bunch of suburban white kids started attacking a stranger in front of a Hilton in DC, and a white teenage girl went so far as to spit a victim who was knocked out, the first thing everyone would do was ask why these kids did what they did and assume the victim did something to provoke an attack by kids, especially young women.

But I guess because they're young black kids, no one cares to explore their motives, what provoked them to do what they did, etc.

Go to 1:30 for the lying hotel security guards, telling the reporter it happened "out in the street".



https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dupsgOsdeI4

Lying scum hotel rent-a-cops.

Anonymous wrote:I'm not going to watch the video because it would make me want to move from DC (my hometown) - but would like to know what happened.

Something - no one knows what yet - happened out of camera view. Something which brought into contact a pair of adult men and a group of teens, perhaps 12-15. Whatever this event was, we don't know (yet)

From the vantage point of a security camera at the lobby door, you can see the two men walking into view towards the lobby. A teen runs up to him from his right/screen left, looking back at the group of other teens, and the man. The men continue towards the door. The teen stops allowing the men to take a couple more steps towards him, assuming a contentious posture. There is no audio, but you can see they are exchanging words. At the same instant, the teen presses closer and the man raises his arm placing his palm of his right arm against the teens chest. A second later, the teen punches the man in the face. He stumbles slightly, tries to walk to the door, but another teen has sneaked in on his other side, and punches him in the back of the head. The man falls down, and is immediately swarmed in 2-3 seconds by another dozen teens. They kick him and stomp on his head and face. Others pile on him and steal his wallet and other items from his pants pockets. The attack lasts about 10-15 seconds, then they flee from the hotel property towards T street, with one girl returning briefly to spit on the man, who is unconscious while his right arm appears to be convulsing/spasming slightly.


I'm sure I'll be called a racist by someone here now for describing the attack.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One small consolation in this video is that you can see two kids who see what's happening and immediately back off.

There's a young black woman in a tennis dress who runs after the group as they follow the men and tries to intervene, protecting the victim from further violence. Hard to tell if she's part of the group or is simply just a good Samaritan. But she literally put her body on top of the victim to dissuade the rest of the group from continuing the attack.

I'm sure the police REALLY want to talk to her, as she likely will be able to identify the group and clear did not condone the violence.

No, she didn't. She took a cellphone photo of the victim on the ground. Because it was funny.

That is not what the video shows.

Who can explain what happened from the start? Time of day? Why all these people might have been there? That Hilton is tucked away and not exactly "hip"- what would bring a large party to its entrance?

Dupont’s Circle and Adam’s Morgan are nearby. Lots of clubs there. Maybe they are too young to get in so they just walk the streets for entertainment? Metro is at DuPont Circle.