Talk:Killing of Latasha Harlins

Since when did she punch the owner? I've seen the video. She didn't even steal anything, as best I can remember. The owner was just acting on a stereotype. Ridethefire3211

Factual Accuracy

This article says Soon Ja Du was convicted of involuntary manslaughter, but the article on the 1992 Los Angeles riots says she was convicted of voluntary manslaughter. The vast majority of web references say voluntary manslaughter, including a court transcript, so this page is probably the one that is wrong.

You Are Wrong...

You are wrong Ride, Latisha punches Du viciously in the video. So vicious that Du falls to the ground, Du would later pass out from the blows. From news coverage back then, video showed Du with severe bruising from the attack. Yes, Latisha was 15, but she was 150 lbs and nearly 6' tall up against an elderly woman under 115 lbs. Its tragic what happened, and there is blame to go on both sides.

That is what she said so she wouldn't be jailed for life for second degree murder. But this is what the police said 2 days after at a press conference: "Du was arrested Saturday afternoon on suspicion of murder, Bostic said, just hours after she was treated at a hospital for what Bostic described as "superficial injuries" she sustained in the scuffle." There is hardly blame to be divided. Du was in a tough situation that many of us would have also failed. But it was her crime.

lots of issues | leave me a message 22:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I saw the video on a PBS program on the L.A. Riots, and Latasha immediately throws punches upon being confronted. The punches seemed powerful to me as evidenced by Du's head recoiling after each blow. And to the police, bruising, even severe bruising is considered superficial

biased

this article is biased and is only up here because of the supposed 'hate crime'. i think we should put this up for deletion.

What in the article do you feel is biased, and how so? Mwelch 22:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Merging of Soon Ja Du and Latasha Harlins articles

Take a look and compare. These two articles are identical in scope with a few details unique to both. ie. names, ages, roles of Billy and Charles Du, Du's lawyer, video proof, Tupac. It seems like a waste of space to have the two when they don't go into the actual lives of the two individuals, and all we know about them stems from this one incident. I'm not entirely sure what the new article should be called - I'm trying to find an article which was titled after an incident with a similar background - Would this be a precedent? As voluntary manslaughter is still murder by definition, it could be called "Murder of Latasha Harlins," but I'm sure someone wants think of something that sounds "less biased." (The Lake Effect 09:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC))

Agreed with the merger idea. Definitely think that "Death of . . ." or even "Killing of . . ." would be a better title. Whether voluntary manslaughter is truly the same as second-degree murder is a subtle legal point that in truth would vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction even within the United States, to say nothing of possible legal variances in other countries. One could certainly make an reasonable argument that there's no substantive difference, and that "murder" is therefore just as appropriate a word. But it isn't Wikipedia's place to make such an argument. So, since Soon Ja Du was not convicted of murder, a "Murder of . . ." title definitely should not be used. Mwelch 20:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to try merging the two. --Seazzy 21:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Be bold! 8-) Mwelch 21:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Du today?

Anyone know what Soon Ja Du is doing today? I was a little interested in what became of the woman after getting away with manslaughter nearly scott free.--Claude 04:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably hanging out with Tawana Brawley. Someone else who got off scott free.

Brawley was convicted of what again? Even for a redneck that's a bad compairison. 130.156.30.172 23:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing. She's just a liar who concocted a rumor about whitey to get him in trouble. It was in all the papers. You might want to read one once and a while. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.210.196.9 (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Expand YOUR reading from Skinhead Weekly to an encyclopedia, even an online one like this.Then you might understand what a false comparison is. By your own admission, Brawley was never convicted of anything. That's the first step. Ask an adult to explain the rest. 130.156.31.223 21:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

