GSO/Guilford Pols

October 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

« Warming | Main | Guilford walkout »

Jan 24, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341cc33e53ef00d835126de569e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Newsworthiness:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Matt Hill Comer

Yeah... I disagree too. This case is a hate crime. While it is also true that neither the criminal investigation or school investigation is over, the case as it currently stands (as there are many witnesses and whereas one of the accused has a serious problem with out-right hating people (personal experience with that, btw) deserves to be looked at seriously.

This wasn't a simple case of school bullies beating up someone. It was a maliscious and violent attack (using weapons, for brass-knuckles are weapons) against a group of students motivated, so far as we know, by the ethnicity of the attacked.

The CA

My guess is that there is still a lot more to this story that isn't known. The whole thing sounds odd to me. It's a shame it happened at my alma mater. Very un-Quaker like and certainly out of the norm for Guilford. It's now redlined on Drudge, which means it will be going national. I expect Geraldo any day now.

Dr. Mary Johnson

I'm curious Ed. Why didn't you just comment at Joe's?

Matt Hill Comer

Maybe he just wanted to point other readers to Joe's outlandish statements. lol

Tom Hinds

Man's inhumanity to man. It will never quell!

Jay Ovittore

I wonder if Guarino would be saying the same thing if it were 3 Muslim kids beating the crap out of the Guilford football players and calling them "honkey"? Racism is racism, and just because Joe's party dictates to him that all Muslims are the enemy that is simply not the case. These Guilford students should be charged with a hate crime because that's what it was. Newsworthy, certainly. Why? Besides the obvious, it happened at Guilford which teaches tolerance and non-violence.

Matt Hill Comer

They were charged with ethnic intimidation.

David Boyd

Assuming all this is true, it's interesting that hate crime, in GSO of all places, has evolved to include blacks and whites perpetrating the offense against others.

Matt Hill Comer

I'm wondering... If Michael Six had diversity awareness training while he was at R.J. Reynolds High School, would he have been one of my worst harrassers? Would he now be implicated in this mess?
___________________________
From my post on this issue:
Of course… I’m not really all that surprised that Michael Six was involved. Who knows… I learned a lot about not jumping to conclusions with the Duke case, but I do know this: Six was one of the WORST when it came to the harassment I got when we were in high school together. Although he never touched me, physically, his words toward me were enough to let me know that he didn’t like me and didn’t want me anywhere near him and that if I did come near him, I probably wouldn’t be safe.

There’s one outstanding instance that stands out in my mind (right before I got my truck and was allowed to drive to school): I remember that he would stand in one spot after school everyday, a place I’d have to pass to get to the bus on time before they left the lot. He’d just stand there and when I’d pass spew out horrible obscenities and slurs. I asked him to stop numerous times; I eventually took it to Mr. Elrod, our principal. After that, Six never said anything to me again.

If (notice the word “if”) Six really was a part of this group attack and if he did this, I hope he will learn a valuable lesson about hate and how it isn’t an emotion you want bottled up inside you. If you did not do this and if he was not a part of this group attack, then I would hope that our D.A. in Greensboro isn’t as trigger-happy as Mr. Nifong of Durham. Also, if Six didn’t do anything wrong, I hope he asks himself, “What did I do to place myself into a situation where it could have even been alleged that I did such thing?”
__________________________
I think that if Six really did do this, it helps to prove one easy principle: Unless hate and the teaching of hate is stopped early in life (childhood and adolescence), it will continue to live on into an adult person's life and this is the reason why we have such horrible hate crimes (the same principle, I think, applied in the Shepard case).

Joe Killian

I've been working a lot of hours on this story and while I'm not quite ready to blog about it yet, I will be. Right now all my energy's going into the reporting.

I can say this: we would have carried this story had court documents shown any college students of any race or religion been beaten this badly by this many people. Having just left UNCG I can tell you that I never, in all of my too many years there, ever saw anything like this happen there or at any other school in the area of which I was aware. It is, if the reports, court documents and injury reports can be believed, an assault on a scale that is extremely newsworthy.

