Shooting Victim Was Close Friend With Suspects
The short version from the Chronicle looks like this:
Police had been looking into the possibility that Meleia Willis-Starbuck was accidentally shot by a friend she had called on her cell phone for help during an argument she was having with a group of men minutes before she died, according to friends who were interviewed by police.
The suspect arrested and the suspect who is still at large both are named as close friends of Willis-Starbuck in the article. I would strongly recommend that you click through to read the whole report if you are interested in what happened. This is a complicated story, and the Chron article does a good job of explaining the details of what the police know happened, and what people suspect might happened. There are also interviews with a number of Willis-Starbuck’s friends who have been interviewed by the police.
The story is going to develop into this:
The victim and her friends were partying and having fun. They met up with that group of guys who were equally partied out and looking for tail and some trash talk was exchanged, but also some of the women were giving phone numbers to some of the guys. The victim got pissed and felt she was being disrespected. so she called her friend on her cell and told him to come immediately and “bring your pistol”. He showed up, shot into the air first to scatter people and then shot at the guys. His aim sucks. He shot her.
This is going to be a case where the victim is the one that escalated the confrontation into the use of gunplay, and the friend she called to shoot at the guys she was upset with, shot her by accident while trying to kill those guys.
Comment by insider — July 21, 2005 @ 2:08 pm
Good work detective. But maybe you should stop reading Harry Potter and get out of fantasy land.
Comment by Ethan — July 21, 2005 @ 2:42 pm
whomever insider is, i doubt he is an insider but his fantasy is much more accurate than all the grief stricken gobbley-gook thats been floating around. this girl called her homies to “fix” the situation whether she asked for a gun to be brought is unknown and may never be known because who is going to besmirch her angelic reputation with by alleging she brought it on herself. what is clear, though, is that she brought two known thug types to a confrontation with another group of young (black) males. our dartmouth heroine had a ghetto streak a mile wide running through her. oh and did anyone else notice her “social justice” field trips were to Vietnam and Cuba, a few of the last communist states in the world.
Comment by me — July 21, 2005 @ 3:02 pm
Oh God! She was a Commie! She needed to be stopped before she brainwashed Ivy League students and built the new civil rights movement, New England-style!
Comment by Taylor A. — July 21, 2005 @ 3:38 pm
you all suck
Comment by anon — July 21, 2005 @ 3:44 pm
i dont think “suck” is the right word, more like “you’re all asshole shiteaters who should break out of your offensive and racist/classist views”
Comment by Anonymous — July 21, 2005 @ 4:27 pm
No, suck is the right word.
Comment by anon — July 21, 2005 @ 5:05 pm
Another vote for suck.
Comment by Beetle — July 21, 2005 @ 5:07 pm
Taylor, between you and Lauren, I have my heros.
Comment by Ethan — July 21, 2005 @ 5:17 pm
Have some respect. Even assuming the worst case scenario and insider is right, it’s still the tragic loss of an obviously kind woman.
Comment by Steve — July 21, 2005 @ 7:30 pm
An obviously kind woman who wanted others to be killed?
Comment by ? — July 21, 2005 @ 8:37 pm
**
Oh God! She was a Commie! She needed to be stopped before she brainwashed Ivy League students and built the new civil rights movement, New England-style!
**
I know you’re being sarcastic, Taylor. But for the sake of accuracy, I think the articles said she was a member of the Darmouth Greens. Anyway, those New England commies… Always offering you chowdah… Distributed according to need, of course…
Comment by jonp — July 21, 2005 @ 9:06 pm
You all are jackasses. A young woman is dead. If she was a white ivy-league student you would never call her ghetto and blame her for the shooting. But because she was a Black ivy league student it’s her fault. Talk about never being able to get past stereotypes … glass ceiling, anyone? You thinking she is ghetto is the same thing that would keep her from becoming head of a company, if she had lived.
Comment by Anonymous — July 21, 2005 @ 10:39 pm
white people can be ghetto too. same with asian. the fact is, thus far, stories are pting to her as calling these guys to the scene–therefore, making it partially her fault. who the hell calls for backup to something like this that isnt the police and expects nothing to happen?
Comment by god — July 22, 2005 @ 12:42 am
Uh, who cares? Unless you’re trying to learn some kind of lesson, seeking out these details is just morbid curiosity, and placing blame is just an attempt to get your ‘I told you so’s in.
