Willis-Starbuck argued with Cal football players
Cal football players might have been arguing with Meleia Willis-Starbuck, and a bullet caused a minor injury to one unnamed player.
A 19-year-old Dartmouth College student shot and killed near UC Berkeley had been arguing with members of Cal’s nationally ranked football team, and one of the players was grazed on the wrist by a bullet in the incident, sources familiar with the case told the Chronicle on Monday…
On Monday, police and Alameda County Deputy District Attorney Carrie Panetta, who is prosecuting the case, acknowledged that there was a second victim in the shooting but declined to identify him. The sources knowledgeable with the case also did not identify the man, who was not badly hurt…
The article also nicely summarizes various off-the-field incidents involving Cal football players such as Mike Tepper, Robert Jordan, and David Gray.
Also more details have surfaced as to how Fresno police caught, and nearly lost, Christopher Hollis, the alleged shooter.
Fresno Lt. Randy Dobbins said patrol officers had pulled over Hollis’ girlfriend, 33-year-old Easter Curry, after she ran a stop sign in her Toyota Camry at 11 p.m. Thursday. Hollis was in the passenger’s seat.
Hollis was detained after he allegedly gave the fake name of “Brandon Davis” and was fingerprinted, but he was released Friday morning. Suspects often give bogus names, Dobbins said, and the department’s fingerprint technicians had a backlog of narcotics cases that prevented them from immediately checking Hollis.
After police matched the prints in a statewide database and discovered that the young man was wanted on a murder warrant, Dobbins said, officers tracked down Hollis through his girlfriend — although she gave her sister’s name to officers.
Hollis was found in an acquaintance’s bedroom closet, Dobbins said. Meanwhile, his girlfriend, who was already on felony probation, was arrested on suspicion of harboring a known felon.
SF Chronicle Article
(thanks, Calstuff reader anon for the link)
So the driver runs the stop sign, and they ask the passenger for his name. Then they ask for ID, and arrest him for lying about his real name.
Something is missing here. I’ve never been asked to give my name or provide ID when someone driving me around is pulled over. Is this a case of racial profiling getting it right?
Comment by Anonymous — September 27, 2005 @ 8:29 pm
It might have also been because the driver had no ID.
Comment by Beetle — September 27, 2005 @ 9:04 pm
thats ridiculous…how can you go from a traffic pullover to fingerprinting the passenger!
Comment by man from the moon — September 27, 2005 @ 10:25 pm
Something is missing here. I’ve never been asked to give my name or provide ID when someone driving me around is pulled over. Is this a case of racial profiling getting it right?
Ask your black and Latino friends about this. They’ll tell you it happens all the time
Comment by Yung Alum — September 27, 2005 @ 10:38 pm
Hey, did anyone question that there might be a REASON people racially profile? Cops don’t just say “hmm let’s be racist and stop blacks and latinos.” Notice they don’t stop Asians. I’m not saying it’s right, I’m just trying to say that no policy is created out of complete malice.
Comment by Anonymous — September 27, 2005 @ 11:45 pm
“thats ridiculous…how can you go from a traffic pullover to fingerprinting the passenger!”
why is it rediculous–it got a murderer off the street. i hate liberals that fondle criminals.
Comment by smart person — September 27, 2005 @ 11:55 pm
lol @ dese n@ive commentarz. haha u make me l@ugh so hard m@n.
c@nt blieve ppl are complainin about da way in which da police caught dis murderer. typical extweme left…. defend da killah’s and spit on da cops.
and den dey wonder why da public dont twust dem wiT national/local security. lolz
“pwaise da cops smashT da murderers”
Comment by smashT — September 28, 2005 @ 12:15 am
Hollis got fingerprinted because after he gave the false name, he couldn’t give info to support it — like bday, address, etc. He was slow in responding to such basic questions (this guy is stupid, remember — he STAYED in Fresno after he got fingerprinted) that he made the police think he was lying. That’s why he got fingerprinted.
Comment by Insider — September 28, 2005 @ 10:13 am
Insider, thank you for explaining this to the idiots who comment on this blog.
Comment by smart person — September 28, 2005 @ 10:28 am
Hmm…I notice that “Insider” failed to mention that the Cal football players who argued with Willis-Starbuck had a few weapons violations under their belt. Hollis wasn’t firing warning shots, but I was suspicious that Insider wasn’t giving the full story either.
