Quote
MisterDDDD
The guy pulled a gun, wouldn't have mattered if he was black, blue, white or purple, he paid the ultimate price for the brandishing.

It's also clear that the killer was a violent Hell's angel and a full fledge scumbag. As offended as some may find that characterization, he proved it to be true, not just that fateful evening, but throughout his whole life.

Was racism a factor?
Could have been. No one really knows what triggered the guy. Fair to say that even if he was physically or verbally assaulted because of his race (white girlfriend, choice of clothes, etc. as we've seen here) he was solely responsible once he pulled a gun. A lot of people were assaulted who didn't retaliate with a weapon, and they lived.

Hero status for the killer?
Not a chance. I'd go so far as to speculate that he likely could have secured the weapon, and taken the guy down without the overkill from him and his fellow Hell's Angels/Scumbags. Perhaps with the guy on the ground with just the one stab wound and detained, he may have lived.

Well I think race was a sure factor but mostly feel that this speaks for me otherwise; and I'm not sure the relative significance of that factor in the larger signifance of the beating/killing...
...yep the gun changed everything but i had no personal investment in prosecutions; the kid was dead for going to a concert; sure that gun
sealed his deal tragically; but saying 'a lot of others were beaten,' (paraphrase) could be false equivalency considering the mobbing nature
of the stomping; and the testimony, (that some will refuse as not credible,
presented a pretty sustained vicious gang stomp,
and also, arguably, a stabbing(s) before he got hysterically loose and pulled
that thing; that big guy next to Passaro seemed to be really trying hard
to wrap Passaro up in his arms and away from that kids head.
an enigma wrapped in an.....a mystery....or however that one goes... ?

i'd add those factors into an over-view tho;
along with the chaotic and disorganized circumstances of the day;
which could not be rectified at the scene obviously.

Quote
KevinLocksPerm

Quote
The Sicilian

Quote
KevinLocksPerm

Quote
The Sicilian
This is certainly a debate that will rage on for many years and even more so as we approach the 50th anniversary of the concert event. Hopefully, we will get an official release by Stones of the show in its entirety, complete with all the restarts and banter. I especially would hope to see complete footage of the show including any new found footage and/or lost film.

As in the movie version of "Gimme Shelter," I feel like the scene in the end of the movie where the crowd is walking away from the long night in the early morning sunrise after the show is over and looking back and reflecting. I'm sure there will be more angles and views to digest and bring to discussion. A special thanks to everyone who participated in the discussion and to BV for letting us go at it and hash it out. 1969, what a year in music history.

An official release ? God no. Why? Totally unnecessary. And it will only serve to to perpetuate this Hells Angels mastabatory adulation. Yuck.

You don't have to buy it, but a lot of us will. Musically, it was a great show even with the problems. One of the best of the 1969 tour, and the last.

Perhaps they could include Hunter Meredith’s autopsy notes or some genuine Hells Angel pubic hair as extras with the package.

Then you could really get your rocks off

Perhaps you should just take your nasty comments someplace else degenerate fool.

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
2000 LYFH
Was Hunter a Innocent bystander? Apparently he had a short fuse, was armed and dangerous!
Wonder what was going on in the hour or so before his death? Was he being disruptive to those around him? Was he previously known by the Angels?
Why did he separate from Patti as the Stones were playing - pictures of him moving toward the stage. Was he on the stage and told to get off and then pushed off? Maybe that set him off.
I doubt the Angels decided to get racial with him while the Stones were playing and there were hundreds of other people right in front of the stage!


From Sam Culter's book - You Can't Always Get What You Want. His name

So two criminals got into a fight and one of them pulled a gun and the other a knife.

Well, here you go!
So there really is no reason to p*ss eachother off with different opinions
Every time a criminal kills another criminal, our world becomes a little bit better place

you know if the OP was talking about sandwiches we've just had a really, really long war over nothing. It could NOT have been a Hero; it was def a Club sandwich.
Now the fact that it was NOT falefal, well we don't know why it wasn't for sure....but....

Quote
The Sicilian

Quote
KevinLocksPerm

Quote
The Sicilian

Quote
KevinLocksPerm

Quote
The Sicilian
This is certainly a debate that will rage on for many years and even more so as we approach the 50th anniversary of the concert event. Hopefully, we will get an official release by Stones of the show in its entirety, complete with all the restarts and banter. I especially would hope to see complete footage of the show including any new found footage and/or lost film.

As in the movie version of "Gimme Shelter," I feel like the scene in the end of the movie where the crowd is walking away from the long night in the early morning sunrise after the show is over and looking back and reflecting. I'm sure there will be more angles and views to digest and bring to discussion. A special thanks to everyone who participated in the discussion and to BV for letting us go at it and hash it out. 1969, what a year in music history.

