Talk:Crown Heights riot

I don't know the answer to this, but

Legally, how is it possible for a private citizen to violate another private citizen's civil rights? I don't know if this is the section Nelson was charged under in the federal case, but if anyone could explain this, I would appreciate it.

You can argue whether or not the outcome of the state murder trial was justified, that's really not my concern here, since it's a dead letter. I'm concerned about whether the subsequent civil rights prosecution was legal. If the state murder acquittal was a miscarriage of justice, it's not the first time. Look at Issei Sagawa. Part of having a mature understanding of this sort of thing is to realize that the criminal justice system isn't perfect, and that it is inevitable that innocent people will be convicted, and that guilty people will be acquited, from time to time. That's the price you pay for having a legal system; in the end someone has to make the decision, and sometimes they may not necessarily get it right. I don't think it's going out on a limb to say that the Sagawa case is completely beyond all reasonable belief.

--Hrodulf 08:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Article

There are two articles that cover this event -- Crown Heights Riot and Crown Heights riots. Both articles should be merged and NPOV'd. --Micahbrwn 18:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged them both into this article, but someone wit more knowledge of the event should NPOV Saberwyn 03:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly biased

It is clear that your article was biased. It makes absolutely no attempt at all to tell the African-American side of the riot. It tries to make it a black and white, Jewish= victim, Black= aggressor, situation when that belies in the face of the actual facts of the riot. Do more research and be honest with you assessment next time.

unsigned comments have no effect

Perhaps if you signed your comments and actually made suggestions for improvement we would take you seriously.Akerensky99 07:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biased

This article is clearly biased. The section describing the violence that occured during the riot is completely one sided.--User: 448 00:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable

If you actually read the accounts of this event or actually read "Fires in the Mirror" you will find that the story has significantly vaster undulation than the ridiculously monolithic story presented here. I am neither Jew nor African-American, but I am appalled by the one sided and offensive (via insinuation) presentation of this material.

Al Sharpton

What was Al Sharpton's role in the riots? I read that he started the riots, but in the article on Sharpton it only mentions his eulogy at Gavin Cato's funeral.Ortho 01:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

I tried to clean this up a little and make it read less like a moral condemnation of African Americans. What happened in Crown Heights was tragic, but we need to do the best we can to present both sides of the story. Was Anti-Semitism an aspect of the riot? Yes, certainly it was, and that has been left in the article. But I've tried to pay a little more attention has been paid to the other side of the story.

Spelling

There is no "edit" button next to the first paragraph, but "anti-Semitic" is spelled as I just spelled it, not as "Anti-Semetic." The "anti" isn't capitalized, and there are two "i's", not two "e's." I agree that those who have criticisms of the article involving information that is supposedly missing should offer that information, not just throw stones. I believe the author has made a sincere effort to write a balanced article, and it's easier to attribute ill motives and throw stones than to participate and collaborate.

Fixing things

I made a couple of edits today that rearranged some sentences for better syntax and readability. I also named Cato's "sister" (apparently actually his cousin), Angela.

I tried to remove as many emotionally-charged adjectives as I could from the first few paragraphs. I hope the article is a little more level-headed and professional-looking now... 71.116.217.242 19:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also removed the POV tag as obsolete and redundant. The various points of view are represented even-handedly and the controversy surrounding the riot is harped on constantly in the body of the article. 71.116.217.242 19:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"African-American"

I'm not sure that's accurate if we're talking about Crown Heights. There are a whole lot of Caribbeans there; "Black" would probably make more sense--just a suggestion.

Unrest is a better title for this event. the violence was both ways

I will never forget the video of the unrest. I never saw anything like it before. Large crowds of Jews on one side and blacks on another, hurling missiles back and forth in a constant rain. that's how it was reported at the time -- unrest, and TWO WAY unrest at that. Not it's degenerated into black-only violence. I had to add that one part to the article about the rain of white missiles.

I could have added the fact that the child pedestrian struck by the illegally-driven car was screaming for help and being scorched by the hot underside of the car for extended periods when the ambulance drove off without helping. Also the driver of the car was allowed to leave the USA and completely escape punishment for the death of this child. This is what inflamed the onlookers. How could it not? And how could these facts be forgotten? Jeff 21:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Illegally driven car." This is something I did not understand from the article: The driver (Lifsh) had a driver's lcense from a foreign country (Israel). Under NY State law, is he not therefore entitled to drive in NY? When we travel to foreign countries, I believe we can rent a car if we have a valid driver's license in our residence. Can someone please explain? Was Lifsh driving the car illegally or not? 66.108.4.183 22:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]