Comment by Beetle — July 22, 2005 @ 12:51 am
Taylor,
Ivy League students tend to be very liberal, in fact more liberal than berkeley students.
Anonymous,
Jackass, trying to play the race card when a young woman died. How dare you play the race card and insinuate a woman’s race has anything to do with her death? Also, Anonymous, classist and racist are two completely different things.
me,
Why does it matter if they were black males? Shouldn’t have been there regardless of their skin pigmentation.
Ethan,
Why does it seem you’re always trying to kiss a certain person’s ass?
Comment by Anonymous2 — July 22, 2005 @ 1:48 am
I guess she wasn’t that liberal on gun control.
Comment by H+M — July 22, 2005 @ 7:07 am
“Uh, who cares? Unless you’re trying to learn some kind of lesson, seeking out these details is just morbid curiosity, and placing blame is just an attempt to get your ‘I told you so’s in.”
That’s absurd. The victim’s role, whatever it turns out to be, may bear directly on the guilt of the suspects. Also, don’t you think southside residents should be interested in whether this was a random act of violence or something the victim brought upon herself?
That being said, I don’t think these speculative re-creations are helping anyone. They’re pissing people off, and that’s about it. There are police and journalists figuring out what happened, and the facts will come out eventually. The victim doesn’t have to be an angel or a demon.
Comment by holohan — July 22, 2005 @ 7:14 am
Just to be clear, I probably should have said “degree of guilt” instead of just “guilt.” I don’t want anyone to think I’m implying that the victim deserved to die. Let’s just get that off the table right now.
Comment by holohan — July 22, 2005 @ 7:20 am
Just like to point out the irony of “liberal on gun control” meaning “disallowing freedom to own guns”.
Comment by Hippo — July 22, 2005 @ 9:42 am
i think everyone should remember that this site is getting a lot of outside audience because of this tragedy and so far, youve done a pretty good job of embarrasing any Berkeley student able to engage in a quality, thoughtful dialogue.
Comment by food for thought — July 22, 2005 @ 10:10 am
but then again, consider the source…
Comment by food for thought — July 22, 2005 @ 10:11 am
“youve done a pretty good job of embarrasing any Berkeley student able to engage in a quality, thoughtful dialogue.”
All 3 of them?
Comment by Colin — July 22, 2005 @ 10:49 am
I am tired of hearing about this woman. I have never called for my friends to back me up in a fight, much less bring a gun to the backup. She is not a saint and the irony of her death drips from the story.
What if her friend shot one of the UC Berkeley boys? Would Meleia be a champion for social justice and all that crap if a boy died because she asked her friend to bring a gun?
Comment by Joana — July 22, 2005 @ 12:15 pm
What are the defining lines drawn around “quality, thoughtful dialogue”?
Certainly the death of a young person is a tragedy, yes. The intial story caused such uproar and attention because a great number of students felt less safe. Could any young person be shot simply for standing up for themselves in a passing, drunken argument on the street? I’m sure a number of us have seen these quarrels before and did not think of the possible ramifications.
Now, information comes out suggesting that the victim may have had a hand in her death. It suggests something less than the complete innocence of the victim in what seemed a random, needless killing that initially terrified us all. The facts are not out yet, true, but simply the fact that she had contacted the assailant makes the chance that she was partly responsible jump to the forefront of everyone’s mind. It is not, then, that unreasonable that this sparks a lot of anger. We were all scared by the violence and lack of information contained in the first story. These updates make the whole occurence no less tragic. But now the enraged people who called for solemnity and maligned those who tried to tack their own personal agendas onto this story feel cheated because the nature of the person they were crusading for has changed.
I hate to say it, but I believe a whole lot of people feel a lot better, too, because they are convincing themselves internally that their initial fears were unwarranted. They’re saying to themselves now that this cannot happen to me, because I wouldn’t be so stupid, because I’m not friends with people who respond to arguments with guns.
So everyone should just relax, think five minutes before you post, because the only logical comments on this whole thread were Holohan’s; the rest are just knee-jerk emotional reactions.
Comment by wayward — July 22, 2005 @ 12:23 pm
i, for one, feel much better knowing they were friends and she called this person to the argument. an act of random violence is far more frightening than an act of planned and related violence. it calms the fears that there is someone who is just running around shooting at people for no reason.