The fact that the charge of ethnic intimidation makes it appear the students were targeted because of their race/religion does add a newsworthiness. And that's not me saying that - it's the DA, who told me yesterday that this charge is rare in his experience.

The fact that it all happened at a small Quaker school known for a culture of non-violence and adherence to principles that are in direct opposition to something like this? No matter what you believe actually happened covering it is a no-brainer, really. Arguments something like this shouldn't have been covered can only be made by people who have a political stake in its not being covered or who have not even the most elementary understanding of what is newsworthy. The newsworthy elements are simply too numerous and too powerful to ignore.

sean coon

my idiot comment from yesterday wasn't harsh enough. and to think that i apologized on his blog.

not a witness, so what do I know (like all of you...)

There are two sides to every story, even this one. Please keep this in mind as there is a rush to judgement. There is plenty of blame to go around, I think. And I do sincerely believe that Guilford is trying to find the right way to respond.

Bubba

"my idiot comment from yesterday wasn't harsh enough. and to think that i apologized on his blog."

Ah yes, the holier than thou attitude.


Just what this thread needs.

Mr. Sun

Your Wrongdoing Shining Light has a short in it.

The CA

Bubba, you certainly know by now that if you are on the Left you can call anyone any name you want on this site and nobody will condemn you. However, if you are on the Right, you are suddenly a troll, deemed unsocial, rude, argumentative and abrasive.

We had a long conversation about this on this blog a few months ago when the subject of banning people came up. I said at the time that I would take a "wait and see" attitude to see if my critics applied the same standard to their own. No surprise, they have not.

So you see, despite all the denials and claims that I am wrong by seeing things in a partisan manner, the facts prove otherwise. The criticism isn't about what is being said, it's about who is saying it and their political allegiences. Now amount of denial and attempts at refutation will alter this fact.

sean coon

i'm not the left. my name is sean. ed disagreed with my comment then, and probably does now. same with roch. they're not the "left" either, but in any case, they're not me.

joe is not "the right." he seems like a decent man, though with a twisted sense of reality from where i sit. he's well educated and a professional, yet makes analogies like the one yesterday without pause. his statement today was unbelievably reaching.

if he were to have said "i'll wait until all the facts are in," i'd grant him a ton of slack. instead, he approaches the situation as if he knows more than what was both reported and charged by the authorities.

that is not an educated response; that is a biased response.

for you, sam, to claim that "the left" made a comment about "the right" is myopic at best. and for that gem, i hereby crown you king of all idiots: left, center, right, up and down

long live the king.

PotatoStew

"you certainly know by now that if you are on the Left you can call anyone any name you want on this site and nobody will condemn you."

Hm... didn't Ed just recently berate and even delete part of a comment by someone who appeared to be liberal when they badmouthed a conservative? Why yes, he did.

Lex

Interesting, isn't it, to see who actually got hurt v. who's crying victim here.

Mick

Joe G, BUZZZZZZZZ! Wrong on many levels.

My feelings to date: If the accused in this case are found guilty.... jail em and expel em. I am not a big fan of hate crime legislations. I feel a victim is a victim regardless of reasoning. This is most likely as much a drunk crime as a hate crime. This incident shows that stereotypes exist for a reason, huh? Drunken football players, hippies protesting a cover up before anything is even begun, a Palestinian bringing up Irael when he was allegedly assaulted by Americans, hippies being shocked that this can happen on "their campus".

No extra punishment should be meted out due to the ethnicity of those assaulted, the extracurricular activities of the accused or THE LOCATION OF THE CRIME. The cynic in me has very rapidly tired of all the "of all places, Guilford College" take on this incident. Dont get me wrong I understand the whole Quaker College thing. What is that oft used blog favorite ... myopic?

Let the justice systems involved do their jobs. A microscope is on all involved. I guess DA Nifong will turn out to be good for something after all.

