Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

‘Knock That White Boy Out’: Arrests Made After Mob Of Teens Attack Disabled Vet

CLEVELAND, Ohio (CBS Cleveland) - Cleveland authorities have made several arrests following the mob beating of a disabled Army veteran by a group of teenagers.

Last Friday, the victim, Matthew Robinson, was surrounded by between six and eight teenagers while riding the RTA Healthline. Robinson told WOIO that he was attacked by the teens, then robbed of his possessions.

During the attack, the teens made several derogatory remarks about Robinson.

“What they were saying was, ‘Knock that boy out!’ ‘White boy.’ ‘Cracker,’” he was quoted as saying about the incident. “They were saying, ‘Knock that white boy out.’”

This week, three suspects – Kenneth Matthews, Ronald Reid Williams and an unnamed 16-year-old girl – were arrested by Cleveland and RTA police. The latter filmed the attack with her cell phone, and was said to still have the video at the time of her apprehension.

Despite the arrests, concern remains as other attacks of a similar nature have happened in the area, most of which are said to have been perpetrated by other young culprits, according to WOIO.

Added Robinson of the danger, “Your mother or sister could be on the bus, and the same thing could happen to them.”
http://cleveland.cbslocal.com/2014/02/1 ... abled-vet/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Of course the thugs are described by the CBS affiliate as "a group of teenagers", "teens" and "young culprits." No mention at all of race..

Obama's sons?

Baldy wrote:Obama's sons?

BDKJMU wrote:Of course the thugs are described by the CBS affiliate as "a group of teenagers", "teens" and "young culprits." No mention at all of race..

Of course you describe them as thugs without mentioning race.

Can't be a hate crime....he had three strikes against him: 1) white 2) male 3) military.

Next.

Baldy wrote:Obama's sons?

They "could have been"....

AZGrizFan wrote:Can't be a hate crime....he had three strikes against him: 1) white 2) male 3) military.

Next.

Yep

kalm wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:Of course the thugs are described by the CBS affiliate as "a group of teenagers", "teens" and "young culprits." No mention at all of race..

Of course you describe them as thugs without mentioning race.

So you don't think teens who would attack a disabled vet are thugs?

BDKJMU wrote:

kalm wrote:
Of course you describe them as thugs without mentioning race.

So you don't think teens who would attack a disabled vet are thugs?

Only if they're black.

If they're white, they are punks.

Duh.

BDKJMU wrote:

kalm wrote:
Of course you describe them as thugs without mentioning race.

So you don't think teens who would attack a disabled vet are thugs?

BDKJMU, the article you posted only examines the situation from the point of view of one side. Information is needed from the other side of the situation. Then evidence from both sides must be evaluated with skepticism only after every nuance of information is complete before one can make an informed decision.

LeadBolt wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:
So you don't think teens who would attack a disabled vet are thugs?

BDKJMU, the article you posted only examines the situation from the point of view of one side. Information is needed from the other side of the situation. Then evidence from both sides must be evaluated with skepticism only after every nuance of information is complete before one can make an informed decision.

Following me across two message boards now? Sorry I stuck in your craw so bad.

kalm wrote:

LeadBolt wrote:
BDKJMU, the article you posted only examines the situation from the point of view of one side. Information is needed from the other side of the situation. Then evidence from both sides must be evaluated with skepticism only after every nuance of information is complete before one can make an informed decision.

Following me across two message boards now? Sorry I stuck in your craw so bad.

My response was to BDKJMU, advising him not to jump to a hasty conclusion. Sorry, but its not all about you. Sometimes we have to look beyond ourselves.

LeadBolt wrote:

kalm wrote:
Following me across two message boards now? Sorry I stuck in your craw so bad.

My response was to BDKJMU, advising him not to jump to a hasty conclusion. Sorry, but its not all about you. Sometimes we have to look beyond ourselves.

AZGrizFan wrote:Can't be a hate crime....he had three strikes against him: 1) white 2) male 3) military.

Next.

Right. The poor, persecuted white male.

This was clearly a matter of self defense...

Right. The poor, persecuted white male

You make light of it, but the white male is the only "fair game" race/sex combination right now. White males are in good shape due to the residual of having out competed other groups over history. But, in an official sense, our government does discriminate against them. Absolutely no doubt about it.

Grizalltheway wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:Can't be a hate crime....he had three strikes against him: 1) white 2) male 3) military.

Next.

Right. The poor, persecuted white male.

Show me 3 instances where a white male was attacked by one or more black men and it's called or prosecuted as a hate crime.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

AZGrizFan wrote: Show me 3 instances where a white male was attacked by one or more black men and it's called or prosecuted as a hate crime.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

3 instances?

There were 3,467 instances of racially motivated hate crimes according to the FBI in 2012.

22% were anti-white motivated.

That's ~750.

I'm not spending the time to dig for the race of the perpetrators against whites... but, I think it's safe to assume that the number of black perpetrators against whites is much greater than 3.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ha ... tims_final" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

According to Zimmerman, Trayvon had the strength of three men.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote: Show me 3 instances where a white male was attacked by one or more black men and it's called or prosecuted as a hate crime.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

3 instances?

There were 3,467 instances of racially motivated hate crimes according to the FBI in 2012.

22% were anti-white motivated.

That's ~750.

I'm not spending the time to dig for the race of the perpetrators against whites... but, I think it's safe to assume that the number of black perpetrators against whites is much greater than 3.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ha ... tims_final" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Great, but can you show him 956 instances of this? He'll wait.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote: Show me 3 instances where a white male was attacked by one or more black men and it's called or prosecuted as a hate crime.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

3 instances?

There were 3,467 instances of racially motivated hate crimes according to the FBI in 2012.

22% were anti-white motivated.

That's ~750.

I'm not spending the time to dig for the race of the perpetrators against whites... but, I think it's safe to assume that the number of black perpetrators against whites is much greater than 3.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ha ... tims_final" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And how many of those were actually charged with and prosecuted as a hate crime? And how many of them were actually identified by race? Like they're NOT in this article...

AZGrizFan wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
3 instances?

There were 3,467 instances of racially motivated hate crimes according to the FBI in 2012.

22% were anti-white motivated.

That's ~750.

I'm not spending the time to dig for the race of the perpetrators against whites... but, I think it's safe to assume that the number of black perpetrators against whites is much greater than 3.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ha ... tims_final" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And how many of those were actually charged with and prosecuted as a hate crime? And how many of them were actually identified by race? Like they're NOT in this article...

The media can spin a story any way they want, but federal statutes require that anyone convicted of a racially motivated crime face stiffer sentences...regardless of whether it's white-on-black or black-on-white.

Grizalltheway wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
And how many of those were actually charged with and prosecuted as a hate crime? And how many of them were actually identified by race? Like they're NOT in this article...

The media can spin a story any way they want, but federal statutes require that anyone convicted of a racially motivated crime face stiffer sentences...regardless of whether it's white-on-black or black-on-white.

What those stats don't show is how many black on white crimes are NOT classified as a hate crime, versus how many white on black crimes aren't....now THAT would be interesting.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
The media can spin a story any way they want, but federal statutes require that anyone convicted of a racially motivated crime face stiffer sentences...regardless of whether it's white-on-black or black-on-white.

What those stats don't show is how many black on white crimes are NOT classified as a hate crime, versus how many white on black crimes aren't....now THAT would be interesting.

What's interesting (actually) is how pathetic you are...