Murder Victim May Have Asked Suspect to Bring Weapon
This was mentioned in comments, so I wanted to include the fill information. From the 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.
This request for help turned deadly. “The Chrisses” drove up about a half-block away, and Hollis allegedly got out and fired into the crowd, hitting Willis-Starbuck once in the chest, sources and police said. She died beneath a large redwood tree about 15 minutes later.
For those who choose to post something in comments, please be respectful.
Comment by Andy R. — July 23, 2005 @ 5:55 pm
I think we still have a dispute over the facts, at least if you believe this prior post by “Mom in Wisconsin”:
“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.”
Frankly, the scenario put forward by “insider” and the one put forward by “Mom in Wisconsin” sound just as equally plausible to me. And there is no way to tell which one is more correct with the limited information we have. In addition, I just find it odd that some lefty Green Party member who worked at a battered women’s shelter would somehow turn to macho gunplay as the first solution to a problem. I mean, she got approached by some really big guys and she gives them a feminist lecture about how it’s not nice to call a woman a bitch. On the one hand, it could suggest she has a tendency to escalate conflict. On the other hand, it suggests she has enough bravery and verbal skill in order to talk her way out of a confrontation. Personally, I’d like to see some accounts of what happened with some witnesses’ names attached, rather than the unsourced accounts we’ve been getting so far.
Comment by jonp — July 23, 2005 @ 8:39 pm
Ah, poop. Three days before the Bar Exam, and Jon and I agree on something. This is going to screw with my head something awful.
Comment by holohan — July 23, 2005 @ 8:53 pm
wow, actually good comments on CALSTUFF!
Comment by Crazyguy! — July 23, 2005 @ 9:59 pm
I would have to say that, despite the Jason Blair fiasco and the National Guard document fiasco, newspapers still have more credibility than comments on internet message boards. Does that mean everything “insider” wrote is true? Not necessarily. But an Oakland Tribune story repeats his statement that the victim asked for a weapon to be brought, and a Daily Planet story repeats his statement that Hollis fired once into the air and then three times into the crowd. That’s two instances of print sources seemingly verifying his posting.
Comment by captain anonymous — July 23, 2005 @ 11:06 pm
The Daily Planet also doesn’t disclose the source. Perhaps insider and the anonymous source are one and the same? In which case, your credibility theory falls apart. Its not too difficult to give a false tip to the press. Perhaps false is incorrect…perhpas a misleading tip.
Comment by anonymous — July 23, 2005 @ 11:16 pm
“In addition, I just find it odd that some lefty Green Party member who worked at a battered women’s shelter would somehow turn to macho gunplay as the first solution to a problem”
The lefties out here are a different breed. I’m guessing you weren’t around when the affirmative action rally turned into a Telegraph looting frenzy.
Comment by H+M — July 24, 2005 @ 6:41 pm
Or when the “students supporting the (UC clerical workers’) strike” group marched around campus disturbing the peace, destroying property, and attacking people.
Comment by Eddy C. — July 24, 2005 @ 7:49 pm
They destroyed property and attacked people? Wow. Way to rally troops to your cause.
Comment by Sensible Liberal — July 24, 2005 @ 7:51 pm
hmmm eddy, i didnt see that in the papers. you would think that such a disturbance would make the papers. you sure it didnt happpen, in your imagination?
PS: “sensible” liberal, strikes (at least traditionally) are about shutting things down, about inflicting economic damage - NOT about “rallying people to your cause”. perhaps you are confused about the history and tactics of the labor movement?
Comment by mano — July 24, 2005 @ 8:07 pm
Old labor movements, yes. These new movements, which I tend to sympathize with in principle, don’t really accomplish much if they do things that can get them arrested.
Another thing that didn’t work was the Iraq War Protest, which I supported. It failed because it didn’t gauge the Paleo-conservatives who are opposed to war as much as the liberals. Things like ANSWER and all that stuff about multiculturalism splintered the movement. One issue at a time. If it got support from Paleo-conservatives there may never have been a war or, at the least, Mr. Bush would not be in the White House again. Anti-war protests in Vietnam were much more organized and issue specific.