All that being said, I am quite interested in the details of the incident. Assault? Fight? 15? 3? The devil, as usual, will be in those details.

Mick

Lex,

I dont understand your comment.

Bubba

What's even more interesting is why, five days after the event, the N&R chose to run a no new news story above the fold, page one.

Additionally, the story ran with the same large type headline that would be used if they somehow had found out that David Wray was a closet Klan member.

It's pretty apparent where this campaign is heading.

When does the T&R Commission planning meeting for this incident take place?

Lex

Mick: CA's "if you are on the Left you can call anyone any name you want on this site ... "

Cuz that's as bad as being beaten in the head with a brick (or whatever weapon was used). Which I wouldn't bring up except that that's what this whole case is all about, and to a large extent what Ed's original post is all about.

J.Arthur

Covering the story is one thing...it's certainly news. But giving the complainants a front-page forum in the N&R (with banner headlines) to present just their side of the story is out of balance, and does harm to the accused by undermining the presumption of innocence.

What if it turns out that the Palestinian kids started it? Perhaps they don't like some of their fellow students very much...afer all, we're all "infidels" and "oppresors." Perhaps they have words with some other students, and perhaps one of the Palestinian kids takes a swing at somebody and his two buddies join in. Perhaps they discover that they've picked a fight with the wrong folks and get their butts kicked. Perhaps they slink back to their room and begin planning how they're going to get even.

Oh, you say it didn't happen that way? Until this goes to court, how do you know?

Bubba

"Oh, you say it didn't happen that way? Until this goes to court, how do you know?"

It's the old "guilty until proven innocent" mentality. They don't need to know.

Roch101

"If you are on the Left you can call anyone any name you want on this site and nobody will condemn you." -- CA

You might want to avoid that kind of generalization, CA. Although it can be comforting to your misconceptions, a misconception it is.

Jill Williams

J. Arthur,
How do you think that courts figure out what happened? By interviewing witnesses, I assume. Witnesses have been describing what happened since the events took place and so far, I've not heard any of them describe it in the way that you imagine it "perhaps" took place. For one, they didn't get their "butts kicked." They got their heads kicked and bashed with bricks and brass knuckles repeatedly. Although I've not heard word one to suggest that the Palestinian students started the fight - in fact, I've heard that they did what they could to stop it, including offering a hand for a handshake at one point, as one of the students had previously been told was a Quaker response to "fighting words" - what if they did? I can't imagine a single scenario (and I've been trying hard) where it would seem okay for the Palestinian students to have been verbally assaulted with ethnic slurs and physically beaten with feet, bricks and brass knuckles, suffering serious concussions among other injuries. While I appreciate your desire to know the facts before jumping to conclusions, I think many of the relevant facts are already known.

Your comment about "infidels" and "oppresors" [sic] was puzzling. Do you really think that these three students, who attended a Quaker high school in Ramallah and then decided to attend Guilford College, see "us" - I'm not sure to whom you were referring when you said "we," but I assume I'm a part of it - as "infidels" and oppressors?

Jill Williams

Correction: Two of the students decided to attend Guilford College. One, NC State. Perhaps the NC State student did think Guilford students were oppressors and infidels and, thus, decided to attend NC State, but I still doubt it.

Joe Killian

"But giving the complainants a front-page forum in the N&R (with banner headlines) to present just their side of the story is out of balance, and does harm to the accused by undermining the presumption of innocence."

We would have given equal space to the accused or any eyewitness who would say that it didn't happen this way. Not one of them would speak on the record to any media outlet.

I've said it before, and this time I'm saying it from in front of the keyboard as the story happens: if you are in the middle of a controversy and you refuse to tell your side of the story, have your lawyer tell your side of the story or have an eyewitness tell your side of the story you cannot accuse the press of being biased and waging a campaign if they quote from court documents and use quotes from the other side. The suggestion that no one should be quoted in a criminal matter unless everyone is willing to be quoted because otherwise it's all unbalanced and unfair is, quite frankly, ridiculous. We tell as much of the story as we can in the way that we can because it's in the reader's interest to know as much as we can gather.

