"You move, you're dead" Round 2!

HotShotX

HotShotX

CAGiversary!
Feedback
31 (100%)
Other topics considered were:


"The Return of Joe Horn"
"Joe Horn Revisited"
"The Flames of Racial Tension"

Anywho, here's the article and link: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/12/22/driveway.shooting.ap/index.html

RIVERHEAD, New York (AP) -- A jury Saturday convicted a black man of killing a white teen during a racially charged confrontation outside the man's home despite his claims that he feared a lynch mob had come to attack his family.

John White said he feared a racial attack when he shot Daniel Cicciaro last August.







Jurors found John White, 54, guilty of second-degree manslaughter in the death of Daniel Cicciaro. White faces a prison term of 5 to 15 years. He was allowed to remain free on bail until sentencing.


"My son is finally vindicated," Joanne Cicciaro, the victim's mother, said afterward. "The truth prevailed. ... It was never about race. It was about individuals and individuals' actions."


The ruling came on the fourth day of deliberations following an emotional three-week trial that attracted national attention after White's defense attorneys invoked the nation's violent racist past in arguing the shooting was justified.


White had testified he grew up hearing stories from family members about how the Ku Klux Klan torched his grandfather's business in Alabama in the 1920s and feared a similar attack was about to happen.



White testified during the trial that he was trying to protect his family in 2006 when he brandished a gun after a group of angry white teenagers turned up at his house late at night to fight his son.


White admitted on the witness stand that he shot Cicciaro, but that the pistol went off accidentally as Cicciaro grabbed for it. Cicciaro, 17, had a blood-alcohol reading above the legal limit for driving.


Prosecutor James Chalifoux said White should have simply locked the door and called police -- and not gone outside to confront the teenagers with a gun.


He sought to downplay the racial element, telling jurors the Brooklyn-raised White never said anything about a lynch mob until the case went to trial, and noted that the Klan attack on his grandfather occurred 30 years before he was born.


The confrontation came after his son, Aaron, was asked to leave a beer bash at a friend's house. A female guest had complained about a bogus MySpace posting claiming Aaron White wanted to rape her.

He denied making the threat but left the party. Cicciaro and his friends then called the teenager on his cell phone to continue the dispute, allegedly making threats that culminated when they arrived at the White home shortly after 11 p.m.


Jurors also found White guilty of criminal possession of a weapon.
Click to expand...
Considering that the "lynch mob" (of 4 drunken teenagers) weren't committing any crime above trespassing, I'd have to agree that White should have stayed inside, or at least gone outside barehanded or with a baseball bat.

I have to disagree that race wasn't an issue in this case, since the 4 boys tracked White down due to racial tension (and a bogus MySpace page claiming rape), and White's history of fearing racial lynching. I believe that was what brought the gun into the equation, and the initial confrontation (beer also played a larger role). But if race weren't an issue, I don't think 4 teens trespassing would've warranted a gun.

Is it possible the teens could've had a gun? Sure, but the odds of 4 drunken teens coming from a frat party makes the odds extremely low to me. If Cicciaro actually did try to grab the gun, or the 4 guys attacked the Whites, I don't think White should get 5 to 15 for it.

Update: A few jurors are coming forward and saying they were "pressured" into delivering a "guilty" verdict.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/12/24/driveway.shooting.ap/index.html

~HotShotX
 
What is going on this week? A white supremacist named Don Black, and now a honkey killer named John White.

But seriously folks, if it were 4 black teens, the same thing would have happened. The guy was obviously a nut, who probably just hates young people in general, and doesn't trust them.

Then again, I could be wrong, since black on black crime never happens.
 
[quote name='Liquid 2']He was found guilty of criminal possession of a weapon, so he shouldn't have had the gun in the first place.[/QUOTE]



2nd Amendment rubble rubble rubble
 
This is a completely different situation since he (White) was protecting his son and himself, its not the same as killing two people over stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top