A new frontier in “random” crime

We hear all the time about “random” murders and “random” rapes, especially in the context of nonwhites murdering and raping whites.

But here’s something new.

Brace yourself.

It’s a “random” home invasion, followed by the kidnapping and rape of the wife and the murder of her husband, both in their eighties.

Here’s the opening paragraph:

MARSHALL, Texas—An elderly man has died of injuries suffered when three young men, in an apparently random act of violence, broke into the man’s home, robbed and shot him and kidnapped and raped his wife, authorities said.

It is clear from the story, which comes from KTBS News in Shreveport, Louisiana, that ANY crime in which the criminals did not personally know the victims beforehand is a “random” crime. By this reasoning, if (presumably black) criminals, as in this case, go into a white neighborhood, spot out the most likely house with the most vulnerable occupants to invade, and invade it, it’s “random,” because they didn’t know the occupants, even though they picked that neighborhood, that house, and those occupants because of their particular qualities. Similarly, if a black man sees that a pretty blond woman is living alone in a small unprotected house in Little Rock, Arkansas, and enters the house and rapes her and beats her to death breaking every bone in her face, as Curtis Vance did to TV news anchorwoman Anne Pressly, it’s random, because Vance didn’t know Pressly beforehand.

Indeed, by this reasoning, when Stalin starved to death several million Ukrainian farmers in the 1930s, that was a random act, because he didn’t personally know them. Or, better, when Hitler invaded Poland, it was a random country-invasion, because he didn’t personally know the Poles he was invading.

In the brief, 240 word-long article from ktbs.com, the murderous home invasion is never described as “brutal,” “cruel,” or “barbaric,” let alone “savage.” It is, however, described as “random”—no less than three times. The randomness of the crime is apparently its only characteristic that matters, both to the prosecutor and to the reporter. The worst that is said about the crime is that that it was motivated by “greed,” which is usually the epithet used against businessmen.

The language used in this news article, especially in its first paragraph, is approaching British levels of moral sickness. It actually scares me.

The only thing this article lacks to bring it to the pinnacle of journalistic nihilism is to call the crime a home invasion gone wrong.

Man shot and killed, wife kidnapped and raped in home
Sep 22, 2009
ERIN MOORE
emoore@ktbs.com

MARSHALL, Texas—An elderly man has died of injuries suffered when three young men, in an apparently random act of violence, broke into the man’s home, robbed and shot him and kidnapped and raped his wife, authorities said.

Two young men and a teenager have been arrested.

The attacks happened Sunday morning on Walter Street. Authorities believe the couple was picked at random for a home invasion robbery because they lived on a street with only a few houses.

Harrison County District Attorney Joe Black said the couple, who were in their 80s, had been married for 62 years. He called it a random crime.

“It’s a tough thing,” Black said. “They’ve been married 62 years—a couple in their 80s expecting to live the last days of their lives being together. And they die as a result of someone’s greed.”

The man, whose name has not been released, was shot. He died early today.

Investigators said the man’s wife was released at a location in Marshall after being raped. She was taken to a Marshall hospital for treatment and later released. She was interviewed by police investigators today.

Arrested were 20-year-old Bradney Randall Smith and 18-year old Cortne Mareese Robinson, both of Marshall, and a 16-year-old male.

All three face capital murder charges. Black said he wants to prosecute the juvenile as an adult, which would increase his possible prison sentence.

Marshall police did not say how the three became suspects.

[end of article]

It would be a good thing if people were to contact reporter Erin Moore (her e-mail is at the beginning of the article) and prosecutor Joe Black and ask them why they describe such a crime as “random,” and then tell them what they think about that.

To write or call Joe Black, his address and phone number are:

Joe Black
Harrison County District Attorney
Harrison County Courthouse
200 West Houston Suite 206
Marshall, Texas 75670
903-935-8408

- end of initial entry -

John Hagan, who sent the article, writes:

This rape of an elderly women and the killing of her husband by three black thugs caught my eye because the police again stressed how random the attack was. I’m old enough to remember an America where such things like this did not happen, and if something like this did occur, it was national news because such savagery was considered unusual. I can’t imagine the terror this poor couple went through.