I have been working very nearly from dusk till well after dawn on this story for two days now and have presented all the information I can from every available source. We've given the accused, their families, the administration, the victims and the Guilford College community the chance to say their peace and attributed the presentation of the facts to police, court documents and arrest records. We cannot and will not refuse to quote any of them if others decline to comment. To even suggest that is comic.

Joe Killian

First day story = dusk till after dawn.

Thereafter = Dawn till well after dusk.

The CA

Lex, you sound like you came in during the middle of this and are getting your wires crossed. My comments had nothing to do with the kids getting beat up, and everything to do with Sean calling Joe Guarino an idiot.

And Roch & Stew, it is not a misconception. Where are all the calls to ban Sean? Where is all the criticism of how mean spirited, confrontational abrasive he is? Nowhere. Contrast to the complaints I had to deal with from you guys a few months ago for daring to actually debate. You denied there was a disparity in treatment then. I said I would call of the dogs and give you a chance to prove it. You failed. You are hypocrites with double standards for discourse dependent on the ideology of the speaker.

Roch, your link doesn't condemn Sean, it defends Joe. Not the same thing.

And Sean, you obviously aren't smart enough to understand much of what I say anyhow. You are playing the same game as Roch and Stew- deny that you are liberal so you can't be labeled, yet consistently take liberal positions and decry the use of labels. You're the idiot if you can't see how transparent that is.

So why don't you go back to doing whatever is that you are doing, which doesn't sound like much. A professional "digital activist"? Were you born rich or did you marry into money?

Roch101

"You are hypocrites with double standards for discourse dependent on the ideology of the speaker."

Zzzzz. Long live the king.

PotatoStew

"the same game as Roch and Stew- deny that you are liberal"

We've been over this many times, and still you insist on saying that I deny I'm liberal? The first couple of times I was willing to think maybe you were just confused, but since you persist with this after being corrected on multiple occassions, it would seem that instead you are a liar bent on willfully misleading people.

Juan Vasquez

Mr Sun. I am on the left a proud liberal (on the right side of history every time) and I don't care if people think I'm caustic but bigotry (and its enablers) need a good verbal smackdown every time they rear their ugly heads. I'll be here to do it.

Outdated

“What if it turns out that the Palestinian kids started it?”

J. Arthur, I think you are on to something here.

The Palestinians were the first to implement a new and unorthodox strategy to cause pain and suffering on their “evil oppressors and infidels.” They waited until late at night and savagely attacked members of the football team by using their heads and bodies to strike the fists and bricks of their oppressors.

Dr. Mary Johnson

Does the story deserve coverage? Of course. But carrying the story and featuring it front-page-above-the-fold are two different things entirely. Like Bubba (no suprise there), I think the prominence given to this story five days after the fact are over-kill . . . especially when (much like when the Duke case broke) we don't really know all the facts. As it turned out in Durham, facts were withheld by someone in a position of public trust & power. So forgive me if I wait a little longer while the school and the police to sort it all out.

When the N&R plays the "race" card so heavily (as only it can do) it only does (yet another) disservice to the community . . . as people who live outside of the area looking in are rolling their eyes and thinking to themselves, "What the *%$# is WRONG with that town?"

It's the same question they're asking about the justice system in the state of North Carolina because of what happened in Durham.

Roch, Sam is correct. You defended Joe. You did NOT condemn Sean.

From Joe Killian: "I've said it before, and this time I'm saying it from in front of the keyboard as the story happens: if you are in the middle of a controversy and you refuse to tell your side of the story, have your lawyer tell your side of the story or have an eyewitness tell your side of the story you cannot accuse the press of being biased and waging a campaign if they quote from court documents and use quotes from the other side. The suggestion that no one should be quoted in a criminal matter unless everyone is willing to be quoted because otherwise it's all unbalanced and unfair is, quite frankly, ridiculous. We tell as much of the story as we can in the way that we can because it's in the reader's interest to know as much as we can gather."