True, Brawley wasn't convicted of anything. Neither was the other lying bitch in the Duke rape case. But both you, I, and the rest of the world knows that they should have done time for making shit up, wasting taxpayers money, wasting time, and trying to cash in on such bullshit accusations (to make money) because they don't want to work (like everybody else) to get out of the ghetto. And I know what garbage you will spew, about how whitey caused them to behave this way, I've heard that speech before (violins). The truth is, the bullshit p.c. society we live in wont punish them because they are minorities, and they are afraid of civil unrest. And by the way, I am a minority also, I just don't play the race card every time one of my "own" is accused of something. I look at the whole picture. Usually, when someone does something as unorthodox as that, he or she is labeled as a sell-out. Just ask Bill Cosby. Make my day and insert dumb response below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.212.65.62 (talk) 23:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep whining, cracker. The NC Attorney General, who DROPPED the case against the Duke boys, explained to anyone who would listen and who had the brain to process what they were hearing why he decided not to pursue charges against the woman in the case. But you didn't hear that because you didn't WANT to here it. And no, the answer is not your standard whining bullshit about how minorities don't get prosecuted, a claim that can easily be refuted by examining any number of prosecutions, so stop with your crying about how awful it is being a member of the majority race. Yes, I'm calling BS on your claim that you're a minority, in case you can't put two and two together. Now tell me something, redneck. Why aren't you screaming about that woman who claimed two black guys abducted her kids to cover her own crimes? Shouldn't she be in jail for lying? That doesn't fit into your warped few about how minorities get away with everything, does it? Actually, I don't want you to attempt an answer, it would be as pathetic as your other drivel. Here's a question I do what you to answer. Why are you going on rants that have NOTHING to do with the subject of the article? I know the answer, cracker boy. Because you KNOW you can't defend Du's actions anymore, because it's already been proven to you that everything you believed about the case was nothing more than lies your ignorant white ass wanted to believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.156.30.59 (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Because she deserved what she got. There should be more people like Soon out there, and maybe there wouldn't be prisons for me (and you, if you could work) to pay for. Because Brawley was a liar who should have apologized (at least) for lying, or (at worst) gone to jail (ditto for the Duke bitch). Because O.J. got away with murder. Because McKinney's dumb ass couldn't just show ID like everyone else. I like going on rants because it will (without fail) provoke an angry, ill-conceived response, soaked in desperation, trying to defend the thief while hiding behind the race card. You have made no defense for this criminal, other than assume that I am white (which I am not). And, instead of dodging the obvious questions I've raised by attempting to insult me, try to defend these people WITHOUT playing the race card. It's getting very tired. P.S. Stop giving us articles from "Muhammad Speaks". Everoyne knows that shit's made up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.248.228.245 (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey kid, you finally said something that makes sense. I've made no defense for that criminal, that criminal being Du. You've tried, but since you willfully ignore the facts, you haven't done well. You've done well with the rants though. You seem to excel at things that don't require making sense. 130.156.30.182 20:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If you have ANY balls at all, answer the very last question on this page that I posted some time ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.212.64.218 (talk) 00:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

A week for that? You're still wasting my time kid. I think in a week you'd learn how to sign your remarks 130.156.30.207 17:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Just as I suspected, NO BALLS. And with that, I give you proof that racists come in all colors. I've won the argument.

THREE weeks for that? And you still don't know how to sign your posts? 130.156.31.250 18:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

What absolute bullshit, seriously lads. Let's discuss, then change.

Who in the world puts an item IN their backpack, and then goes to pay for it. I doubt that girl was going to pay for anything, probably going to steal it.

Of course, it doesn't warrant her death but my god lads, let's get this straightened out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.178.93.113 (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

yes. She was absolutely, positively going to steal it. Pulling the money out of her pocket was a dead giveaway. Obviously people who have money in hand plan on stealing and should be punished with a shotgun.--Claude 19:58, 12 May 2007 (

Here's a serious question that's bound to have me labeled a screaming racist. Why doesn't the black community become as outraged about black-on-black crime as they do about when other races kill one of their own? Just a thought. Now let the name calling begin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.212.21.151 (talk) 22:29, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Soap Box Section

Even though wikipedia is not a soapbox, several users have used this secton to express the opinion that Harlins deserved to die or that her death is somewhat less tragic because she was stealing. This idea, weak to begin with, becomes totally useless once one realizes that she WASN'T stealing and one realizes this soon after beginning to read the article. Of course, those expressing this opinion are of the anonymous hit and run type, who can't be bothered with the text or the links. So I'm creating this section for them to their anger and ignorance, and so those wanting a real discussion don't have to be disturbed with their useless opinions. 130.156.29.112 19:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)