Comment by god — July 22, 2005 @ 1:00 pm
I am a Mom from Wisconsin and I have a very special interest in this situation. My youngest daughter is in Berkeley right now, with her best friend who was Meleias’ cousin. As a mother I am heartbroken for the family, as a citizen of the world I feel a great loss…knowing that this young lady would have helped make this a better world had she lived.
Granted I did not know Meleia personally, but her cousin is like a member of our family and spoke often, and proudly, about Meleia and her accomplishments. Since her death I have read everything that I could find about this girl, trying to get a sense of who she was and how this could ever happen.
I have come to some conclusions of my own. One I was not surprised by the fact that Meleia would speak up when she and her friends were referred to by the very offensive “B” word. Further, I am not surprised that she took the time out of her evening to continue to talk some of these young men…probably trying to turn a negative situation into a positive. Finally, I am not surprised that she was friends with people who owned guns and maybe had plans to get togather with them. Meleia apparently had friends of every race, social and economic strata…her joy in life was people, people regardless of their background.
I am surprised that anyone could believe this young lady would need to call in backup to settle a realtively unimportant argument. It seems to me that Meleia had the verbal and social skills to settle this minor dispute without having to resort to having gun toting “homies” to come and protect her. I have been told that she was engaged in a cell phone conversation with them (the guys with the gun)about the time the verbal argument took place, apparently overhearing the arguing these friends asked if she needed help and her response was “don’t worry about it.” This was just a very unfortunate incident which should never have happened, resulting in the loss of an outstanding young woman and the destruction of any hopes for a future for two young men.
My final point is this, this case directly calls for the need for gun control in this country. I believe with all my heart that nothing of importance happens without a purpose. I believe that in this case Meleia would be alive today if our country took a more rational approach to the use and ownership of guns. To let this fact go unnoticed, and not do something about it, would mean that Meleia died in vain.
Please research the gun laws in other countries which have stringent regulations regarding the use and ownership of guns (like Canada). Look at the crime statistics and see the steady drop in homicides and related gun crimes. Make this a priority, do it in Meleias’ name, do it for your Mother, your brother or sister, your cousin, your friends. Do not let the fact that some hothead had a gun and ended up shooting a good friend be the end to the story of Meleias’ life. She had purpose in her life, let her have purpose in her death.
Just a Mom
Comment by Interested Bystander From Wisconsin — July 22, 2005 @ 1:47 pm
Why isn’t anyone searching for her “brother”, since that is who apparently shot her? I mean he’s related to her for christ sake.
Is she related to the Starbuck’s coffee empire?
Comment by anon — July 22, 2005 @ 2:22 pm
Background checks aren’t going to stop violent people from accessing guns, they simply will obtain them illegally. The most sensical form of gun control is simple licensing. There would be far fewer accidental deaths related to guns if people knew how to use what they were purchasing. If someone is planning on killing someone with a gun, shutting down the manufacturers, arresting everyone who owns a gun on sight, none of this will ever stop them from procuring one and hiding it, or just killing the person another way.
If the woman’s friend had been a decent shot he probably wouldn’t have hit her.
Comment by homeez — July 22, 2005 @ 2:26 pm
Anon, if I recall correctly it was her “brother” in the colloquial sense. I believe that distinction was made in the Guardian article.
Comment by Hippo — July 22, 2005 @ 2:27 pm
Hippo, I think the proper term is “Bro”. When someone says “Brother” they mean someone that is in actuality related to them. Willis-Starbuck was shot by her biological brother, probably because he wanted dibs on the Starbuck fortune all to himself.
Comment by anon — July 22, 2005 @ 2:34 pm
Interested Mom,
it might interest you to know that Israel and Australia have higher # of guns per capita than us, and a lower rate of violent crimes than even “controlled” nations like Canada and Britain. you can’t pick and choose countries to fit your statisitics.
Comment by thomas — July 22, 2005 @ 2:41 pm
funny that your comments all refer to her as being black… the victim was white, as is obvious from the photos in all the major newspapers
Comment by ari — July 22, 2005 @ 2:49 pm
thomas, thats only b/c israel cant count any of the crimes committed against palestinians, since it sanctions them.
Comment by mano — July 22, 2005 @ 2:55 pm
somehow, i really doubt that the gun used in this crime was lawfully registered.