Oh really? That has not seemed to be the argument (as presented by Sue) in at least one case ("Dr J's Account" on his blog, for some reason will not link).

I wonder if Joe is facing more "push-back" than usual this week because he (as someone who has considerable expertise in the business of medicine) was brave enough to make the statement he did . . . which flies directly into the face of what others here have summarily dismissed.

So with regards to hypocrisy and name-calling and the (snarky) "Zzzzzzz". Wake up and change your behavior. For the "hate" you rail against is born of stuff like this.

Lex

What's even more interesting is why, five days after the event, the N&R chose to run a no new news story above the fold, page one.

Bubba appears to be implying that the N&R is trying to stretch this story out unnecessarily. (And if I've misread your comment, Bubba, I apologize.) My colleagues can defend the quality of their reporting without my help (and I'm not involved in the substance of that reporting anyway), but I can add some perspective regarding the timeline.

So far as I know, the N&R first learned of the assaults around 8 or 9 p.m. Monday (I'm at work and don't have the e-mail handy, so I can't give you a precise time), when someone with Guilford College ties e-mailed me at home with a sketchy account, not represented as firsthand. I didn't recall having seen anything about it earlier in the day on the list of stories slated for Tuesday's paper. So I contacted the editors on the night desk to see whether they were aware of it. They told me they were not and assigned Joe Killian to report on it.

Joe gathered some information, but by no means the complete story, before the deadline for city edition; that story ran inside the B section in Tuesday's paper. He and other reporters resumed seeking information Tuesday for a front-page story for Wednesday's paper. They're continuing to gather information, even as interest in the story is growing outside the region (and not because the N&R has ever had a great deal of luck waving to the national media and saying, "Look here! You need to be covering this!").

In summary, nobody is dragging anything out unnecessarily. Just wanted to be clear on that.

Sue

DrJ again misstates what others say with, "Oh really? That has not seemed to be the argument (as presented by Sue) in at least one case ("Dr J's Account" on his blog, for some reason will not link)." Allow me to provide the link.

The point she is incorrectly trying to make is that I said a story is not newsworthy unless all sides are included, even if some are unwilling or unavailable to comment. Of course, that's not what I wrote or believe.

I wrote clearly that I would not and could not say that I knew the facts or believe one or another party in a dispute unless I read/heard at least two sides, and that there can be more than two sides. DrJ has again misstated what she wants others to believe I said, possibly for her own agenda, but that would be speculation.

Concomitantly, I have not stated that I think the GC incident is a hate crime, race crime, or similar because I don't know all the facts and am willing to wait for both GC and the police to do their (what seem to be speedy) investigations. I do think something awful happened and I'm very impressed by Guilford College's forthrightness, willingness to look at all sides, and encouraging everyone to let them investigate as quickly as possible. When everything's on the table, we can then make cogent opinions.

J. Arthur

Jill: You said… “While I appreciate your desire to know the facts before jumping to conclusions, I think many of the relevant facts are already known.” This is exactly how people do jump to conclusions…they think they’ve heard enough, or know enough, to form accurate conclusions. In my mind, we’ve only heard from one side in this matter. Let’s give the accused a chance to refute the allegations in a court of law. Please disregard the words “infidels” & “oppressors” in my earlier post. The comment was only meant to suggest that all people, even the alleged victims, can harbor thoughts and beliefs that might lead them to seek conflict.

Joe: I’m not saying you should not quote anyone if one party refuses to comment. I am saying that when one party refuses to comment, you still have an obligation to maintain balance in the reporting and to consider the reactions that the reporting is likely to engender in the people that read it. Like Mary suggests, I think the N&R coverage yesterday was the journalistic equivalent of dropping the big one – complete overkill that was disproportionate to the situation. I’m also troubled by the suggestion that if people don’t want to talk to the media, they only have themselves to blame when they are pilloried by the media. I’ll try to make this point more completely later….at work now, so only have a moment.

