A Very White Christmas

Black man, a father and a homeowner, found “guilty,” defending his family

A black man accused of killing a white teenager during a racially charged confrontation outside the man’s home was convicted of second-degree manslaughter Saturday despite his claims he feared a “lynch mob” had come to attack his family.

The ruling came on the fourth day of deliberations following an emotional three-week trial in which defense attorneys invoked the nation’s violent racist past in arguing the shooting was justified.

There was no visible reaction in the packed courtroom as the jury announced the verdict. John White, 54, was permitted to remain free on bail until sentencing, when he is to face a prison term of five to 15 years. White also was convicted of a weapons possession misdemeanor that carries a penalty of two to seven years in prison, which would likely run concurrently with the other sentence.

Saying White planned to appeal, defense attorney Fred Brewington called the verdict “disappointing for African-Americans” in the area.

“You have to survive in Suffolk County, where people can roll up on your house at 11:30 at night, threaten you, threaten your family, curse at you, call you a nigger, and you’ve got to take it,” he said.

White testified during the trial that he was trying to protect his family when he brandished a gun after a group of angry white teenagers turned up at his house late on the night of Aug. 9, 2006.

I can’t believe this. A bunch of drunken hoodlums show up at a man’s house, hollering “nigger,” obviously looking for a fight, the man defends himself and his son, and a jury convicts him? Of what?

This is an outrage.

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator on 24 Dec 2007 at 8:50 pm

    NY man guilty in death of white teen…

    A jury Saturday convicted a black man of killing a white teen during a racially charged confrontati…

  2. SayUncle » Case for castle doctrine on 27 Dec 2007 at 11:36 am

    […] A case of racial injustice: I can’t believe this. A bunch of drunken hoodlums show up at a man’s house, hollering “nigger,” obviously looking for a fight, the man defends himself and his son, and a jury convicts him? Of what? […]

Comments

  1. ben wrote:

    and a jury convicts him? Of what?

    Not being in Texas, I guess. Apparently even owning the gun was a misdemeanor in his locale.

    It’s disappointing that the race card is being played, though.

    Posted 24 Dec 2007 at 2:17 pm

  2. Gordon Daugherty wrote:

    I only found two Suffolk Counties, one in NY and the other in MA. Echoing Ben above, I suspect the gun laws in either place are different from TX.

    Use of lethal force generally depends on three things: ability (is the other person actually able to hurt you?), opportunity (is the OP in a position to do so?), and jeopardy (are you in immediate threat of serious or deadly harm?).

    Without more info than you’ve given here, I can’t say if this was a bad verdict or not. Consider two scenarios: 1) the homeowner is seen to have a gun; the crowd, seeing that keeps their distance and simply yells insults and obscenities from the street, 2) some or all of them suddenly start advancing on the house saying, “We’re going to kill you!”

    Factors such as relative numbers, relative ages, and–certainly–defending one’s home can all shade the circumstances. Even in TX, for example, until recently a person under attack in his own home was required to flee if possible before using deadly force.

    Finally, “brandishing” a gun is usually a crime, even in states that allow gun ownership. The line between displaying a gun to let someone know to keep their distance and “brandishing” is usually said to be waving the gun around in a threatening manner, trying to scare people unnecessarily, etc but seems a bit subjective.

    The jury may have felt White simply lost his temper and shot someone who was not an immediate threat. Killing someone who is cursing and threatening you from a distance and nothing else could be hard to justify. As I said above, there’s not enough info here to say either way, IMHO

    Posted 24 Dec 2007 at 6:58 pm

  3. Gordon Daugherty wrote:

    I read the account in Newsday. White and his son walked out in the driveway carrying a pistol and shotgun, apparently going right up to the teenagers (according to the account, the dead boy was ‘inches away’. The son was shouting racial insults and slurs of his own.

    The prosecutor said he should have stayed inside, locked the doors, and called police.

    Seems hard to justify to me.

    Posted 24 Dec 2007 at 7:06 pm

  4. Stephen wrote:

    Gordon,

    I got into a slightly heated discussion with my wife’s cousin, who happens to be a cop on Long Island. He made the same points you did.

    Maybe I over-reacted, and clearly the law prohibits citizens from using deadly force without very very good justification, even on their own property.

    It still troubles me, as does the hypothetical question of what the verdict would have been with the races reversed.

    Posted 24 Dec 2007 at 11:46 pm

  5. Gordon Daugherty wrote:

    What troubles me is that all the stuff about “lynch mobs”, whites vs blacks, etc were ‘way up at the top of the story and none of this was relevant. What White actually did that got him convicted doesn’t come into the narrative until the 13th paragraph.

    This is the sort of thing that can lead to over-reaction, as you put it, and explains to me why the MSM are losing readers to the web.