Comment by anon54 — July 22, 2005 @ 3:01 pm
picture
she appears to be either bi-racial or African-American to me?
Comment by anon54 — July 22, 2005 @ 3:04 pm
yes, that makes her definitely black in my book. just look at her mom.
Comment by anon — July 22, 2005 @ 3:04 pm
There’s an article in the daily planet with some interesting new details.
DailyPlanet
Specifically, some of the men who had harassed/argued with the victim are believed to be Cal football players.
Comment by anon54 — July 22, 2005 @ 3:13 pm
mano, not sure if youre being serious or just taking a jab at Israel, but the stats I’m referring to are among civilians - what israeli soldiers do to palestinians is another issue.
Comment by thomas — July 22, 2005 @ 3:26 pm
Meleia was indeed a young black woman. If you took the time to look at some of the links while doing a search for “Meleia Willis-Starbuck” you would have already have determined that…and other pertinent information to realize what a wonderful human being this was.
She was on full scholarship to Dartmouth and worked as a waitress to meet her financial needs…not an heir to the Starbuck fortune.
Yes, the crime rate for guns does vary from country to country depending of course how well the guns laws are crafted. The argument that “with gun control only criminals will have guns” is just the kind of logic that the gun lobby would like people to believe. There are some rational proposals that need consideration which would go far to make this kind of situations less likely to happen.
I live not far from an area you may have heard of last year. A disgruntled deer hunter who had been asked to leave private property turned his gun on the property owners, killing 6 and wounding 2 others. He was a licensed hunter, from another state, who paid his fees and got his deer tag…and was hunting with an assault weapon! I think those families who lost loved ones would agree that paying for a license is not enough. How about gun safety training, enough of a background check to determine if the person is not only not a convict but mentally stable. Do some research and then make up your mind if a free society equates to freedom for ANYONE to own and carry a gun.
A more dignified response to this tragic loss might be in order. Who cares if the victim is black or white? What makes it somehow O.K. if the victim knew the shooter? What makes that Starbuck name signifigant? This girl was an exceptional girl for the person she was, not the color of her skin, not the money her family may or may not have (because they have a famous surname).
If you are college students, part of your quest should be for ways in which you can better the world as a whole. This girl started that quest long before she went to college and continued until the day of her death and deserves to be honored for that…even if you are getting tired of hearing about it.
Just a Mom
Comment by JoAnne Martin — July 22, 2005 @ 4:09 pm
Wisconsin mother,
This seems like you’re using this girl’s death to preach your views on gun control. Whatever your beliefs, you should have chosen a better forum to preach.
Besides the other Bay Area counties, Alameda county has some of the strictest gun control laws in the state. I doubt the young man who shot the girl bought his gun in a registered gun store. if he did, he would have to go through a bunch of loopholes, including a handgun safety certificate and he had to be 21. Was this young man 21? Chances are it was obtained illegally.
So your theory has a bunch of holes in it, starting with your assertion that a smaller legal gun market will make it harder for criminals to buy guns illegally.
Other leaders have preached this same sort of action under “emergency” situations. Hitler used the burning of the Reichstag to take emergency powers and take away people’s civil liberties. I’m not equating you to Hitler, but I am asserting the fact that in the wake of terror and fear, people propose taking rights away from people. The PATRIOT Act for example?
If you want to preach gun control try a blog that deals with gun rights and is centered around intelligent debate dealing with firearms. Using a girl’s death to preach your political views on gun control is questionable.
Comment by Anonymous2 — July 22, 2005 @ 4:12 pm
You are sounding like my mom.
Comment by anon — July 22, 2005 @ 4:36 pm
Godwin wins. Don’t be asses. You can scream “TOUCHDOWN, go gun control” or “Pass interference, ref, are you blind, gun control is bad!” all you want, but there are better ways to argue such things than by citing a specific case. There are also better ways to deal with someone’s death than to try to use it to score points for your agenda.
Comment by Beetle — July 22, 2005 @ 5:00 pm
JoAnne, the deerhunter thing might be a bad example….
Thomas: I’m being serious, and taking a jab at Israel. You are conveniently forgetting to count every time a settler shoots at Palestinians, beat them, stab them, and this stuff happens ALL the time, and im sure that it doesnt count in your stats as a violent crime. And that doesnt even take into account Israeli soldiers.
