Jump to content

BLACK MAN DEFENDS SON, HOME AGAINST WHITE MOB; KILLS ONE


veganmomma
 Share

Recommended Posts

BLACK MAN DEFENDS SON, HOME AGAINST WHITE MOB; KILLS ONE - GUESS WHAT HAPPENED TO HIM?

 

Written by One People's Project

 

Wednesday, 02 January 2008

 

You know the age-old story of a black man hit with an unfounded charge of raping a white girl, or in this case planning to rape a white girl. A white mob is formed to go get that black man. Normally we hear this scenario ending with the black man lynched, but not this time. See, when that mob went to the man's home, they met his father, 53-year old John White a roofer in Long Island, NY. The end result: the white teen that formed the mob was shot to death by John White. The end result: White was guilty of second degree manslaughter. Now this is Suffolk County, and there has been Klan activity in the past there, so this is not all that surprising. The judge even gave instructions to the jury to ignore the unregistered handgun charge and consider convicting him of a misdameanor charge of reckless endangerment that would have carried a sentance of up to one year. Instead, he is now looking at a minumum of five years! This case comes on the heels of the Joe Horn case in Texas where two men who were robbing a house was shot and killed by the homeowner's neighbor who was told repeatedly by a 911 operator to stay in the house as police came, but instead told the operator that he was going out there and was "going to kill them". Horn is white, and he killed two men that were in this country illegaly, so the anti-immigration crowd are trying to find some way to keep him out of jail. In John White's case, they said he should have called 911, not even thinking of the fact that if the white mob was concerned about someone being raped they should have called the police before even going over to the guy's home. Well, just like in Joe Horn's case, a similar campaign will also build for John White, and conservatives who support Joe Horn had best support Mr. White as well. His sentencing date is Feb. 21, (like we said, February will be a busy month), and we will most definitely be out there to support him. Being that Al Sharpton is involved with this, you can expect to hear a lot about this one.

 

Brotherpeacemaker

The trial for a murder that began as a dumb joke has reached a verdict. Fifty three year old John White, an asphalt foreman on trial for killing an acquaintance of his twenty year old son Aaron, was found guilty of second degree manslaughter late Saturday night by a jury of his peers. Mr. White was convicted of shooting an inebriated seventeen year old Daniel Cicciaro in the face on August 9, 2006, outside the White's Long Island home after a heated, racially charged exchange with Mr. Cicciaro and his friends.

 

It is my understanding that on August 9th of 2006, Aaron White was at a beer bash at a friend's house when he was confronted by Daniel Cicciaro. Jennifer Martin, a sixteen year old at the party, complained about a MySpace posting that claimed Aaron wanted to rape her. Aaron was told to leave. Although he denied making the threat Aaron complied and left the party. Cicciaro and his friends then called Aaron on his cell phone to continue the dispute and made threats against the entire White family. Racial references such as monkey assed niggers were used. Dan Cicciaro got four of his friends together and the posse arrived in the front of the White home shortly after 11 p.m. These men had the bright idea to avenge the girl's honor by threatening violence upon the Whites.

 

Over the phone, Aaron White responded with race laced profanity of his own. John White took his pistol, a thirty two caliber Beretta, to the end of his driveway followed by his son Aaron with a shotgun. Legally drunk, the seventeen year old Cicciaro reached for the gun. There was a struggle. The gun went off just three inches from Daniel Cicciaro's face. He was pronounced dead at the hospital. John White was arrested for first degree manslaughter and for the illegal possession of an unregistered handgun.

Suffolk County Court Judge Barbara Kahn granted a request that allowed the jury to consider convicting Mr. White of reckless endangerment, a misdemeanor that carries a prison term of up to one year. But the jury found him guilty of second degree manslaughter which carries a minimum sentence of five years and a maximum sentence of fifteen.

 

The prosecutor says that Mr. White should have locked his door and called the police. The time from the first call from Daniel Cicciaro to the moment the posse arrived was about twenty minutes. It is the prosecutor's contention that the Whites had plenty of time to call New York's finest for help. This would be the same New York police department that was acquitted for helping other black people like Sean Bell, Abadou Diallo, Patrick Dorismond, and others. With public service like this for the black community, if I was a black person in New York I wouldn't call the dogcatcher on a bionic, rabid pit bull on steroids out of the very reasonable fear that somehow New York public servants would make me regret it.

 

Why didn't Daniel Cicciaro call the police when he discovered that the girl's honor was in question? NYPD doesn't have a reputation for the contagious shooting of white people so obviously they had no reason to fear getting the police involved. Why didn't he call the police in the twenty minutes it took for him to arrive in front of the White's house? Why didn't he call the police when he saw the armed man standing at the end of his driveway? Why didn't someone else in the posse call the police? Why didn't someone from the party call the police? Why didn't Daniel's parents keep their drunkard son at home to get his buzz on? We could ask why questions and if questions all day long.

 

But this is just another instance of the American public refusing to take a serious look at the circumstances of this dreadful situation from the black man's perspective. Daniel's mother, Joanne Cicciaro, described her son saying, "He was loyal to his friends, and everyone. He was a wonderful, wonderful person. He had a wonderful bright future." Yes he did. But the young man chose to throw his future to the wind when he made the choice to confront the Whites. He may have been wonderful, but the young man was also very vulgar and very drunk and obviously provocative that Wednesday night. Said Daniel's father, "It's unfortunate that they chose to try to portray my son as a racist, but the truth is out now." That truth is that Cicciaro junior had liquored himself up, arranged to be driven across town, made a series of racial slurs, made a number of threats, and confronted a black man who he mistakenly thought had the impudence to threaten a white girl.