An official release ? God no. Why? Totally unnecessary. And it will only serve to to perpetuate this Hells Angels mastabatory adulation. Yuck.

You don't have to buy it, but a lot of us will. Musically, it was a great show even with the problems. One of the best of the 1969 tour, and the last.

Perhaps they could include Hunter Meredith’s autopsy notes or some genuine Hells Angel pubic hair as extras with the package.

Then you could really get your rocks off

Perhaps you should just take your nasty comments someplace else degenerate fool.

How about a movie where all you see is what the scumbag bikers did that day.
And what pray tell would the "jury of peers" decided if THAT was all they saw ?

Quote
The Sicilian

Quote
KevinLocksPerm

Quote
The Sicilian

Quote
KevinLocksPerm

Quote
The Sicilian
This is certainly a debate that will rage on for many years and even more so as we approach the 50th anniversary of the concert event. Hopefully, we will get an official release by Stones of the show in its entirety, complete with all the restarts and banter. I especially would hope to see complete footage of the show including any new found footage and/or lost film.

As in the movie version of "Gimme Shelter," I feel like the scene in the end of the movie where the crowd is walking away from the long night in the early morning sunrise after the show is over and looking back and reflecting. I'm sure there will be more angles and views to digest and bring to discussion. A special thanks to everyone who participated in the discussion and to BV for letting us go at it and hash it out. 1969, what a year in music history.

An official release ? God no. Why? Totally unnecessary. And it will only serve to to perpetuate this Hells Angels mastabatory adulation. Yuck.

You don't have to buy it, but a lot of us will. Musically, it was a great show even with the problems. One of the best of the 1969 tour, and the last.

Perhaps they could include Hunter Meredith’s autopsy notes or some genuine Hells Angel pubic hair as extras with the package.

Then you could really get your rocks off

Perhaps you should just take your nasty comments someplace else degenerate fool.

So, let's get this right. You seek to glorify the actions of the Hell's Angels and yet you call me a degenerate fool. I know when I am being absurd. You clearly don't know when you are.

Easy Kevin. No one supports HA. And of course Passaro could have been a racist.

Maybe we're really discussing the portrayal of the event rather than the precise actions of those involved. I think Hunter's family got some sound advice from their lawyer with more facts evolving about the loaded gun and Hunter's history.

Of course it seems like an overkill by Passaro. And why did he carry a knife? Did he provoke Hunter? No excuse of course but I wont describe Passaro as some kind of a hero. He did what he did and probably prevented something possibly even worse. Or not. Who knows. One thing is sure: the actions of Passsaro doesnt make Hunter a hero or victim.

Quote
Redhotcarpet
Easy Kevin. No one supports HA. And of course Passaro could have been a racist.

Maybe we're really discussing the portrayal of the event rather than the precise actions of those involved. I think Hunter's family got some sound advice from their lawyer with more facts evolving about the loaded gun and Hunter's history.

Of course it seems like an overkill by Passaro. And why did he carry a knife? Did he provoke Hunter? No excuse of course but I wont describe Passaro as some kind of a hero. He did what he did and probably prevented something possibly even worse. Or not. Who knows. One thing is sure: the actions of Passsaro doesnt make Hunter a hero or victim.

That's the main point here, hence the OP question can't be answered.

HA has many supporters, though. I won't be surprised if you'll find them here as well

Quote
georgie48

Every time a criminal kills another criminal, our world becomes a little bit better place

I guess that was partly the reason - or excuse - behind the initial (weak) interest in investigation by the authorities: a group of scumbags supposedly killed one scumbag, both parties being not any good friends of the cops.. and that taking place in a drug-full happening of about 300 000 people not known of their 'pro-authority' attitudes either... Hadn't Maysles' footage having turned up, which forced the things to happen, I would suggest not any kind of murder trial would have seen the light of the day.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-04-16 21:10 by Doxa.

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
Doxa

Quote
LeonidP

Just because one doesn't think this is race related doesn't mean one doesn't take it seriously.

** and to further clarify, I am not one of those that doesn't think it was not related to race ... my point all along is that we don't know. I just don't get the jumping to conclusions on it and then being so sure that is the way it is, despite no evidence of it (except that he has been determined to be a scumbag hell's angel, which i guess makes him guilty).

The only jumping to conclusions seems to be the stance that no way it was in any way related to race.

...