Well anyway, even if any bullshitheads want to argue that Israel is fighting a “war” then fine, your comparison is still sucky, because youre comparing societies in different contexts, with some on “wartime footings” where all the guns are pointed… outward. Anyway, im against gun control myself, i just dont like people to regurgitate statistics that are f-ed up.
Comment by mano — July 22, 2005 @ 6:26 pm
Excuse me, but do we have any proof that Willis-Starbuck asked her friends to bring a gun? Unless you have a tape of her phone conversations, you have no such proof. Hasn’t anybody asked a friend for help and the friend’s “help” turned out to be totally counterproductive? Willis-Starbuck’s death could be just a tragic version of this same scenario.
Comment by jonp — July 22, 2005 @ 6:29 pm
***
No, suck is the right word.
***
Put me down for racist/classist asshole shiteaters.
Comment by jonp — July 22, 2005 @ 6:30 pm
and you know this happens ALL the time because you’ve spent how much time in Israel? Oh, it must be true if you read it on indymedia. f***er.
Comment by anon54 — July 22, 2005 @ 6:31 pm
****
Is she related to the Starbuck’s coffee empire?
****
Starbucks is named after Ahab’s first mate in Moby Dick. There is no “Starbucks family” that owns the coffee franchise.
Comment by jonp — July 22, 2005 @ 6:33 pm
here is someone who is grossly misinformed, yet pretentiously passes judgment and opinions on something she doesnt know. sounds a lot like these blog commenters here….
Comment by alum — July 22, 2005 @ 7:30 pm
also, it sounds a lot like igor’s opportunistic attempt to exploit a tragedy to further personal agendas…
Comment by alum — July 22, 2005 @ 7:31 pm
anon54, you shithead, yes i’ve been to israel/palestine (including WB and Gaza). so i know its true because yes, I’ve witnessed it first hand.
I can also provide links to documentation, if you would like, of Israeli settler violence towards Palestinians in the occupied territories. This link is a start, and its associated press, not indymedia. How ironic, Israeli soldiers protecting little schoolkids EVERY FUCKING DAY from settler fucks. Funny, you wonder what soldiers are doing walking little kids to school. Is that an army job? No, see, shooting the fucking settlers would be an army job. But they cant/wont do that, even though it makes more sense from a human rights/peace/security perspecitve. Because the settlers have special rights. Because the settlers are Israeli Jews (Non-Jewish Israelis get no such pass for violence).
So next time you think, gee, what a peaceful marvel of a model non-violent society Israel is just think about a society in which 5 year old children need to protected by military escort, just to get to school. But since the victims arent citizens of Israel, our statistics will still show that life sure is “safe” for Israelis, even though Israel supports and nurtures a sub-population of hundreds of thousands of violent criminals (settlers/colonists) whose entire daily existence consists of brutalizing and lording it over and otherwise illegally disposessing millions of Palestinians of their rights.
Comment by mano — July 22, 2005 @ 11:03 pm
Ok Mano, we get the point. No one should have to put up with living day by day through checkpoints and being treated like a second class citizen, probably suffering abuse. Also no one should have to get on a bus in Jerusalem and fear for their life being blown up by some crazy and fearing that they’re going to be blown up in a marketplace. That’s why we shouldn’t take sides and we should either help promote two states or withdraw aid to Israel or Palestine.
Alum, thanks for the link. Obviously being gunned down has NOTHING to do with sexism. If a male guns down another male would that be heterosexism? Dammit, he probably wasn’t even trying to gun down the girl. So that person’s article is stupid and ill-informed.
And come on Mano and anon54. Swearing won’t get us anywhere.
Comment by Anon — July 23, 2005 @ 12:17 am
The Los Angeles Times published this story in its July 23 issue. The story conveys the emotion around this death very well. Thank goodness the writer didn’t choose to include any of the tasteless and opportunistic comments by some folks on this site. Not to say all of the comments have been. Certainly, some of have been heart-felt and eloquent. You want to change the world, or at least Berkeley for the better? Refocus your energies.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-ivyslay23jul23,0,6196062.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Comment by Anonymous — July 23, 2005 @ 1:09 am
Mano come on, why would Israeli settler/colonists sit there and brutalize people for no good reason? People aren’t inherently evil.