Comment by jonp — September 29, 2005 @ 4:15 pm
um, you really don’t have much reading comprehension, do you? especially for someone who supposedly has a ph.d.
1) Nowhere in the article does it say Robert Jordan or David Gray were among the football players who argued with the victim. You have no basis to say that “the Cal football playerss who argued with Willis-Starbuck had a few weaopons violations”. There is absolutely no evidence that either of those two were at the scene of the shooting.
2) The article does imply that the players had been at the summer bridge program dance in the dorm, which would strongly suggest that neither Jordan nor Gray were there (neither being a freshman).
3) If you read the article carefully, you will note that no charges were filed against Gray — he was a peacemaker who took the the gun away from someone else, and the charges against Jordan were dropped — he was wearing a piece of jewelry that looked like a knife. I would hardly call an incident with no charge filed and a dropped charge “violations”. Certainly, your attempt to equate those previous two incidents with the first degree murder of Meleia WS is absolutely pathetic. Your hatred of the football team, and idol worship of any ‘local activists’, is transparently obvious and seriously impairs your ability to rationally analyze the facts.
Comment by anon54 — September 29, 2005 @ 4:40 pm
It couldn’t be first degree murder unless her friend intended to kill her.
Comment by Hippo — September 30, 2005 @ 12:15 pm
This is not idol worship of local activists. This is simply what any halfway competent defense attorney would do. Yeah, the football player was “holding” the gun for somebody. Right… That’s what everybody charged with drug possession says. Yup, I was just “holding” the marijuana/cocaine etc. etc. for my friends… Yeah, right…
Come on. Don’t just jump on me because I have some skepticism about some self-appointed “Insider.” And by the way, anon54, there is nothing in the Oakland Tribune article about Gray being a “peacemaker” in relation to the weapons charge. This suggests that you have some personal knowledge of Gray that you are not telling us about, but of course, I can’t actually verify your claims because you’re anonymous.
For example, the defense attorney for Hollis does seem to suggest that the police is not giving us the full story about any culpability of football players involved:
And why didn’t Gary Doxy come forward even though he had been wounded in the incident that led to Willis-Starbuck’s death? That’s vital information in a police investigation. And why was Tedford sitting on this info? Could it be that Gray and Jackson have all these charges dropped against them, because of the clout of UC Berkeley and its football team? Would a “townie” from Oakland be treated with as much mercy by the local police?
I concede that Hollis was not making a “warning shot.” Hollis intended to hit whoever he was aiming at. But that doesn’t mean that the portrayal of the Willis-Starbuck homicide hasn’t been a one-sided sham on this blog from the very beginning. My bucking the tide has nothing to do with worship of Willis-Starbuck as an “activist” (her “Gandhian” pretensions appear to be nothing but a sham now), but based on the knowledge that in shootings like these, there’s usually some kind of provocation or fight that preceded it. That doesn’t mean that the provocation “justified” any of the shooting, but if you don’t clarify what happened prior to the shooting, what you have is a total whitewash that seems to be aimed at making football players look more angelic than they really are. Ask any criminologist or defense attorney or prosecutor. In many shootings that occur between men (such as Hollis and the men who harassed Willis-Starbuck), the victims or so-called “innocent bystanders” can often be just as violent as the perpetrators. That’s not heartlessness. That’s just the reality of how incidents of violent crime occur.
As for the idea that our precious, angelic little athletes couldn’t possibly be playing with knives and guns, hasn’t anybody ever heard of Rae Carruth or Jayson Williams?
Comment by jonp — September 30, 2005 @ 3:54 pm
[snark]By the way, aren’t most serial killers white? So why shouldn’t there be massive racial profiling and police harassment of white men? We might stop a serial killer![/snark]
Comment by jonp — September 30, 2005 @ 3:56 pm
Yes, we should racially profile everyone. Whites because they’re serial killers and blacks because they’re just plain criminals. When we need to catch illegal aliens we should also stop every Mexican we find. Computer crimes, we shoudl round up all Indians and if there’s another terrorist attack we shoudl intern all Arabs. Of course, we can only do this by making sure we have accurate racial databases that interfere with people’s privacy.
Where are you liberals on privacy rights, anyways?
Comment by Yeson54 — September 30, 2005 @ 4:14 pm
Actually my name should read No on 54.
Comment by Noon54 — September 30, 2005 @ 4:14 pm
I love it how Jonp doesn’t respond to his baseless allegations getting shot down and then trying a different tack instead.