Peace to all….Seriously.

The CA

Yeah, Roch. The truth hurts. You can try to dismiss it with sarcasm all you want, but that doesn't change things. Facts are stubborn things.

Stew, my point is that you don't like the label even if the actions justify it. The goal is to obfuscate the ideology to avoid the charge of hypocrisy. It's not us vs. them or Left vs. Right, it's just that certain people with certain beliefs (Left leaning) can get away with stuff that others (Right leaning) can't. If we avoid the labels, hopefully nobody will pick up on the double standard. Got it.

Meanwhile, the silence is deafening but expected. Will you condemn Sean without having to be asked (too late for that) Of course not, now tell us why...

I removed the LGBBC stuff from my blog to give you guys a chance to prove you didn't apply double standards. You blew it, and now you are trying to ignore your hypocrisy and somehow make it about me. I've said it before- stop being hypocrites, and I'll stop labelling you that way.

Roch101

Sam, nobody gives two shits what judgements you pass on people. You are irrelevant.

Bubba

"Bubba appears to be implying that the N&R is trying to stretch this story out unnecessarily"

No, my point is that the story is getting an emphasis that it doesn't deserve.

This is not a reflection on Joe Killian, because he doesn't decide how the N&R plays what he writes, but today's story should not have been the main page one reading for anyone this morning. It's Local placement at this point.

If the protesting students do anything really stupid, it should go back on the front. Otherwise, play it straight, and give it only the attention it deserves at this point.

Bubba

"Sam, nobody gives two shits what judgements you pass on people. You are irrelevant."

Obviously not true, as evidenced by your post.

Dr. Mary Johnson

Catfight. Well, at least the gang's all here.

Sue, thanks for the link (I simply could not make it work this morning). Nothing was "mis-stated" (the "nice" way of calling someone a "liar" . . . I'm in good company). From your own position of "omniscience", you've told the world that you won't believe my story until you've heard both sides. Moreover, you obviously don't think it's "newsworthy".

You're wrong. Nifong's predicament alone is proof positive that the truth is NOT valued in our Courtrooms (civil and criminal). If it were, Durham's DA never would have DREAMED of doing what he did. What part of the law has to work for everybody do you not get? There but for the grace of God . . .

We covered the reasons why you won't hear "the other side" . . . unless there is is a proper investigation and some kind of prosecution of the perjury (i.e. criminal) allegations I've made against "non-profit" (your tax dollars and mine) . . . allegations that have not been reported AT ALL by Asheboro's two "local"/daily newspapers. The press is supposed to BE THERE to police the place when the establishment gets it wrong - not simply show up for the rapes and assaults and murders. I simply found great irony in Joe Killian's comment about the way stories are covered.

I've never denied I have an agenda. If you have any questions about that please feel free to peruse the post on my blog that birthed Guarino's.

I did not mean to deviate substantially from this post. SO here's the thing on that: Everyone I know who saw this morning's N&R headline quite literally rolled their eyes.

"Here we go again".

Joe Guarino

Sorry that I am late to the discussion.

I only wish to point out what my post said:

"Based on any objective indication of the injuries sustained by the victims, the incident was not terribly newsworthy."

I was making the point that the Palestinian students, according to all appearances from the reports, do not appear to have been hurt too badly. It sounds like minor trauma.

I then made the point that murders are not covered with nearly as much prominence.

I was discussing the concept of newsworthiness from the standpoint of the severity of the physical trauma inflicted, and later discussed other considerations that enter into decisions regarding newsworthiness.

Admittedly, I do not buy into the ideology of hate crime laws, as is discussed over at my site.

But, based on the reports, it does not appear these students were injured severely.