Comment by Somebody intelligent — July 23, 2005 @ 1:24 am
Why the hell are you people engaging in a Special Olympics-style debate about Israel and Palestine on this thread? It seems a little inappropriate and I doubt anyone is going to convince anyone else.
Comment by holohan — July 23, 2005 @ 8:50 am
mano, you seem pretty obnoxious so i’m not going to get into it with you, but I’m sure on some level you know what I meant whether or not youre willing to admit it.
Comment by thomas — July 23, 2005 @ 10:17 am
Hey Ethan!
Geez, no more bs comments out of you, huh kid? Shot your mouth off and now you go run and hide when the facts prove YOU to be the one in fantasy. Instead of reading Harry Potter, what I did was read Friday’s Daily Planet that confirms that Hollis shot a bullet in the air first before shooting at the crowd. And then I read Friday’s Tribune that confirms that the victim did indeed tell her friend to bring a weapon.
JonP — the reason it’s known that she asked him to bring a weapon is more than just the phone call. If you read the accounts, you find that the victim was still arguing with the guys while her friends had gotten into the car when Hollis arrived. Before he arrived, though, Willis-Starbuck let the guys know that a gun was on the way. She was yelling stuff like “We’ll see how big you are once my friend and his gun get here”. She let the guys who disrepcted her know she had called in for armed backup. And what other scenariio would there be for Hollis showing up with a gun ready to blaze battle — do you think it was a total coincidence that he just decided to go shoot some people on the spur of the moment and it just happened to be his friend and a group of guys she was arguing with that got shot up? Or you think W-S called him and had no clue a gun was coming - a guy she knows so intimately that she calls him her “brother”? She asked for the weapon to be brought.
Beetle: This is not morbid stuff. This woman was played out as an angelic heroine for a few days when the reality is that she actively instigated the scenario for someone to be killed. If it were not for the lousy aim of her friend, some Cal students would be dead for drunken vulgar flirting. These facts are important to know.
Comment by insider — July 23, 2005 @ 12:02 pm
hey insider,
i think you make a great point. everyone hails her in these news articles as this social activist who’s “gracious” enough to still befriend “diverse” people such as “blacks toting guns.” if anything, i find that offensive to the concept of diversity and stereotyping blacks. all this politically-correct bullshit, warping around the situation to somehow remember this shooting victim as truly innocent. someone who calls up her homies for armed backup is no better than the gun toting gang members she “reaches out to.” yea ok. one article named her as a Berkeley success, rising above the environment to be a success… yea ok, so why would you still tell your delinquent homies to pack heat just because you can’t stand some boys making fun of you? if some jerks on the street want to get a rise out of you at 2am, who in their right mind would continue the altercation and even elevate it to shooting up the scene? if anything, ITS PEOPLE LIKE MELEIA who bring danger to our streets! immature young kids who will bring weapons in response to provocation!
everyone victimized her because of how this story unfolded. young student gunned down (insert fear and pity) -> young ivy league social activist gunned down (insert remorse and more pity) -> find out girl called her homies and accidentally got shot (can’t curb pity to see real situation).
if you had first read that a local berkeley teen got shot because she called her gun-toting homies in response to immature Cal students only saying things to her, how would you respond?
Comment by alum — July 23, 2005 @ 1:44 pm
No, insider, it’s morbid curiosity, because whether she was an angel or not doesn’t matter to most of us. Are you pissed that people are saying nice things about a person who probably doesn’t deserve them? That’s what people say about dead people.
Comment by Beetle — July 23, 2005 @ 1:59 pm
People don’t say nice things about dead criminals. She’d be an accessory to murder had the murder been anyone else’s but her own.
Comment by Nony — July 23, 2005 @ 2:06 pm
beetle, speak for yourself, not others. as repeatedly said before in other peoples comments, sometimes people do care about the truth, especially those living in southside worrying about random drive bys and such. sometimes, people want to figure out the truth so they can figure out how to properly remember someone. its not about her life story, because nobodys perfect, but whether or not she got herself murdered AND CONVINCED HER FRIEND to throw his future away to homicide is important to know. this isnt about her life but the other people shes involved, not to mention the football players probably scared shitless of crazy chicks and their drive by homies.
Comment by alum — July 23, 2005 @ 2:31 pm
Beetle
There’s a big difference between random violence on the street and/or guys retaliating against women and shooting them for standing up for their honor — and a death caused because the victim escalated the situation and brought guns into the issue hoping others would get killed, but got a little karma back instead.