Comment by ? — September 30, 2005 @ 6:41 pm
What tack should I take, oh mighty anonymous question mark? By the way, the true “Question Mark” will always be the lead singer of Question Mark and the Mysterians. Not only did they sing the garage rock classic “96 Tears,” but they did the original version of “Can’t Get Enough of You Baby,” done in a much inferior cover version by Smashmouth.
Comment by jonp — October 1, 2005 @ 5:29 pm
jonp:
1. I don’t know where anon54 heard that David Gray was a peacemaker. But I read that in the sfgate article that Allen linked at the end of the post. That might be a good guess.
Also, I don’t know what Oakland Tribune article you are referring to. I can’t find any links to anything in the Oakland Tribune in either the post or the comments. Do you even knw what you are repying to?
2. You have completely missed the point about the David Gray and Robert Jordan incidents. No one has said that either Gray or Jordan were among the men who argued with M-WS, and circumstantial evidence that they were not involved. A “halfway competent defense attorney” can talk about Gray/Jordan all he wants, but it is totally irrelevent if neither of them were in the group of players that argued with M-WS before the shooting. I seriously don’t think you have read the article at all, you have repeatedly failed to recognize this basic point.
3. “And why didn’t Gary Doxy come forward even though he had been wounded in the incident”
How hard is this to understand? He did come forward, the police knew all about his involvement and his injury. The didn’t publicize the incident while Hollis was on the loose, because they didn’t want Hollis hunting him down and killing him. This has been explained several times.
4 “Yeah, the football player was “holding” the gun for somebody. Right… That’s what everybody charged with drug possession says.”
I don’t claim to know any special info on the Gray case. But apparently the DA agreed with him because all charges were dropped before it went to trial.
5. “Could it be that Gray and Jackson have all these charges dropped against them,”
Who is Jackson? Has anyone named Jackson been mentioned anywhere? Again, why don’t you actually read the article before spouting off ill-informed comments.
Comment by captain anonymous — October 1, 2005 @ 7:08 pm
Captain Anonymous:
This San Francisco Chronicle column is titled “Cal’s Role in Probe of Killing Examined”:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/02/MNR.TMP
The column makes clear that neither Gary Doxy nor anybody associated with the adminstration or the football cooperated with the investigation regarding Doxy being a witness to the event:
Doxy did not need to come forward publicly, but he certainly should have come forward to help with Berkeley’s investigation, but the Chronicle column indicates that Doxy hadn’t been located by the police until one month after the shooting. Sorry but this reeks of stonewalling by the athletic department.
The SF Chronicle also makes clear in a September 27th column that Cal football players started the argument with Willis-Starbuck:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/09/27/BAG4OEU9T71.DTL
David Gray got caught with a weapon outside a nightclub (supposedly because he was disarming somebody); Robert Hicks got busted for pot possession; and Robert Jordan got arrested for carrying a concealed weapon. (By the way, my reference to “Jackson” was a typo. I intended to refer to Robert Jordan, since both Gray and Jordan were caught with “weapons.”) Personally, I don’t think any of these guys should have been charged. It looks like Gray really was breaking up a fight. I think pot should be legalized so Hicks should be left alone. And the “dagger” that Jordan was supposedly carrying sounds more like jewelry than a functional weapon. But do you really think that these guys would have been left alone under similar circumstances if they were townies from inner-city Oakland? If you do, then you are woefully naive about how town-gown relationships really work in most college towns. And if you have a bunch of Cal football players getting involved in “incidents” and you have Coach Tedford stonewalling police investigations, shouldn’t we be just a little suspicious about accepting the way football players (and their non-athletic student sycophants) depict the Willis-Starbuck incident?
By the way, if Gray and Doxy weren’t the players harassing Willis-Starbuck, then who were? The lousy record of Tedford and Doxy in being forthcoming with the police does not give me much trust that the jackasses who harassed Willis-Starbuck will be found. I mean, Hollis is in jail now. You can’t use Hollis as an excuse to avoid coming forward any more.
Comment by jonp — October 3, 2005 @ 2:09 am
Oh, JonP. You sorry, sorry fool. I’m amazed you came back to this topic after the humiliation of last time. Remember when you made a fool of yourself and showed you were posting without reading any of the news stories? Should we archive link your humiliation for you?