J. Arthur

Joe's observation about the nature of the injuries also raises doubts in my mind. I'm happy that no one appears to have been grievously hurt. But we've been told that at least 3 and perhaps as many as 15 (fifteen!) football players were beating these kids -- perhaps for as long as five minutes. Think about that for a moment. The football players I know are very large and very strong human beings. The incident has also been described as an attack -- not a fracas, not a scuffle, not even a fight, but an attack (front page headline in yesterday's N&R). An attack suggests sustained ferocity. Think about the blows and the physical damage these men could deliver in even one minute of unchecked fury. Oh, and what were the football players using to beat these unfortunate individuals? Why, not only their fists, but "brass knuckles." So how many of the "victims" are still in the hospital? None? Wow, that's fortunate. How many needed medical attention after the attack? Well, actually no one requested any immediate medical attention. Were there independent observers present? Yes. Is it reasonable to assume that these observers would have summoned medical help if someone was bleeding or unconscious? I would think so. Did someone call an ambulance? If they did, we haven't read about it. Did someone call the city police? Not until many hours later. I don't mean to suggest that this exonerates anyone, but it certainly raises questions in my mind that have not been answered.

Bubba

"I don't mean to suggest that this exonerates anyone, but it certainly raises questions in my mind that have not been answered."

Why do you hate Palestinians, newspapers, and newspaper reporters, J. Arthur?

Cara Michele

As of Thursday afternoon, five students have been charged. (See updated News & Record article for details.) "The charges were taken out by the alleged victims and do not represent Greensboro police findings in the case."

Apparently GPD found it to be "newsworthy," too. They posted a press release on their web site, entitled "Guilford College Incident." (Prior to this one, the most recent press release is from July 2006, which suggests that GPD sets the "newsworthy" bar high.)

News Release:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 23, 2007
CONTACT: Lieutenant Brian James
Executive Officer
Criminal Investigation Division
336-433-7380
Reported Assault at Guilford College

On January 21, 2007 at approximately 7 pm, the Greensboro Police Department was called to the Guilford County Magistrates Office in reference to a reported assault that occurred on the campus of Guilford College. Three male subjects of Middle Eastern descent reported that they were assaulted on the college campus by twenty to thirty male subjects on January 19, 2007. This incident was not reported to the Greensboro Police Department at the time of occurrence. The alleged victims also stated that they were called racial slurs by these individuals while being assaulted. They were informed that a follow-up investigation must be conducted in order to determine the identity of the suspects before any charges could be filed.

On January 22, 2007, the alleged victims returned to the Guilford County Magistrates office and took out arrest warrants on three of the alleged suspects. The Greensboro Police Department was not notified of this until the warrants were referred to us for service.

This case has been referred to the Metropolitan Criminal Investigation Division for follow-up with emphasis on obtaining the details of this incident and identifying any suspects that may have been involved. Pending the completion of this investigation, a follow-up press release will be distributed with information regarding the details that can be released and any charges that may be filed.

# # #

The CA

Yes, I'm irrelevant because I'm not the one calling people idiots. Somehow that makes Sean relevant. I see how it works now. I am not seeking your approval, Roch. I don't need it to validate myself, but thanks anyway.

The CA

Question for Killian- Has anyone given you more details about the timing of everything? You know, what the guys were doing, who struck the first blow, where they were hit, etc.

sean coon

"I was making the point that the Palestinian students, according to all appearances from the reports, do not appear to have been hurt too badly. It sounds like minor trauma."

and you couldn't continue on the thread the other day because i called you an idiot? by your logic, suck it up doc.

and sam, let me set the record straight: i am extremely liberal in my thoughts, extremely liberal in my politics (non-affiliated and straight up with my observations) and, yes, i fit into general, societal classifications of "a liberal." (though i'm fiscally conservative)

but the left didn't call joe an idiot, i did.

the left didn't call you an idiot, i did.

i konw this is foreign to you, but it's what people call "taking ownership."

maybe people didn't "condemn" my statement as harshly as you would like, because such individuals agree with me -- not because we're the left, but because you and joe are idiots.

take your time in unraveling the logic.

The comments to this entry are closed.