The first two mean you are unsafe on the streets of Berkeley and can be killed even if you are doing nothing wrong.
The last one means you should not escalate a situation from speech to death and reinforces the old “as ye sow, so shall ye reap” adage.
People have the right to know that random violence is not happening in this case. They deserve to know that this tragic death was brought upon the victim by her own actions and bad judgement. This death was not a result of random violence.
As for me, I’m pissed that someone I know could be dead except for lousy aim. The death was not an accident. The only accident was that Cal students were not killed by some woman and her hot-head “brother”. The “accident” was that the bullet hit the woman who was targeting men for death herself instead of her intended targets.
It amazes me that you, who has a smarmy comment for anything reported, all of a sudden has found something that we should not discuss. Wonder what your agenda is in this instance.
Comment by insider — July 23, 2005 @ 2:39 pm
holohan: i didnt bring up israel. but the little “debate” sure beats bullshit speculation about starbuck. anyway, what happened to you? did you wake up and decide that you were the blog-comment mom or something?
Comment by mano — July 23, 2005 @ 2:55 pm
I just think it’s funny that no matter what the initial topic is on Calstuff, the comment strings often devolve into useless debates about Israel or affirmative action. I just calls ‘em as I sees ‘em.
Comment by holohan — July 23, 2005 @ 3:06 pm
Okay, fine, you win, insider. It is important to know whether she is a sinner or a saint, a fool, a bitch, an ass, whatever. Because if we are wrong, her ghost will rise and haunt us, and we won’t know how to exorcise it.
If you needed this incident to tell you that starting shit with people you don’t know is dangerous, then fine, discuss away.
Comment by Beetle — July 23, 2005 @ 3:56 pm
sorry holohan, but by comment 18 you had morphed into comment-mom. israel (surprisingly!) didn’t enter into the picture until comment 32, in a response to a commenting mom that was not engaged, however, in mothering commenters.
anyway, i only wanted to clear up the silly misconception that israel is a peaceful society of gun-toters, and having done so, i’m now happy to engage in an argument with you, mom, about your motherly intentions towards the participants in this comment thread.
Comment by mano — July 23, 2005 @ 4:05 pm
I hope that all of the shit talking on CalStuff (about this subject) can end right now. Meleia was a friend of mine and I hope that those of you who repsect me, or at least call me a friend, would put this to rest. The arugments presented here are extremely superficial and extremely irrelevant.
DIW
Comment by David Israel Wasserman — July 23, 2005 @ 5:02 pm
I guess insider did have his facts straight to begin with.
Oakland tribune article.
An argument followed, with the men calling the women vulgar names, friends of Willis-Starbuck’s said. During this dispute, sources said, she phoned Hollis to come to her aid and suggested he bring a weapon.
Beetle, you’re right that it isn’t particularly respectful, or relevant, to discuss if the victim was a saint or a sinner. But many people would like to know whether this shooting was completely random event, or if it was tied to an obscenity-laced argument and a call for protection. That affects how safe we feel. That affects whether or not we feel comfortable walking home after dark.
Comment by captain anonymous — July 23, 2005 @ 5:33 pm
Hey, insider, you close to the football team, eh? You might have a stake in “spinning” the content of Meleia’s phone conversations.
Comment by jonp — July 23, 2005 @ 8:28 pm
Yes, JonP, if I am friends with guys who were there, it does mean I could have motivation to spin things, but doesn’t make it necessarily true that I am spining. Just because the truth protects someone you care about doesn’t make the words false.
If some progressives were subject to police brutality, does that mean you can’t report it because you know them and side with them and you would be spinning? Does that mean literally EVERYTHING published by SFindymedia is “spun”?
I’m just telling you what I know. You wanna think I’m making it up or spinning, go ahead. I too am confused about why a social justice advocate went to escalate it with gunplay, but confusion doesn’t change what I’m being told was said and what I’m being told has been consistent from day one from my source and from what I read in the papers. Oh, by the way — someone on the other thread suggests I called in my info to the papers to create support for my spin. Newspapers do not report sourced info without at least double confirmation and they don’t print “anonymous tips” as sourced material. The poster in question is confusing journalism methods with State of the Union speeches.