Well, you are obviously so pissed at the bitch slapping I gave you last time, that you have to post this foolishness: “Hmm…I notice that “Insider” failed to mention that the Cal football players who argued with Willis-Starbuck had a few weapons violations under their belt. Hollis wasn’t firing warning shots, but I was suspicious that Insider wasn’t giving the full story either.”
First of all, even the news stories will tell you that only one has a weapons CHARGE, (note, not a violation) — and that is David Gray. Who else besides David, and where are the MULTIPLE “violations”, JonP? C’mon boy — you threw out the lies — now try to defend them.
And secondly, what Gray did in SF that night was take a gun off of a guy who was threatening people outside a club. He was the PEACEMAKER. Note, he didn’t call for his friends to bring the heat like a good progressive would do — instead he acted and took the guy away. Then when the cops arrived, David was in possession of the gun so they initially arrested him UNTIL THEY FOUND OUT HE WAS THE HERO, NOT THE BAD GUY and promptly released him and they never even CHARGED him.
You little wussie, JonP — get your facts right before you slam someone. You keep doing this — making yourself look stupid. So now we all now that Gray actually tries to STOP gun violence, while your precious progressive queen actually ESCSALATED WORDS INTO GUN VIOLENCE.
You’re pathetic, Jon.
Comment by Insider — October 3, 2005 @ 10:35 am
As for why they didn’t come forward — Gray did. All of them ran when the Progressive’s Queen’s friend came and started shooting people, as she asked him to — too bad she forgot to say “Bring the heat, but please aim right and not kill me you stupid mofo.” Gray came back to the scene afterwards and honestly approached the cops and gave his name.
Second, they didn’t come forward cuz the cops told them not to, because, as you continue to fail to understand, A KILLER WHO WANTED THEM DEAD WAS STILL ON THE LOOSE!
JonP, you are such a twit. Plase stop trying to make points and arguments because you make all other grad students look bad. How low are Cal’s admission standards when you can get in?
Comment by Insider — October 3, 2005 @ 10:38 am
Oh, JonP. You wold think after the bitch-slapping I gave you in the previous thread http://calstuff.blogsome.com/2005/07/27/updates-on-the-willis-starbuck-shooting/#comments
You remember that thread, right JonP? When you laughed at me for having insider info about the occupants of Wilson’s car when it turns out everyone BUT you knew about it cuz it had been in the paper for weeks, which meant you keep spewing supposed info about this case when YOU DON’T EVEN READ THE PAPERS! After that bitch-slapping and punking you went into seclusion to hide your embarassment. And now you re-appear trying to salvage your reputation. Well firt, Jonnyboy — go back and finish the previous thread and your accusations. Have some pride, man — you were punked badly, try to explain it.
Second, I love your current attempt to look smart at my expense: “Hmm…I notice that “Insider” failed to mention that the Cal football players who argued with Willis-Starbuck had a few weapons violations under their belt. Hollis wasn’t firing warning shots, but I was suspicious that Insider wasn’t giving the full story either.”
Hmmm, I notice that you still can’t read a newspaper. 1) Jordan was not at the shooting and never was and no one even suggests he was. You are confusing the time he was driving a car that got pulled over and his buddy in the car had weed and they needed an excuse to take Jordan in as well, so they made a weapons charge on a “ceremonial dagger” hanging from his neck on a chain. So bogus that he was never charged officially. Stop confusing the facts in your attempts to demonize the football team, Jonnyboy. What’s the matter - did football players beat you up when you were a little boy?
2) Why would I have mentioned the details before, because their identities were being kept secret because Miss Progressive Queen’s brother was still on the loose and trying to kill them. Again, if stupidity is a reason for being dead, Mrs Pennington needs to buy a black dress, and soon.
3) David Gray. It was reported at the time, although deep in the paper and not as prominent as when he got arrested, that Gray took a gun off a guy who was threatening people. He was the peace keeper and tried to PREVENT gun violence, rather than call for it as Miss Progressive Queen did. While the cops sorted stuff out, they took David in because he had the gun at the time, but multiple witnesses explained to the cops what happened, their investigation backed up those witnesses, and Gray was released without ever being charged.
So, Gray was a hero — he acted to stop violence. He didn’t phone his friend to come and shoot people dead. He put his life at risk to take a gun away from a wacko.
JonP, you are pathetic. Let’s hear your responses AND your response to that thread you are still avoiding.