Wow, you continue to befuddle me. So with no proof, then not being certain it was racism is "jumping to conclusions"? Sorry but with no proof and being certain it was racism is "jumping to conclusions", whether you can see that or not.

It could have been, no denying that, but a 'scumbag and Hells Angel' is not enough to make that leap to racism as far as I am concerned.

Seemingly some misunderstandings here - let's explicate the logic and meanings of the crucial terms and sentences here. This is a bit stupid, but since I am targeted here for being incoherent, let's go!

The crucial term here is 'being certain' - as a result of an inference it makes that inference logically damn strong.

If the premise (we all here seem to agree) is 'we don't know' (if there was a racist factor or not), then any conclusion including the claim of 'being certain' is 'jumping to conclusion'. So both claims (conclusions) - "I am sure there was a racist factor' or 'I am sure there was not any traces of racism' - are as bad. Neither is supported by evidence or logical inference.

So when you say, as you did:

(1) "with no proof, then not being certain it was racism"

that has nothing to do with 'jumping to conclusion', but a valid inference (as you suggested). But when you say:

(2) "no proof and being certain it was racism"

that is 'jumping to conclusion' indeed (as you suggested). But the problem is that no one has - at least me - here claimed being certain it was racism. By contrast, my initial example was, to use your terms:

(3) "no proof and being certain that it was not racism"

which is 'jumping to conclusion' (see the difference to (1)). That's the one I was critizising, because I had seen some traces of it lurking here. But as the discussion has gone further and more precise, I think people are starting more and more to appreciate the premise of 'we don't know', and not jumping to any kind of conclusions.

Of course if 'being certain' is a question of a (blind) belief or faith - like to say that 'I am sure that, say, UFOs or Homer's Gods exist' - then it is valid to claim anything, like 'it is sure that racism has a role in the death of Hunter' or 'no way there was any racism involved' and no one can dispute those, but I guess our discussion here goes - as it has been - a bit beyond than kind of stuff.

Will this do? I did this boring explication in order to show that there is actually pretty much common - things we agree on - in both parties in this dispute, which easily gets over-looked when the heat is on... I tend to think the difference in opinions amounts to the distinction between those who think it is more likely that there was a racism involved somehow and those who think that most likely not. People taking sides here seem to emphasize different things in their argumentation.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-04-16 22:25 by Doxa.

Quote
Redhotcarpet
And of course Passaro could have been a racist.

Maybe we're really discussing the portrayal of the event rather than the precise actions of those involved. I think Hunter's family got some sound advice from their lawyer with more facts evolving about the loaded gun and Hunter's history.

Of course it seems like an overkill by Passaro. And why did he carry a knife? Did he provoke Hunter? No excuse of course but I wont describe Passaro as some kind of a hero. He did what he did and probably prevented something possibly even worse. Or not. Who knows. One thing is sure: the actions of Passsaro doesnt make Hunter a hero or victim.

I think you nail it, and it's impossible to reconstruct what actually was going on, but was it clear from the court case that Hunter's gun was loaded ? And there are more "professional" ways to neutralise a possible attacker....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-04-16 23:04 by TheflyingDutchman.

Quote
Redhotcarpet
Easy Kevin. No one supports HA. And of course Passaro could have been a racist.

Maybe we're really discussing the portrayal of the event rather than the precise actions of those involved. I think Hunter's family got some sound advice from their lawyer with more facts evolving about the loaded gun and Hunter's history.

Of course it seems like an overkill by Passaro. And why did he carry a knife? Did he provoke Hunter? No excuse of course but I wont describe Passaro as some kind of a hero. He did what he did and probably prevented something possibly even worse. Or not. Who knows. One thing is sure: the actions of Passsaro doesnt make Hunter a hero or victim.

No one supports HA?

Are you kidding?

This thread of full of admiration for them.

Quote
KevinLocksPerm

Quote
Redhotcarpet
Easy Kevin. No one supports HA. And of course Passaro could have been a racist.

Maybe we're really discussing the portrayal of the event rather than the precise actions of those involved. I think Hunter's family got some sound advice from their lawyer with more facts evolving about the loaded gun and Hunter's history.

Of course it seems like an overkill by Passaro. And why did he carry a knife? Did he provoke Hunter? No excuse of course but I wont describe Passaro as some kind of a hero. He did what he did and probably prevented something possibly even worse. Or not. Who knows. One thing is sure: the actions of Passsaro doesnt make Hunter a hero or victim.

No one supports HA?

Are you kidding?

This thread of full of admiration for them.

Yes it is, regretably enough.

That's why I'll stay away from this thread now.

Cause I don't want to give such considerations a platform.