Comment by Sensible Liberal — July 24, 2005 @ 8:26 pm
In the 50s and 60s, the wealth of the upper 25% had been leveled quite a bit during the depression and high taxes from WWII, and labor was strong. Now, via reverse high tax burden on the bottom 70% and other structural changes to the way the economy works, the wealth pyramid is getting really stretched out, like the era of the 1920s which you can read about. Despite many productivity gains such as computers and many forms of automation, wages have barely risen since the 70s, except a briefly blip in the late 90s. All the wealth from this productivity flowed to the top via stocks. A polite union movement won’t necessarily solve the problem, but it seems like something will eventually happen - perhaps internationally, given the organization of companies these days.
Comment by ella — July 24, 2005 @ 8:52 pm
sensible: seriously. read what you wrote. its a bunch of gobbledy-gook. you are misinformed and incoherent.
ella on the other hand, actually sounds intelligent… although the 50s and 60s werent peaks in the strength of the “labor” movement, they were stronger thann now (theres been a many decades long decline in labor). fwiw what the US has now is largely a polite labor movement. i would argue that “being polite” is a fatal flaw. i agree that things will happen internationally, mainly because people in other countries have a bit more consciousness and are a little less lame. and the split that is fomenting now in the AFL is interesting, but the unfortunate reality is that the issue of being “polite and well-behaved” isnt even on the table yet, theyre dealing with a question of whether or not unions should actually try to organize people. as if that should even be a question for a union. pathetic.
Comment by mano — July 24, 2005 @ 9:45 pm
***
I’m guessing you weren’t around when the affirmative action rally turned into a Telegraph looting frenzy.
***
Actually, I was here at UC when that happened, although not present at the event myself. The Telegraph Avenue looting is typically attributed to BAMN, which has Trotskyite roots and isn’t connected to the Greens. It’s also not necessarily the best indicator of leftist propensity to violence, because I know a handful of people who are more left-wing than me who can’t stand BAMN’s propensity for violence. In fact, a lot of Bay Area leftists think BAMN is a bunch of counterproductive provocateurs.
Comment by jonp — July 24, 2005 @ 10:30 pm
Mano: Misinformed, huh? What part of my argument was misinformed. It sounds like people who disagree with you are “misinformed”. If you’d like to refute my point that the left wing should have gotten the isolationist right wing into the fight against the war in Iraq, please say so.
Comment by Sensible Liberal — July 24, 2005 @ 11:15 pm
SL:
a) “sympathy in principle”. what the hell does that even mean? it sounds pretty useless, speaking practically, as opposed to “in principle”…
b) “the Iraq War Protest” which protest was that?
c) “Things like ANSWER and all that stuff about multiculturalism splintered the movement.” Um, most everyone in the street demos was white, liberal, and middle class. What multiculturalism are you talking about? Also, what splintering? The numbers were vastly in excess of the Vietnam business. That doesnt sound like splintered and divided to me. What it sounds like to me is that we had no strategy for turning the numbers into a real opposition, something that could have created an unacceptable economic and social cost to the war.
d) “new labor movements” this is one for the wtf department. care to elaborate?
e) “Anti-war protests in Vietnam were much more organized and issue specific.” “One issue at a time.” Im not sure where you got this idea, but its not much of a winner if your goal is to unite a broad spectrum of people. And its simply not how politics works. I mean, you can sit home and whine “in principle” about how the muddled reality of politics (be they radical, reform, or partisan) is not easy for you to follow, because people dont stick to the some crisp little formula that satisfies your aesthetic concerns, but thats your problem, in principle i suppose, because you dont get involved in politics “in principle” anyway.
Comment by mano — July 25, 2005 @ 1:43 am
Mano:
a) sympathy in principle is just that. A lot of peopel sympathized with John Brown but didn’t like how he murdered people to get his point across.
b) I am talking about the pre-war protest activity in general. Ineffective in policy influencing. There were better ways to do it.
c) the people missing from the picture were conservatives like Pat Buchanan who adamantly oppose US intervention. These types of people also tend to oppose other ideas that were being protested. If the movement was meant to bring groups of people together it did, but at the same time everyone was into their own issue as well as being anti-war that it didn’t send a unified message to the Bush administration except “we don’t like you and whatever you’re doing, it’s wrong”. I do believe protests are supposed to influence and shape policy making.
d) kind of like the “new civil rights movement”? That was an off topic response. I am differentiating the old labor movement where people fought for basic living conditions vs the conditions that are much better today, albeit not always good.
e) that crisp little formula was to end the war/prevent it from happening. That should have been the only message and every sign in the protest should have been related directly to that.