Comment by Insider — October 3, 2005 @ 10:53 am
And as for your charge that the guys were “harassing” Willis-Starbuck, remember that even her friends were in the car wanting to leave and asking her to leave with them. The guys were mostly in their own car wanting to go, but Miss Progressive Queen kept the argument going and wouldn’t stop. Did the fact that she knew her brother was coming to kill them act as her motivation to continue the argument? At that point she was harassing them as they wanted to leave and her friends wanted to leave.
She stalled them so they could be killed except she forgot to tell her brother “oh, and please don’t shoot me dead when you come to kill these disrespectful guys.”
Comment by Insider — October 3, 2005 @ 10:57 am
Fuck you, Insider. You’re an anonymous chickenshit who’s hiding behind anonymity to insult me. Now that Hollis is in custody, you have absolutely NO REASON not to identify yourself or at least identify who was arguing with Willis-Starbuck. I’m supposed to believe you when you’re probably a sycophant to the football team who thinks there’s nothing wrong with Tedford stonewalling a police investigation. Sorry, but when there is smoke there’s fire. Unless you start filling in some details motherfucking fast, I’m gonna have to say that I can trust you about as far I can throw my car.
Comment by jonp — October 3, 2005 @ 9:04 pm
Fuck you, Insider. You’re an anonymous chickenshit hiding behind a shield of anonymity to insult me. Now that Hollis is in custody, you have no reason whatsoever not to identify yourself or to tell us who was actually harassing Willis-Starbuck? Who was harassing Willis-Starbuck? I want to know. The fact that you leave out this important “detail” suggests that you are a sycophant to the football team who wants to whitewash their loutish behavior with women and justify Tedford and the team’s stonewalling with the police. Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
Comment by jonp — October 3, 2005 @ 9:12 pm
Hello, Insider… This is the most dipshit thing you have said so far. Numerous local news organizations, including the Daily Cal, the Berkeley Daily Planet, the Oakland Tribune, the San Francisco Chronicle, and the San Francisco Examiner, all agree that Willis-Starbuck and her friends were harassed by a group of men who called them “bitches” for not wanting to “party” with them.
The fact that you jump on me for misreading the papers, yet you ignore one of the facts that has stayed consistent throughout local newspaper coverage of the Willis-Starbuck shooting, suggests you are a sycophant of the football team who is making excuses for the players’ loutish and threatening behavior toward women and for Tedford and the team’s stonewalling a police investigation. F*ck you and f*ck your anonymous chickenshit refusal to identify yourself when you insult me.
Comment by jonp — October 3, 2005 @ 9:19 pm
Excuse me, “Insider,” but now you’re claiming that Willis-Starbuck hadn’t been harassed. (At least you’re belitting it by putting it in quotation marks.) Now who’s misreading newspaper coverage? The harassment of Willis-Starbuck by a group of men who called her and her friends “bitches” for not “partying” with them has been documented by all local newspaper coverage of the shooting including by the Daily Cal, the Berkeley Daily Planet, the Berkeley Voice, the Oakland Tribune, the SF Examiner, and the SF Chronicle. If you’re going to keep insulting me, you should at least have the decency to step from behind your shield of anonymity. Now that Hollis is in custody, you have no justification for keeping yourself hidden if you are going to insult me. You are a sycophant to the football team who is whitewashing the loutish and harassing behavior of the players, while justifying Tedford and the team’s stonewalling of an active investigation. If you’re such an “Insider,” why won’t you clear up who was harassing Starbuck and her friends? The silence is deafening.
Comment by jonp — October 3, 2005 @ 9:43 pm
Excuse me, “Insider,” but now you’re claiming that Willis-Starbuck hadn’t been harassed. This has been documented by all local newspaper coverage of the shooting including by the Daily Cal, the Berkeley Daily Planet, the Berkeley Voice, the Oakland Tribune, the SF Examiner, and the SF Chronicle. If you’re going to keep insulting me, you should at least have the decency to step from behind your shield of anonymity. Now that Hollis is in custody, you have no justification for keeping yourself hidden if you are going to insult me. You are sycophant to the football team who is whitewashing the loutish and harassing behavior of the players, while justifying Tedford and the team’s stonewalling of an active investigation.
Comment by jonp — October 3, 2005 @ 9:44 pm
ooooh, jonp is getting hot under the collar now. “identify yourself at once, you anonymous sycohant!”
has anyone else noticed that every detail that Insider has provided about the crime scene has been verified by the press. and everything that jonp has said has turned out to be wildly incorrect?
