Teen is sprung -- many are livid Suspect was held in attack on Chinese American youth http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/08/06/BA235376.DTL Phillip Matier, Andrew Ross Wednesday, August 6, 2003 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- San Francisco -- Lots of pointed questions are being asked at San Francisco juvenile hall after a top supervisor intervened in what some insiders charge was the improper release of a friend's son being held for a felony assault and hate crime. The accused teenager's mother, we might add, happens to be a longtime volunteer at the lockup. Police have declined to release a report about the crime, saying the suspects are minors. But what we've been able to piece together from law enforcement sources and one of the alleged victims is a story of a white pileup on a group of Chinese American kids. It all began the night of June 6 when cops busted up a kegger beer party at Stern Grove. The teenagers on hand, most of them white, scattered. After milling around for a while, five or six of the partygoers crossed paths with five Chinese American teenagers who were headed over to J.T.'s Diner at 19th Avenue and Taraval Street. "It was the day after graduation, and we just wanted to go out and get some dessert," said Paul Wong Jr., 18, who had attended the private Drew High School in San Francisco. Just as he and his friends were about to go into the restaurant, Wong said, the white kids walked up and began calling them everything from "gook" to "Chinaman." "I guess they wanted to start something," Wong said. "We were minding our own business." That is, until someone poured a beer over one of the Chinese American kids. Words were exchanged, and the next thing anyone knew, the white kids started throwing punches. Within moments, Wong said, he and his friends found themselves circled by as many as 20 kids -- the others apparently had been hanging at a nearby pizza parlor and had seen what was unfolding. Wong managed to pull up one his friends -- who was down on the ground and being kicked -- and together they fled across the street. At least three passers-by dialed 911, and within minutes the cops arrived. Most of the white youths took off on foot, but Wong said the cops managed to nab two or three of the alleged attackers -- and Wong and his friends were able to identify one. The youth, a 16-year-old student who attends Sacred Heart high school, was booked on an assault charge. What followed is a matter of debate between prosecutors, the teenager's attorney and probation officials. What is known is that the next day -- after the youth had been held at juvenile hall for 10 hours -- senior probation officer Nancy Yalon showed up to check on him. And soon afterward, the youth was released to his family. The move has had prosecutors and family members of the alleged victims steaming ever since. The youngster's attorney, George Beckwith, said the release was perfectly appropriate because his client was being held only on a "simple assault" -- and he had no prior record. "The Probation Department had the discretion to release this kid, and they made that decision based on the information they had at the time," Beckwith said. But prosecutors insisted the case was far more serious, and within a couple of days of his arrest they had charged the teenager with multiple felony assaults with hate-crime allegations. Walter Aldridge, head of the San Francisco district attorney's unit at juvenile hall, would say only that probation officials should have known of the serious nature of the alleged crimes -- and that they would have, if only they had taken the time to get the police report. What's more, the release appeared to violate a state law that allows only a judge to free a suspect accused of committing a felony. However, there may have been other factors at play as well -- not the least of which being that the accused youth's mother works for the volunteer auxiliary at juvenile hall and knows Yalon. A reliable City Hall source tells us that the matter is under investigation and that there is a lot of finger-pointing over who actually ordered the release. Yalon says she came down to juvenile hall only to check up on the friend's son and calm him down, according to our source. While there, she said, a junior probation officer showed up with a release form and let the youth go. But that probation officer, whose name has yet to be disclosed, has told officials Yalon ordered him to release the youngster. Our repeated attempts over the past two weeks to reach either Yalon or her boss, Juvenile Probation Chief Gwendolyn Tucker, have been unsuccessful. In the meantime, the youngster -- who is free pending a trial -- isn't due back to court until September. Attorney Beckwith insists his client was only a minor player in the events that evening -- and is being overzealously prosecuted for something the D.A. wants everyone to believe is "the hate crime of the century." "My kid was in the pizza parlor, came in at the tail end of this and winds up nailed for everything," Beckwith said. As for Wong, he was treated by paramedics for a laceration on his right cheek that's expected to leave a permanent scar. "It was something that I will never forget," he said. "It scares me that there are actually people out in the world like that." Chronicle columnists Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross appear Sundays, Mondays and Wednesdays. They can also be heard on KGO Radio on Mondays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. Phil Matier can be seen regularly on KRON-TV. Got a tip? Call them at (415) 777-8815 or drop them an e-mail at matierandross@sfchronicle.com. Teen is sprung -- many are livid - Suspect was held in attack on... 08/06/2003 Page A - 15
"My boy only participated in the tail end of this angry mob style beat down blah blah," shouldn't that kid be naming the names of the other people involved?
and people still wonder why hate crime laws are necessary. hard to believe this took place in SF and not some redneck small town.
click here for article on similar crime in utah in san francisco, chinese make up the majority of the population and these incidents still happen.