Quote
dead.flowers

Quote
KevinLocksPerm

Quote
Redhotcarpet
Easy Kevin. No one supports HA. And of course Passaro could have been a racist.

Maybe we're really discussing the portrayal of the event rather than the precise actions of those involved. I think Hunter's family got some sound advice from their lawyer with more facts evolving about the loaded gun and Hunter's history.

Of course it seems like an overkill by Passaro. And why did he carry a knife? Did he provoke Hunter? No excuse of course but I wont describe Passaro as some kind of a hero. He did what he did and probably prevented something possibly even worse. Or not. Who knows. One thing is sure: the actions of Passsaro doesnt make Hunter a hero or victim.

No one supports HA?

Are you kidding?

This thread of full of admiration for them.

Yes it is, regretably enough.

That's why I'll stay away from this thread now.

Cause I don't want to give such considerations a platform.

By saying that you gave them whoever they are more than anybody before you.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
Doxa

Quote
LeonidP

Just because one doesn't think this is race related doesn't mean one doesn't take it seriously.

** and to further clarify, I am not one of those that doesn't think it was not related to race ... my point all along is that we don't know. I just don't get the jumping to conclusions on it and then being so sure that is the way it is, despite no evidence of it (except that he has been determined to be a scumbag hell's angel, which i guess makes him guilty).

The only jumping to conclusions seems to be the stance that no way it was in any way related to race.

...

Wow, you continue to befuddle me. So with no proof, then not being certain it was racism is "jumping to conclusions"? Sorry but with no proof and being certain it was racism is "jumping to conclusions", whether you can see that or not.

It could have been, no denying that, but a 'scumbag and Hells Angel' is not enough to make that leap to racism as far as I am concerned.

Seemingly some misunderstandings here - let's explicate the logic and meanings of the crucial terms and sentences here. This is a bit stupid, but since I am targeted here for being incoherent, let's go!

The crucial term here is 'being certain' - as a result of an inference it makes that inference logically damn strong.

If the premise (we all here seem to agree) is 'we don't know' (if there was a racist factor or not), then any conclusion including the claim of 'being certain' is 'jumping to conclusion'. So both claims (conclusions) - "I am sure there was a racist factor' or 'I am sure there was not any traces of racism' - are as bad. Neither is supported by evidence or logical inference.

So when you say, as you did:

(1) "with no proof, then not being certain it was racism"

that has nothing to do with 'jumping to conclusion', but a valid inference (as you suggested). But when you say:

(2) "no proof and being certain it was racism"

that is 'jumping to conclusion' indeed (as you suggested). But the problem is that no one has - at least me - here claimed being certain it was racism. By contrast, my initial example was, to use your terms:

(3) "no proof and being certain that it was not racism"

which is 'jumping to conclusion' (see the difference to (1)). That's the one I was critizising, because I had seen some traces of it lurking here. But as the discussion has gone further and more precise, I think people are starting more and more to appreciate the premise of 'we don't know', and not jumping to any kind of conclusions.

Of course if 'being certain' is a question of a (blind) belief or faith - like to say that 'I am sure that, say, UFOs or Homer's Gods exist' - then it is valid to claim anything, like 'it is sure that racism has a role in the death of Hunter' or 'no way there was any racism involved' and no one can dispute those, but I guess our discussion here goes - as it has been - a bit beyond than kind of stuff.

Will this do? I did this boring explication in order to show that there is actually pretty much common - things we agree on - in both parties in this dispute, which easily gets over-looked when the heat is on... I tend to think the difference in opinions amounts to the distinction between those who think it is more likely that there was a racism involved somehow and those who think that most likely not. People taking sides here seem to emphasize different things in their argumentation.

- Doxa

More spinning, but your comment was "The only jumping to conclusions seems to be the stance that no way it was in any way related to race."

I didn't see anyone say that with absolute certainty there was no racism (admittedly I did not read all responses), so I can only assume you meant me and a couple of others. We're trying to emphasize the person w/ the gun was stabbed, not just a black person.

But there are several that are saying, with absolute certainty, that it was all about race. That is jumping to conclusions with no proof.

Quote
LeonidP

But there are several that are saying, with absolute certainty, that it was all about race. That is jumping to conclusions with no proof.

If you so sure about that there are several people that has been saying, with absolute certainty, that it was all about race, it should be easy for you show me some actual proof of that (quotes that is). I have missed those posts.

EDIT: forget that question. I don't want to tease you. I am tired of going circles here about who said and what. It is bloody irrelevant if one comes out as a winner or a loser from such stupid and marginal disputes. Better just to move on and concentrate on what to say next.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2018-04-18 13:55 by Doxa.