Comment by captain anonymous — October 3, 2005 @ 10:48 pm
its all da football players fault! dey were da ones carrying da guns, dey were da ones firing gun shots daT night, etc…
to bad for jonp daT version of events is completely unrelated to waT weally happened. =(
“smashT”
Comment by smashT — October 3, 2005 @ 10:54 pm
Just a heads-up, folks: Some comments get snagged for moderation (I think). There’s no need to post five times.
Jon, even with Hollis in jail, I wouldn’t feel safe coming forward publicly. I’m sure he has buddies, and in the crowd he runs with, apparently buddies have guns and shoot (poorly). Since there’s no real benefit to being publicly identifiable, why should they put themselves at risk?
Comment by Beetle — October 3, 2005 @ 11:22 pm
Everything Insider says is correct? Bullshit. He/she is completely denying that any harassment was involved, even though every single local newspaper account says there was.
Comment by jonp — October 4, 2005 @ 3:08 am
Yes.
Comment by Vermillion — October 4, 2005 @ 7:47 am
glad to see this thread is alive again.
i read the article in the Berkeley Voice last week. Tedford says they’ve cooperated fully from the beginning. The police say they only figured out 2 weeks ago which players were involved. Can someone explain that to me?
Comment by uncle joe — October 4, 2005 @ 9:44 am
Okay, JonP. We’ve dealt with this before, but let’s go thru it again. I realize that the more stupid students need extra help after class.
Harassment: all definitions have a sense of “repeated” comments, attacks, etc. And all indicate one-way behavior. So first of all, there cannot be a “repeated” situation going on in a first time meeting. Secondly, all reports verify that when Hollis came, at the request of his sister, all the other women were in their car trying to get W-S to leave. Most men were also in their car, and the ones who were not in the car were trying to leave. W-S VOLUNTARILY kept the argument going. If she was being harassed, if it was such a horrible experience for her, why didn’t she just get out of there? Harassment victims usually don’t stay around waiting for more attacks.
But of course, W-S had a motive to keep the argument going. She was waiting for her accomplice in murder. She wanted to keep the guys there so they would be targets for the guy she just called and told to bring a gun. If she didn’t get shot by the guy she called to come shooting, she would be up on accessory to murder charges right now. SHE kept the argument going, not the guys. SHE stalled them so they could be killed.
Harassment? Give me a break — you insult every real female victim of harassment. JonP, you are a stupid bitch. Is that me harassing you? (No, it’s just me telling the truth.)
Comment by Insider — October 4, 2005 @ 10:40 am
One other thing, JonP — while you focus in on the issue of harassment, don’t think we all notice how you avoid answering all the other points about how incorrect you are. Still think Jordan was there?
Here’s one more piece of info for you that you don’t need to be an insdier to know: you are a fool and everyone who reads your stuff knows it and wonders when you will stop embarassing yourself by posting even more proof. Man, this thread should be forwarded to Sociology department — they will cringe when they realize you are representing them with such ignorant and unitelligent reasoning and argumentation.
Comment by Insider — October 4, 2005 @ 10:44 am
Sorry about the multiple posting. In my case, something’s strange in the software — I just made two posts, but only the second one is visible right now. That happened yesterday as well, which is why I reposted some stuff.
In JonP’s case, the double posting is because he thinks if he keeps talking about harassment then no one will notice how all his other points are untrue, stupid, and/or just not making sense.
Comment by Insider — October 4, 2005 @ 10:46 am
I’d like an explanation too and I suppose “Insider” isn’t about to provide one. I get jumped on for typing “Jordan” instead of “Jackson,” but Insider is the one whose typing “harassment” in quotation marks, as if the harassment never really happened. I bet Insider believes that Tedford wasn’t stonewalling the investigation either. Perhaps Insider believes that My Little Pony and unicorns are real too.
Comment by jonp — October 4, 2005 @ 11:10 am
is it really harassment if you’re stalling for the hit man to arrive?
Comment by anon54 — October 4, 2005 @ 12:02 pm
Actually, you were jumped on for typing “Jackson” instead of “Jordan.”
Comment by Beetle — October 4, 2005 @ 12:11 pm
Well, first Jon, when are you going to address the issue of “harassment” needed repeated instances, and how it is repeated when the guys are trying to leave and W-S’s friends are trying to leave and only she is continuing the argument.