    Have a peaceful Christmas.

    Posted 25 Dec 2007 at 10:27 am

  6. Grim wrote:

    “Maybe I over-reacted, and clearly the law prohibits citizens from using deadly force without very very good justification, even on their own property.”

    No, you were right the first time. A law that obligates you to lock your door and hide while a mob screams violent threats at you and your family is no law that ought to be respected.

    What he should have done is locked the door and picked them off with a rifle. Killing people like that is a public service — but there’s no reason for a homeowner to break cover and give the mob an even shot.

    Posted 25 Dec 2007 at 11:11 pm

  7. tkdkerry wrote:

    A law that obligates you to lock your door and hide while a mob screams violent threats at you and your family is no law that ought to be respected. What he should have done is locked the door and picked them off with a rifle. Killing people like that is a public service

    Nope. If all they’re doing is screaming, you DO have to take it. You cannot escalate the situation if you hope to remain in the right. Don’t get me wrong. I would have my Mossberg 590, Kimber 45, and probably my AR at hand. Then I would have dialed 911 and hunkered down. But as soon as one rock came through the window, or one shot was fired, all hell would have broken loose, and I would be justified as well as prudent.

    Posted 27 Dec 2007 at 1:19 pm

  8. Stephen wrote:

    as soon as one rock came through the window,

    I was wondering about that. Would a rock coming through a window count as “escalation,” i.e. the type of threat justifying use of deadly force? I’m asking the legal view here, which my cousin, tkdkerry, and Gordon are pointing out.

    Would the rock-thru-the-window be sufficient, or would the law take the view that “it’s just property damage.” Or, what if they throw a rock and then ran away? Too late then? Gotta catch ‘em in the act?

    Posted 27 Dec 2007 at 2:22 pm

  9. SayUncle wrote:

    Would a rock coming through a window count as “escalation,” i.e. the type of threat justifying use of deadly force?

    Unlikely. Typically, deadly force is only justified when fear of your life or others can be proved to be reasonable. Except in TX, where there are statutes that say it’s ok to use force to defend property in certain circumstances.

    Posted 27 Dec 2007 at 2:56 pm

  10. Stephen wrote:

    I’m beginning to get the picture. If I’ve retreated to the third floor bathroom, and the guy has already shot a family member & the dog, and I’ve called 911, and the guy is still armed, and he’s actually still threatening me (with a significantly large caliber weapon), and I’ve let him wing me a couple times just to be fair, … then & only then can I shoot back. :)

    Posted 27 Dec 2007 at 3:23 pm

  11. SayUncle wrote:

    In NY, maybe ;)

    Posted 27 Dec 2007 at 3:58 pm

  12. Mustang Bobby wrote:

    Maybe I’ve been watching too much Law & Order, but I’m wondering if the prosecutor offered the defendant a lesser charge if he would plead guilty and not take it to trial, and the defendant turned it down, thinking they might get an acquittal.

    I have a feeling this case isn’t over.

    Posted 27 Dec 2007 at 7:34 pm

  13. Stephen wrote:

    Yes, Newsday reported that he turned down a plea-bargain for a 2-to-6 year charge.

    Interestingly, the report continued that because he turned down the deal, the judge would be less likely to give him a short sentence. Right now, he’s looking at 5-to-15. I’m not sure I follow the reasoning.

    Whether or not she wants to give a lighter sentence is up to her discretion (obviously, I’d let him walk). But I don’t see the relationship between a defendant turning down a plea deal, and the judge later being reluctant to sentence for less than the rejected deal.

    Here’s the excerpt:

    Five months after he rejected a plea offer from Kahn that would have landed him in prison for a maximum of 2 to 6 years, White now faces a maximum of 15 years on manslaughter and weapons possession charges.

    Lawyers say White is almost certain to receive a sentence heftier than the offer he passed up.

    “I would think she’s going to sentence him to something more,” said James Saladino, a criminal defense lawyer in Riverhead.

    At the same time, “I think she would have a hard time giving the maximum, because of the sense of justification that really pervades this case.”

    Posted 27 Dec 2007 at 7:45 pm

  14. Grim wrote:

    “Nope. If all they’re doing is screaming, you DO have to take it.”

    Nope, I don’t, and neither should anyone else. You get me on the jury in a case like this, you walk. That’s what juries are for, in those parts of the country so uncivilized as to have laws that suggest you should endure trespassers who are spending their afternoon threatening to hang your whole family from the local trees.

    Posted 28 Dec 2007 at 4:59 pm

  15. Uncle Pinky wrote:

    All started over another MySpace hoax. Don’t look for the hoaxster to be charged, though.

    Posted 31 Dec 2007 at 9:28 pm

« A Silly Hack Rules
Roll Over, Jean-Paul »