What’s more terrifying to me is that the powers that be in the United States really don’t care about crimes like this. There has been a decision made that this behavior will be tolerated in the name of diversity and non-discrimination. These are evil days.

Terry Morris writes:

Plucked at random from your article:

It would be a good thing if people were to contact reporter Erin Moore (her e-mail is at the beginning of the article) and prosecutor Joe Black and ask them why they describe such a crime as “random,” and then tell them what they think about that.

Reckon Moore and Black would count such complaints as random expressions of outrage? Hmm., sounds like a good subject line to write them under.

“I picked your sentence above at random because it made for an easy score.”

Terry Morris writes:

From the article:

“It’s a tough thing,” Black said. “They’ve been married 62 years—a couple in their 80s expecting to live the last days of their lives being together. And they die as a result of someone’s greed.”

Well, you know, it was a random home invasion burlary gone wrong. Organize a candlelight vigil for them and everyone will feel better about it. Why, in a couple of months you will have completely forgotten about the sick and violent nature of the (unintentional) crimes committed. At which point you can remove the parenthesis. And hold another vigil for the perps.

It is amazing, is it not, that nothing is said in the article about this being a burglary gone wrong?

LA replies:

Yes, being raped and having your husband of 62 years murdered is a “tough” thing. A “tough” thing. It’s even tougher when it was a random act motivated by, or rather randomly triggered by, greed.

I’m telling you, random greed, that’s got to be the worst.

Matt C. writes:

“Authorities believe the couple was picked at random for a home invasion robbery because they lived on a street with only a few houses.”

Can anyone actually believe that a sentence with the structure “X was picked at random because Y” makes any sense at all? If there were a cause, then how could it be random?

LA replies:

Agreed, I noticed that, too.

The only way to make sense of it, would be something like this:

“Normally burglars/home invaders/kidnappers/rapists would not choose a street with so few houses because it doesn’t offer them a sufficient selection of possible targets. Therefore, the fact that they did this on a street with only a few houses shows that they just wandered onto this street without … without … uh, without having any thought of invading anyone’s home, and then once they were on the street, the notion just sort of spontaneously appeared in their heads to invade a home. It was purely random. Prior to the moment that the notion of invading a home randomly occurred to them, they were just walking around on a quiet street in a white neighborhood for the enjoyment of the night air.”

Matt C. replies:

Perhaps the “they” in the sentence refers to the authorities, so that the sentence’s meaning is equivalent to:

“Authorities lived on a street with only a few houses, and it is for this reason that they believe the couple was picked at random for a home invasion.”

Upon reading this interpretation, one might reasonably say, “That makes no sense.” My response would simply be to ask if it makes any less sense than any other interpretation.

LA replies:

That is very funny.

Mike writes:

What most disgusts me about this case and others is the violation of an elderly woman. This cannot be explained by mere sexual lust. It is a mechanism of torture, and only seems to be applied interracially (like this one and this one, among others. It is pure anti-white hatred. It is an act of war.

LA replies:

Thanks for that insight. That does help make sense of something that never made sense.

N. writes:

It is surely more comforting to the white liberal mindset to view crimes such as the one reported in east Texas, or the Knoxville horror, as random—like being struck by lightning—than as deliberate acts by a distinct subset of people. Because if liberals thought of these crimes as bad things done by bad people, they would have to consider some sort of solution, and that leads to something that looks like discrimination.

Under the secular religion of liberalism there are not many sins, but those that exist (such as “intolerance” and of course “discrimination”) are to be punished swiftly and sternly. It appears that the reporter in question is practicing a kind of self-censorship, possibly in order to avoid thinking too much about the crimes.

The police/D.A. response is despicable. Not that many years ago, police used to at least point out what behavior and/or characteristics might make people more likely targets for criminals (open windows, unlocked doors, display of things worth stealing, etc.) but now some seem to be more like grief counselors than keepers of the public peace.

Somehow, this doesn’t seem like a random change …

Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 24, 2009 02:25 AM | Send