I’d ask you, Jon, how the police got the idea in the first place that she asked for a weapon to be brought. I doubt Wilson or the third passenger in the back seat of the car is saying it, since that means he/they were aware that gunplay was coming — and Wilson’s defense so far is based on ignorance that Hollis planned to use a gun. Where did that police info come from, JonP? Maybe W-S’s girlfriends are backing the story as well. The possible explanations fit what I’ve been told much more than your hopes that this progressive woman did not escalate an argument of words into gunfire.
Meanwhile, on the subsequent post/thread, you post a comment where you fully reproduce the Mom’s comments on how a woman like W-S could never resort to gunplay, and yet you reproduce nothing of my comments on what she was saying to the guys while Holis was driving to the scene. Since you are such a champion for Social Justice, does your selective reproduction of comments mean you are the one doing the spinning?
It is a confusing situation. Things are not logical here. Maybe we should all remember this — both groups had come from a night of partying. The two Chrisses had also been partying. Maybe some of the choices made, some of the remarks made, some of the requests made, and the bad aim came from intoxication.
Comment by insider — July 24, 2005 @ 12:35 pm
hah tack on drunk driving onto drive by shooting too, if its true that they were drunk while shooting
Comment by alum — July 24, 2005 @ 5:25 pm
Insider, I just have a general policy against putting too much stock in anonymous second-hand accounts, unless there is some corroborating evidence to back it up. I don’t necessarily assume that everything in a newspaper article is properly sourced either, especially when pressure to fill a “news hole” can override the necessity of getting the facts straight. That being said, I’m willing to accept that Willis-Starbuck’s death might have been cruel karmic payback, but I’d still need to have some more facts in.
Anyhow, since you do have inside info, maybe it’s better if some questions get cleared up:
1. Can you provide a timeline of the events as your friends saw it?
2. Did anybody overhear Willis-Starbuck when she was on the phone? If so, what did she say?
3. Who were the group she and her friends were arguing with?
4. Did anybody in Willis-Starbuck’s group know any of the men who approached her?
5. What did Willis-Starbuck say to the men after she got off the phone? What was the context for whatever she said? (I think you said this earlier, insider, but right now I’m having trouble finding it.)
Anything to clear things up. The Daily Cal is noncommital on the matter: “Friends present at the shooting may have called Wilson or Hollis to ask for help from the men, prompting them to try to protect her.”
Comment by jonp — July 25, 2005 @ 12:51 pm
Geez, JonP — for someone who refuses to ask questions posed to them, you certainly can ask a lot. Answer my questions and maybe I’ll respond.
In the meantime — you’re full of bs. You challenge me for having reason to spin because I know some of the guys involved. I challenge you back on how you seem to be spinning to keep the victim looking like a good progressive by only reposting the Wisconsin Mom’s statements but not mine was a clear example of YOU doing the spinning. Your response is: “Insider, I just have a general policy against putting too much stock in anonymous second-hand accounts, unless there is some corroborating evidence to back it up.” And yet, this mom that you hold up as evidence put the following in her statement: “I have been told that she was engaged in a cell phone conversation with them (the guys with the gun)about the time the verbal argument took place, apparently overhearing the arguing these friends asked if she needed help and her response was “don’t worry about it.” Now maybe I’m not a smart Soc grad student, but I’m pretty sure that “I have been told” is anonymous second-hand accounts. So, Mr. Spin Doctor: Heal thyself.
Look, I know you want to believe that this wonderful symbol of progresive politics did not initiate violence, but so far — that’s what it looks like. But accusing me of spinning and denying the obvious fact that it is you that is actually imitating a top, is not going to reduce Willis-Starbuck’s complicity in the “accident”.
Comment by Insider — July 26, 2005 @ 3:59 pm
new safety measures should keep people like meleia off the streets!
Comment by Anonymous — July 27, 2005 @ 2:33 am
“People don’t say nice things about dead criminals. She’d be an accessory to murder had the murder been anyone else’s but her own.”
Quoted for inescapable truth. Thanks for cutting through the bizarre tangential conjecture about Israel/Palestinians, foreign crime statistics, gun control, and class/race. Good grief, isn’t this just the sort of irrational debate that identifies UC Berkeley as a factory for scatterbrains?
If someone else had been slain, indeed she would be accessory to murder.
Comment by Pvt. Cowboy — July 30, 2005 @ 9:03 am