LAPD coins new phrase for rampant black homicide of non-blacks

(Note, July 5: be sure to see James P.’s discussion of another dishonest phrase in the article that I missed.)

CBS Local in Los Angeles reports:

VAN NUYS (CBS)—Police released public surveillance images on Tuesday of two suspects in the shooting death of a cook and father of five who was gunned down at the Sherman Oaks restaurant where he worked.

KNX 1070’s Claudia Peschiutta reports Raul Lopez was working one of his two jobs when the robbery occurred.

Lopez, 38, was fatally shot in the chest shortly after 11 p.m. last Friday night at Hoagies & Wings on Ventura Boulevard as he tried to ward off a group of five black men who were causing a disturbance.

Police said one of the customers apparently became angry with Lopez about how long it was taking for the food to be prepared, and some racial slurs were reportedly used.

“It was a random dispute that went tragically wrong,” said LAPD Detective James Nuttle.

“It was a random dispute that went tragically wrong.” That is so perfect. Over the years VFR has many times discussed the dishonest euphemisms that police spokesmen use for black homicidal violence against non-blacks, particularly variations on the phrase, “An X gone wrong,” but this may be the best ever. Let us analyze it.

First, there is the “random dispute.” The term shields the reading public from the hateful knowledge that blacks, and only blacks, create such “disputes” continuously, especially in fast food establishments, where they initiate arguments and fights with the management about slow service, incorrect bills, the employees’ “racism,” and so on. No one is guilty or responsible in a “random dispute,” it is something that just happens by itself, having no more moral content than dust particles floating about at random in a ray of sunlight.

Second, somehow, this random dispute, all by itself, “goes tragically wrong.” It’s not a matter of a human being pulling out a gun, aiming it at another human being, and shooting him dead. No. It is the dispute itself which “tragically”—the word “tragically” again underscoring the absence of any culpable intention—goes in a bad, indeed the baddest, direction.

The overwhelming majority of homicides by blacks, especially homicides of non-blacks, where politically correct police spokesmen have the strongest need to cover up the truth, could be described as random disputes gone tragically wrong.

I propose that Detective Nuttle, in recognition of his signal contributions both to American English and to racial comity, receive the National Award for Best Obfuscatory, Non-Judgmental Euphemism for Black Homicidal Mayhem.

Further, I propose that in instances where the defendant is black the penal codes of all fifty states and the District of Columbia replace the words “homicide” and “murder” by the phrase “random dispute gone tragically wrong.” We would then have such crimes as “Random dispute gone tragically wrong in the first degree,” “Random dispute gone tragically wrong in the second degree,” and so on. The creation of a new class of crimes for black defendants is justified on the basis that since white racism has for the last four hundred years systematically stripped blacks of their humanity, including the capacity to make moral choices, it is racist to attribute criminal intent to black defendants the same way it is attributed to non-black defendants.

Finally, each Monday morning’s edition of the Chicago Tribune could have headlines like this:

Random Disputes Gone Tragically Wrong Spread Across the City.
Over Weekend, 50 Random Disputes Go Wrong, Ten of Them Tragically.

- end of initial entry -

Here is the conclusion of the CBS story from Los Angeles:

Lopez’s wife, Guadalupe, and some of his children joined detectives assigned to the Van Nuys Station at a news conference Tuesday to plea for the public’s help in solving the killing.

“Please, I need help, I don’t know what to do,” she pleaded.

Lopez is believed to be the family’s sole provider. The couple have a 16-year-old son, a 7-year-old son and three girls younger than 6.

“He’s my only dad and I really care about him, but I can’t do nothing anymore,” daughter Melesio said.

The suspects—all described as black men in their 30s—fled in a Cadillac Escalade or other dark-colored SUV after the shooting.

Three of the suspects were described as large men about 6’4 tall and 300 pounds or more.

- end of initial entry -

Hannon writes:

Happy 4th of July, and thanks for “It was a random dispute that went tragically wrong.”

An incredible piece, one of your best.

LA replies:

Thank you.

It was the entirety of my activity today. I was resting and napping, then someone sent me that article, and the phrase, “It was a random dispute that went tragically wrong,” just set me off.

July 5

James P. writes:

There’s another euphemism you didn’t address: “causing a disturbance.” As in, Lopez “tried to ward off a group of five black men who were causing a disturbance.”

The ordinary meaning of “to ward off” is “to defend oneself from attack.” An “attack” is at odds with “causing a disturbance.” If by “causing a disturbance” the reporter meant that the black men were, for example, shouting obscenities and destroying the restaurant, then Lopez could not have been “warding them off” because they were not attacking him. If the black men were attacking him, then “causing a disturbance” is not the proper description for what the black men were doing.

So, it’s either,

“Lopez, 38, was fatally shot in the chest as he observed a group of five black men destroying the restaurant.”

Or,

“Lopez, 38, was fatally shot in the chest as he tried to ward off a group of five black men who attacked him.”

If Lopez was a typical Latino cook, and three of the five black men were six feet four and 300 pounds or more,” then I highly doubt that Lopez was physically attempting to prevent them from “causing a disturbance” (i.e., tearing up the place). Common sense suggests they attacked Lopez without provocation. If they hadn’t shot him, then they’d have given him one of the group stompings that blacks enjoy inflicting on defenseless members of other races.

Catherine H. writes:

I would like to add that I just re-read the article and noticed that it contains this sentence: “KNX 1070’s Claudia Peschiutta reports Raul Lopez was working one of his two jobs when the robbery occurred.”

Robbery? What robbery? I thought this was a murder. In the entire article and on the video there is no further reference to a “robbery” or to what was stolen. Is this just more slipshod work or more deliberate obfuscation? Strange.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 04, 2012 03:41 PM | Send