They weren’t harassing them — they had a fight. It was over. Miss Progressive Queen thought she could school the guys and when they weren’t intersted in being schooled by some drunk babe, she decided to have them killed. I think you need to start discussing why she was an accesory to murder (that happened to end up being her own, instead of someone else’s). And how are they harassing her when they want to leave and she wants them to continue talking. Can you demand to be harassed and still have it called harassment?
Police didn’t find out until 2 weeks ago that Doxy was grazed by a bullet. He didn’t stay around once W-S’s murder plot was put into effect and bullets were flying. Since it wasn’t serious, he didn’t think he needed to deal with it — he didn’t even go to the hospital. At some point when police were questioning the guys, it came up and police decided they wanted to use it as an additional charge against Hollis — cops like loading up charges to see which one will stick, ya know.
Now, how is it that the victim not revealing that he was injured is now called a cover-up? It’s the bad guys –you know, the ones who shoot guns into crowds of people and call for their friends to bring the heat and kill people — who cover things up. JonP, so by your logic, every woman who was raped and didn’t report it is conducting a cover-up? Anyone who was robbed and assumes the cops won’t help get their stuff back so they don’t report it is conducting a cover-up.
As much as your inherent hatred of athletes and frat guys (boy, it’s so obvious to figure out that JonP was a geeky unpopular kid with no athletic ability at all when he was a kid and is now trying to get back at all the mean boys who taunted him as a child — like last week) makes you want to think otherwise, the guys in this situation are the ones who were the intended victims of the crime. It’s not a crime to call a woman a bitch. Disrespectful, maybe, but it’s not a crime. Watch: JonP, you are a bitch. See, I’m still not a criminal — I’m just someone who speaks the truth.
So again — where’s the repeatedness in the situation, JonP — how is trying to get away from an argument harassing? How is it that the supposed victim of “harassment” not letting the “harassers” leave and stop their words? And what about the fact that she knew the killer was on his way to kill them when she was stalling them?
How about addressing those issues, Jonnyboy?
Comment by Insider — October 4, 2005 @ 1:50 pm
Insider, get it through your thick skull that Gary Doxy’s wound is a red herring. Even if the Archangel Gabriel magically protected Doxy from a fusillade of bullets, Doxy still had an obligation to talk to the police, because he was a witness to the crime. The fact that women present at the crime (even though they may have been just as likely to face retaliation from Hollis’s friends) had the bravery to come forward and cooperate with a police investigation, but Doxy did not, suggests that Doxy was the real b*tch here.
And by the way, Insider, are you calling me a bitch? I buy my ink by the gallon so it’s probably not a good idea to get in a war of words with me. And so what if I’m a geek? I’m a 33 and I make no apologies for being a geek. Many of the women I’ve dated go for the geek type, because they don’t like the stupid rah-rah brainwash mindless duh-Go-Bears! culture any more than I do. In fact, if you read Dan Savage’s sex column, you will find many women who say that geeks make better lovers. I’m surprised there were no school shootings at your high school, because you evidently fit the profile of the vindictive assh*le bullies who sent those school shooters over the edge.
And by the way, why are you so deeply invested in protecting the football team’s “right” to call women “b*tches” and harass them for not partying with them? You’re probably a football player or football groupie yourself, judging by the way you go ballistic whenever any negative commentary is uttered about the team. Perhaps you’re angry because the steroids have shrunk your testicles to the size of dried peas. I don’t know, but I do know this is a university, an academic institution. If you want football, go to the NFL. Don’t waste my school’s resources so that you can have a pseudo-NFL farm team here.
Comment by jonp — October 5, 2005 @ 3:56 pm
Oh my god. Here is a good progressive boy saying that an African American who was a VICTIM has an obligation to report to the police.
Yeah, sure, cause for Af-Am’s, going to the police is always a positive thing and never gets them jacked up instead of helped.
Man, JonP — way to just abandon all your progressive views. They’re gonna kick you out of the blue states now. Might as well just go to Kansas or Idaho now with the rest of the bigots who have no clue why African-Americans distrust the police.
And I love the way you try to impress me with how well you score. It’s kinda sad that you need my approval for your own validation. And too bad — you aren’t getting it.