Heck . . . when you got connections ALOT of stuff does not make it to your records IF his mom had the pull to get him out on this one what other 'minor' offenses were she able to negotiate away This is the subtle part of Elitism .. . CONNECTIONS One can do all the same crimes . . . BUT the rich family and 'make them go away' while the poor person has the record that dogs them forever Rocket River
Are you sure that the majority of residents in SF are Chinese? I believe they have the highest chinese population in the U.S. but I hadn't heard that they were the majority of SF residents.
they definitely have the highest chinese population in the US last time i checked at least. i heard something a while back that 50% of the population were asians? not sure, so i can't be a 100% sure. but for something like that to happen in a high asian population just shows that it can happen anywhere.
Definitely? Your statistics don't make sense. When did you check? Where did you check? Just based on common sense, how could SF have a higher Chinese population than New York or Los Angeles? Are you talking about percentage or absolute total? Anyway, I have posted a link below to U.S. Census numbers from 2000. According to the U.S. Census, Asians accounted for 32.6 percent of the SF population in 2000. Honolulu has the highest Asian population by percentage. And the city of Fremont is the highest Asian population in California by percentage. http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/c2kbr01-16.pdf
So if they would of called them "aszhole" or "motherfrucker" instead of "gook" , "Chinaman", etc., would it still be a hate crime? I'm a real liberal guy, but hate crime laws seem to me a bit redundant.
agreed....this was a vicious planned gang attack. i know they probably weren't in any sort of street gang, but it was a gang attack. it should have been treated as such. hate crime laws are redundant and unneccessary if the crime is treated as it should.
This is a very one-sided article coming from the San Francisco Chronicle. I would wait until both sides of this story are told before passing judgment. These "white" kids could very well have been the ones harassed in the first place, with others coming to their aid. Hate crime laws certainly have a place in our society, but like every idea meant to improve the legal system the laws are being abused in some cases by overzealous prosecutors.
you're really funny. both sides of this story have been told. of course, the story would be more believable for some people if the white person was portrayed as a innocent victim instead. here's one side of the story: "It was the day after graduation, and we just wanted to go out and get some dessert," said Paul Wong Jr., 18, who had attended the private Drew High School in San Francisco. Just as he and his friends were about to go into the restaurant, Wong said, the white kids walked up and began calling them everything from "gook" to "Chinaman." "I guess they wanted to start something," Wong said. "We were minding our own business." That is, until someone poured a beer over one of the Chinese American kids. Words were exchanged, and the next thing anyone knew, the white kids started throwing punches. Within moments, Wong said, he and his friends found themselves circled by as many as 20 kids -- the others apparently had been hanging at a nearby pizza parlor and had seen what was unfolding. Wong managed to pull up one his friends -- who was down on the ground and being kicked -- and together they fled across the street. and here's the other side of the story: "My kid was in the pizza parlor, came in at the tail end of this and winds up nailed for everything," Beckwith said. As for Wong, he was treated by paramedics for a laceration on his right cheek that's expected to leave a permanent scar. whoever thinks this is just a mere gang attack is obviously in denial. that white boy was not part of any gang. the kkk maybe. but not any gang. "The youngster's attorney, George Beckwith, said the release was perfectly appropriate because his client was being held only on a "simple assault" -- and he had no prior record. " this kid had no prior record, so how is he part of a gang? and a lot of hate crimes against asians are always covered up by the media as simple assault. even when it's blatantly obvious that hate was involved, some people are just in denial.
i was saying this is a gang attack...meaning some guys who were together were trying to start ****. like a gang of people. yes it was racially motivated. but it should be prosecuted as a vicious assault...the hate crime aspect is just something else that confuses things a lot of the time. this was a violent planned crime by a gang of youths that was racially motivated. when i say gang i mean like a gang of people, not like a street gang like the crips and bloods, but this is the same thing. a group of people conspiring together to assault innocent people...in my mind a gang attack. what if these kids were white that got attacked and the guys were calling them names and such would it still be a hate crime because they were calling them names before they attacked them? maybe...maybe not. what if these white kids that started the fight were simply calling them names to start ****. i mean i've been called racist names (i am white) by other people who wanted to start ****. they may or may not hate white people, but they know it will get under your skin and piss you off. i am rambling...but i hope this makes some sense...i gotta go
Is this the ole cry me a river double standard argument? This was a racially motivated attack by your own contention and we have laws on the books precisely to deal with racially motivated attacks because their nature is so despicable. That's about the end of it on that front. Also, percentage wise there are actually more hate crimes committed by minorities than by white people so any kind of impression that you may have that there is a double standard as to what constitutes a hate crime and who actually gets charged with them is probably off base. "In 2001, law enforcement agencies reported a total of 9,239 known offenders associated with 9,730 bias-motivated incidents (9 incidents were multiple-bias). Of these known offenders, 65.5 percent were white, 20.4 percent were black, 0.9 percent were Asian/Pacific Islander, and 0.6 percent were American Indian/Alaskan Native." http://www.ncjrs.org/hate_crimes/facts.html
how are they redundant and unnecessary? you said if the crime is treated as it should. this kid was released. there is a very good chance, he will not receive any serious punishment and by not punishing people for committing these crimes, you send the message that people can get away with these acts of hate and be untouchable. it is clearly evident that hate crime laws are necessary because crimes are not always treated as they should be. and people get away unpunished and do not learn from their mistakes. "the release appeared to violate a state law that allows only a judge to free a suspect accused of committing a felony. However, there may have been other factors at play as well -- not the least of which being that the accused youth's mother works for the volunteer auxiliary at juvenile hall and knows Yalon. " the legal system is weak and useless judging by the evidence in the quote above. what if the victims were white? do you really want to know the answer? most of the media is white. you really think they wouldn't address the problem. please, jewish people are white and they get their racial concerns and hate crimes dealt with respect all the time and nobody considers them oversensitive or whatever. when it happens to a jewish white person, there is no question that the people who committed the act are guilty of a hate crime. so why should it be any different for asians or any other minority for that matter? remember that comment dusty baker, the cubs manager made in the media, the white media cried racism and baker had to deal with criticism for allegedly stereotyping whites. there was a lot more media attention on his comments than there has ever been when a white discriminated another minority or when a minority discriminated another minority. why is it non-whites are always considered over-sensitive and jewish whites are always innocent victims?