The problem was no one hit the nail on the coffin. We were about to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a war that we didn’t gain much from. For all the human rights stuff, it didn’t create the desired outcome. What would have hit conservatives was the effect on the budget. Now they’re mad. They should have been long ago.
Comment by Sensible Liberal — July 25, 2005 @ 2:12 am
mano-
No, of course it wasn’t in my imagination, and just because it wasn’t in the papers doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. I’d really hope you are smart enough to recognize that. But, I was there witnessing the assaults and destruction of property with my own eyes. I’m sorry to say I didn’t have a camera with me, and I was being physically threatened myself, so I was busy defending myself and diffusing the situation (my own personal altercation as well as the situation/riot overall).
And mind you this was the STUDENTS IN SUPPORT group, not the actual strikers. So they had no business “inflicting economic damage” anyways. Nor did they or anyone else (the strikers themselves were quite respectful) have any business assaulting people and destroying property.
But I apologize to all for my digression, we are all getting way off topic.
Comment by Eddy C. — July 25, 2005 @ 2:47 am
Eddy, actually, I was there, WITH the STUDENTS IN SUPPORT group, which is why I am calling bullshit on your property destruction claim.
What exactly was destroyed? Who was assaulted? How? Pray tell. This is your big chance to break the news.
Comment by mano — July 25, 2005 @ 3:11 am
SL: you are making shit up. that is why your arguments are incoherent. the “new labor movement”. please. at first i thought maybe you were talking about the SEIU stuff but at this point id be surprised if you didnt have to look up the acronym.
i realize you think you have the secret formula the antiwar “movement” needed. youre not the only one. do you think that pat wasnt doing his own antiwar stuff? do you think for some reason, if hed shown up on the stage at civic center, things would have been different? you think if we had messaging police like you running around bush wouldnt have said and done exactly the same thing? you are delusional.
unfortunately, very much in keeping with your self-proclaimed liberal status, you think protest is about sending “messages”. “messages” are not the currency of politics. they are the currency of liberal fantasy.
Comment by mano — July 25, 2005 @ 3:22 am
look - groundhogs day! More students killed in a camaro/bigrig accident: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/25/BAcrash25.DTL
Anyway - that example of John Brown being ineffective for raiding the armory, versus his supposedly better potential if he had gone on a speaking campaign???? That isn’t very convincing. Many people quietly opposed slavery or didn’t own slaves or were slaves and they didn’t end slavery faster. I understand that you’re trying to bring that in as an example of showing how trotskyist BAMN uses wrong tactics, but it’s a very different situation. Chris Thompson’s article about BAMN’s background is good. Choice of tactics is complex- Affirmative action is a moderate issue with 45% support, while the majority of the world opposed the Iraq escalation and there are much more dire consequences if the administration doesn’t listen. My g’father avoided the army and wasn’t returning the heil hitler salute, like probably everyone would like to envision themselves doing, but it didn’t achieve much and he was brought before a tribunal, and his uncle defended him then chose that moment to commit nonrevolutionary suicide - so that was one time and place. However, it isn’t automatic that an aggressive tactic will work when the letter writing campaign is ignored, clearly, such as with animal rights nuts, BAMN, the backlash on drugs.
With ANSWER - most people who know about their inner leadership don’t like them - after all, there are only a few thousand communists in the country. So if you’re the sensible liberal, I would have to put blame in your group. I read Raimondo and antiwar.com, and those paleoconservatives aren’t about to join any march, and I don’t buy that the iraq escalation occurred because of their distaste for ANSWER. leftists and progressives could not have done more regarding the recent election. The only group not pulling their weight that I see is moderate liberals who never come up, but are suddenly unhappy at this point of the administration. With all their numbers, how come they can’t organize anything.