Comment by Insider — October 5, 2005 @ 5:29 pm
Yes, but what if Gary Doxy’s refusal to go to the police means that Hollis gets off with a lesser charge or goes free? If Hollis goes to trial, it’s all going to hinge on questions of Hollis’s intent. Ballistics is a necessary part of determining where Hollis was when he shot Doxy and Willis-Starbuck (How far away was Hollis? What was the trajectory of the bullet? If we know how far away Hollis was, what could he see when he pulled the trigger? Is Hollis’s claim of firing warning shots into the air plausible?). Answering these questions would provide a lot of objective evidence toward shedding light on Hollis’s true state of mind. Gary Doxy’s wound could have played an important role in answering some questions about the trajectory of the shots etc., but if Doxy’s wound healed before the police interrogated him, then a crucial piece of the puzzle is lost. Ballistics is necessary to provide objective evidence, rather than basing all evidence of Hollis’s state of mind on a whole pile of he-said/she-said witness statements.
By the way, it’s not racist to suggest that somebody, black or white, might have a civic obligation (not necessarily a legal obligation) to go to the police. Athletes at Cal, whether black or white, get a lot of privileges that non-athletes don’t have. Playing the victim card as an excuse not to go to the police, when there may have been several other not-so-noble reasons for football players not going to the police, seems a little convenient here. Besides, the incident was black-on-black crime. Are you saying that the police shouldn’t work hard at getting to the bottom of black-on-black crime?
Comment by jonp — October 7, 2005 @ 12:29 am
Aww, and I was looking forward to their determining the exact location of Doxy’s wrist.
There don’t need to be ballistics, because no one disuptes what happened. Warning shots don’t need to be fired in the general direction of the folks you’re warning. You can often scare them with the noise, not with the fact that a bullet passed nearby. Hollis has the “stupid” defense to claim plausibility of a warning shot, with no ballistics necessary.
Comment by Beetle — October 7, 2005 @ 12:46 am
Nope. I believe Hollis’s defense attorney would disagree with you on that one. There’s this thing called innocent until proven guilty where you have establish guilt for a crime in a court of law. Even if we all concede that Hollis shot Willis-Starbuck and Doxy, the punishment Hollis receives is contingent on figuring out Hollis’s motives.
Comment by jonp — October 7, 2005 @ 2:46 am
Ballistics do not determine motives. They determine where he shot. He obviously shot towards the crowd, because someone in the crowd is dead. He can still claim he was trying to shoot over their heads or something, but that has to do with what was going on in his brain, which is not determined by ballistics.
Comment by Beetle — October 7, 2005 @ 11:13 am
hey little b*tch:
you still think the women at the scene faced the same threat of retaliation as Doxy? how stupid are you? they were M-WS’ friends, not the intended victim, Hollis was not going to go after them, numbnuts.
“I’m a 33″
what’s that mean? your dungeons and dragons level, or something?
so now you’re trying to blame columbine on the high school football? your transparent hatred of athletes is so obvious. grow up and move on with your life. quit fixating on the jocks who were mean to you so long ago, b*tch.
Comment by anon54 — October 7, 2005 @ 1:31 pm
At least, I’m not an anonymous chickensh*t, anon54. Beeeeeeeeeyotch!
Comment by jonp — October 7, 2005 @ 2:39 pm
Oh really, oh wise Beelte? Burris, the defense attorney, stated that Hollis was at least a block away when he fired the shots. If that’s the case, then ballistic evidence would be extremely relevant as to whether Hollis’s defense has any basis in truth. You know, that whole thing about finding out the truth in an adversarial justice system. And you’re studying law? What a sad example you are.
Comment by jonp — October 7, 2005 @ 2:42 pm
I’m studying law?
Is the prosecution claiming he wasn’t at least a block away?
Comment by Beetle — October 7, 2005 @ 3:54 pm
Oh, I forgot Beetle… you’re in J-School. It’s that whole anonymity thing.
Comment by jonp — October 8, 2005 @ 5:01 pm
Riiiiiight. According to the Daily Cal, I’m in chemistry, actually.
Comment by Beetle — October 8, 2005 @ 5:05 pm
Are you really in chemistry? Another Google search suggested you were in industrial engineering, Beetle. Of course, it’s not like the Daily Cal hasn’t screwed up basic facts before.
Comment by jonp — October 9, 2005 @ 6:57 pm
Oh, the Daily Cal screwed up this one. I’m in IEOR.
Comment by Beetle — October 9, 2005 @ 7:08 pm