By the way, the FBI classifies Hispanics as Whites, so that can skew the statistics. Don't know why they don't separate them out for the purposes of this sort of statistical analysis.
Actually I don't think that's entirely the case. They classify Hispanic as an ethnicity I imagine because there are light and dark skinned Hispanics who can choose white or black I suppose.
These are some pretty strong words that are backed up with zero proof. I would hope this board is above making broad generalizations such as type-casting a "jewish response". You are dead wrong. Your memory is very short. John Rocker was grilled over 100x the amount Dusty Baker was for his comments a few years ago. Fuzzy Zoeller was treated more harshly than Dusty was, as well, when he made a joke about Asian/African American Tiger Woods. You're talking out of your a$$ with no knowledge of the subject. It seems you really have an agenda on this topic and lots of pent-up anger due to this article you read in a newspaper. If you saw what happened in person, that would be another story. Let's let the judicial process run its course. It sounds like you made up your mind on this issue a long time ago, though.
The statistics I was looking at didn't have a separate classification for Hispanics, and a footnote said they were lumped in with the whites in terms of the victims of race-related hate crimes, and in terms of perpetrators of race-related hate crimes. But in the breakdowns, the Hispanics were included with the whites. Perhaps that's just how this particular report was labeled. I'll try to find it again and see what the deal-i-o is. I know for a fact that the FBI does not list hate crimes against Hispanics as a racial motivated crime, though. So even if they aren't included in the "White category", the statistics would be skewed somewhat (i.e. a separate category for Hispanics or other ethnicities apart from the racial category) in terms of how we consider races as a society (most people consider Hispanics to be a separate race, and most people would think it silly to say that a white person cannot be racist against Hispanics because they're the same race, just different ethinicities). If I were making the statistics, I would put crimes against Hispanics in the racial category, and make it: Against Blacks: 58.3% Against Whites: 17.0% Against Hispanics: 12.6% Against Asians: 5.8% This when the crime is based on a racial hatred. Assuming the stats on the FBI site I just looked at don't intermingle whites and Hispanics in their various categories.
bigtexxx, i suggest you calm down. i am only answering some of robbie's questions. and the attention that dusty's comments got received a lot more attention than it deserved in my opinion. remember that shaq vs yao discrimination case, in the article i read, nobody wanted to print the article until the white double standard concept was introduced. when it was just discrimination against asians, the report was not important enough to print. only when the white double standard concept was introduced that it got published. so i suggest you look at all the facts before you make ignorant comments. when the white double standard concept was introduced, they used that shaq/yao case to talk about white double standards instead of discrimination against asians. not once did i hear them explain stereotypes against asians or comments offensive to asians. instead they constantly talked about white stereotypes . and ignored asian issues. and they continue to use other offensive comments as jokes and anytime somebody complains, they're just oversensitive. most espn analysts laughed it off and considered it a joke. only bill walton actually said something about it and the reason why he probably knew it was offensive was cause his wife is asian. i am only responding to what robbie claimed was a double standard. john rocker got what he deserved. his comments implied hatred for many different groups. as for what happened in the tiger case, i have heard white journalists comment on that on tv and they say they overreacted and said that there was nothing offensive about those comments. also where was the media when the miami heat decided to hand out fortune cookies when yao came to miami? and i have seen how the media reacts to discrimination against jews and it gets a lot more attention than discrimination against asians. and i have not heard anybody call jews oversensitive in the media. also how is this double standard enforced in the media? who is to blame really? white people make up the majority of the media and they own the media. so if you want to complain about this imaginary double standard, i suggest you complain to the people in charge of that media. discrimination against asians is hardly ever covered by the media. most of the time, it's ignored cause our population is still very low in numbers and we lack political power. also people don't consider asians as american citizens, so we are considered second class citizens whose problems are not taken seriously since we're considered foreigners even if we're born here. the only reason this case got any attention in san francisco is cause san francisco has a higher asian population.