 

The only thing that matters is that a black man killed a white man. It wouldn't have mattered if these men had raped his wife and beat his son within an inch of his life like they said they wanted to do. A black man would have the audacity to do something to protect himself from a young white mob. Such a black man does not know his place in America. The black community obviously needs another reminder of its place in the American social structure. Pull a gun on a white boy? And accidentally kill him for threatening you, your family, and your property? Black man don't you know you were in New York? Don't you know your place here in America? You are obviously too crazy to be allowed to be free.

 

http://onepeoplesproject.com/index.php?%20option=com_content&task=view&id=1294&Itemid=2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some lyrics for Dead Prez. Although I dont listen to em much anymore this brought to mind a song.

 

"Black man kill a black man, it's cool they lovin dat

 

Black man kill a white man & the sentencin' him to death

 

White man kill a black man then scream about self defense

 

Break it down to manslaughter with all the best evidence"

 

Although Mr. White only got manslaughter, it still shows how racist our government officials and judges are. Including the people on that jury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think its great when people defend themselves and family and property. Gun control is meant to disarm the citizenry and leave them at the mercy of the mobs and police. And to make the impact of this situation more meaningful in my eyes, historically gun control was nothing more than a racist scheme to disarm blacks and thus give white klansmen an advantage...Funny how history repeats itself. I'm very pleased that attempts to severely limit people's abilities to defend themselves have failed and continue to fail (much to the chagrin of mainstream politicians), if they had succeed then there would probably be another man lynched in the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think its great when people defend themselves and family and property. Gun control is meant to disarm the citizenry and leave them at the mercy of the mobs and police. And to make the impact of this situation more meaningful in my eyes, historically gun control was nothing more than a racist scheme to disarm blacks and thus give white klansmen an advantage...Funny how history repeats itself. I'm very pleased that attempts to severely limit people's abilities to defend themselves have failed and continue to fail (much to the chagrin of mainstream politicians), if they had succeed then there would probably be another man lynched in the US.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about gun control being created just to get guns away from blacks. To me it seems most of the countries that have really strict gun laws barely have any black people anyhow. And in those countries there is very little violence in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PBS put out a documentary on the subject called Negroes with guns. Interestingly I first learned about this concept in bowling for columbine, michael moore isn't all bad. I dont care what everybody else says.

 

I dont think gun control is the absolute means to curb violence. For one there are countries looking at banning swords now because they have banned other means of hurting people. Violence is always going to happen. And looking at murder rates from this site (no idea if its 100% accurate but you get an idea of how the countries relate)

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

France has a higher murder rate than Canada or Switzerland...both of which allow gun ownership, I'm pretty sure you can own guns in Switzerland you cant own in the US. Mexico is quite high on the list, but has plenty of gun control. There are more guns in New Zealand than the UK, but the UK has more murder. But of course if you dont have a gun you cant have a gun crime, does that mean you cant have crime or even murder, no. I think moore gets more to the truth about this when he looks at this issue more as a matter of culture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think its like health care...social medicine can work and does but in some places it doesn't...it just needs to be done right. Japan has little violence and virtually no guns. Switzerland had a law(it may still have it) where every household had to have a gun but there were very strict laws on how to store them and what to do with them. Sure the UK may have a higher murder rate but its lower than ours when you look at cities especially...I have a feeling it would be worse with guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a lighter note, banning swords!? Thats crazy. I would prefer that guns never existed, and people still walked around with swords. At least it would take some sort of skill to kill someone, instead of pulling a trigger.

 

I do agree that violence will always be there. Its been with us since the beginning, and wont go away. Might as well protect yourself by any means neccessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually shooting, at least from any sort of distance does require skill, and even those that I know shoot quite often will miss the bullseye at 100 yards or further every now and again. Now point blank, yeah that shouldn't be a problem and requires no skill other than operating the gun, which people can learn on t.v. and movies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually shooting, at least from any sort of distance does require skill, and even those that I know shoot quite often will miss the bullseye at 100 yards or further every now and again. Now point blank, yeah that shouldn't be a problem and requires no skill other than operating the gun, which people can learn on t.v. and movies.

 

I agree that sniping and long distance rifle shooting takes some skill, but the majority of murders with guns happen within close range, or a few feet away.

 

So imagine this, someone breaks into your home while your own the couch, and thrusts a rapier at you demanding money and your laptop. You roll out of the way and and grab yours on the ground. Then a duel happens, and if you kept up on your skills you would win and become the victor.

 

Now a days people dont even have a weapon even close to them for self defense if they need it, and usually just get shot when resisted.

 

I guess I like to imagine a more romantic swashbuckling society :/

 

Mr. White got a bum deal. I wonder if he was white and blew that kids face off what would of happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've gone target shooting a few times when I was younger. Honestly I thought it was quite easy to hit a relatively small target from 50ft or so. And 100ft was kinda tough but I still did well. I don't think its hard to shoot a gun...especially since I only shot a bb gun a few times before I went target shooting. This was when I was only a young teenager as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...