Comment by ella — July 25, 2005 @ 7:27 am
ella, why cant they organize anything? maybe they are too busy being “sensible”. i like the point you brought up about tactics and numbers.
the big question for an activist/organizer is when you can stop “convincing” the public that you are right and can start doing something with the numbers you have. the sad fact is liberals are afraid of doing anything, because god forbid, they should polarize the country.
but polarization is good, if you have the numbers. youll never have everyone, and the moment you start doing anything active on your issue society will polarize. the numbers you need to win are smaller than people think — 30% for, 30% against, 30% neutral was sufficient for the american revolution. in the 30’s one in three people were in a union of some kind. arguably “progressives” on the left prolly have roughly 30% of this country, generally smarter, more educated, richer, city types. thats guaranteed social change right there, just add backbone.
Comment by mano — July 25, 2005 @ 10:06 am
talk about getting off topic..
Comment by alum — July 25, 2005 @ 10:12 am
we sure are talking about it.
Comment by mano — July 25, 2005 @ 11:29 am
30%? I love reading your writings mano, don’t agree with any of it but you’re undeniably brilliant, but you’re way off there. Progressives of your ilk are less than 1 in 500, even in the bay area, and unknown to most of America.
I’ll agree about adding backbone. Stupidest thing the dems did in 2004 was not nominating Dean.
Comment by Anonymous — July 25, 2005 @ 5:15 pm
Word. The Democrats sealed their damn fate when they nominated that rich snob John Kerry. If the Democratic party is really for the working people, John Kerry would be its antithesis.
Don’t blame “Diebold” voting machines, “divisive” issues, “fear” (the stupidest excuse), etc. The Democrats lost the election to a moron like Bush because they put up a lousy fight.
Comment by Sensible Liberal — July 25, 2005 @ 6:05 pm
“progressives”. in quotes. not of my “ilk”. i’m talking about rough ideological orientation.
pick a stereotypically progressive issue. opposition to the war in iraq. affirmative action. abortion. on these, and many others, pretty much any opinion poll will give progressives 30%, easily. 30% is more than enough, crudely speaking, to ram ones demands down the throat of society. if 30% of society is willing to renege on the “social contract” over an issue, even if they arent willing to do much more than throw up blockades, then they have a pretty good chance of seeing their demands met.
Comment by mano — July 25, 2005 @ 6:16 pm
I’m not contributing to getting off topic anymore on this thread. Mano, you can email me if you want further discussion.
Comment by Eddy C. — July 25, 2005 @ 8:58 pm
Mano: it’s not the issue that makes a person progressive. Lots of Americans (30%, as you cited) probably support something like gay rights. Progressives do a lot more authoritarian things like force people to accept gays (”diversity” training) instead of just fight for their basic rights.
Comment by Anonymous — July 25, 2005 @ 9:43 pm
eddy, i dont really care to discuss the matter.
i was there, i helped organize the solidarity action. so i do obviously have an interest in debunking your lies — in public — because your bullshit is damaging.
im calling you out as a liar. of course i cant be 100% sure, but i HIGHLY doubt that you were assaulted or that any property was damaged. and i know we had a police escort including the videotape lady (gosh, i really love her) for the majority of our march, so there would have been ample opportunity for you or anyone really to approach the cops with any complaints. thus it is my first hand informed opinion that you are a freaking liar.
Comment by mano — July 25, 2005 @ 11:38 pm
anonymous, “progressive” is a term that refers to a persons’ ideology and/or political philosophy. were talking dictionary/encyclopedic definitions here, and this isnt really a matter that is up for debate.
anyway, “forcing people to accept gays” or “being authoritarian” is your judgement or interpretation of tactics that you think some progressives use to realize their ideology.
thats fine, but again, i was very clear to point out that there is a gulf between what people “believe” and how they act. my opinion is that the gulf between belief and action is what makes progressives/leftists weak. and if not being weak entails being annoying or pushy, well, i say progressives should go for it…
Comment by mano — July 25, 2005 @ 11:56 pm
why bother arguing with people who just dont get it or are simply provoking trouble? theres nothing to prove in an anonymous online forum.
Comment by alum — July 26, 2005 @ 2:56 am
I win the internet!
It’s a hobby. A passtime. A multiplayer crossword puzzle.
Comment by Beetle — July 26, 2005 @ 3:50 pm