https://www.upi.com/Archives/1985/04/10/National-News-Briefs/3657481957200/

Passaro lived and died like a true criminal. I dont know if Hunter tried to be a gangster but he sure met one that night in 1969. They were both young men.

Interesting to think about if there weren't the crucial film footage at all, what would happen then? Most likely there wouldn't haven't been the Passaro trial at all, because Passaro's identity was discovered from the base of the footage. In a hindsight one could say that shooting for GIMME SHELTER made the things to happen. Taking the damn lousy investigation (disinterest), my guess would be that without teh footage there hadn't been any trial at all. It all would have been based on testimony of drug-head hippies some drunken Angels. The facts being one throbbed to dead body, and then people like Scully saying things like "there's been this one crazy person who was threating everybody with his gun, but who, fortunately, was took off by the people who were hired there - by me, by the way - to do such a thing. Not need for any investigation. Let's move on." The testimonies would vary from person to person - as they actually did - and the police force would happily come to the conclusion that 'yeah, they didn't want us cops there in the first place, so let them sort this out by themselves. Hells Angels supposedly killed one black guy who supposedly was shooting there around, but no one seems be coherent enough to tell accuratively what happened. Big deal. Let us clear our hands from this shit."

Of course, the theories what actually happened and who to blame would be in that case even more wild as they are now. But most likely we would never heard of Alan Passaro (so for him GIMME SHELTER was also the reason to get into a court, but also the reason to get off the hook.)

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-04-03 17:06 by Doxa.

Quote
terraplane
Hunter never pointed the gun at Passaro (according to available footage). So how is it that Passaro was acting in self defense (unless Hunter had threatened to shot him prior)? I always found that curious.

On the other hand, by some accounts, MH had been attacked beforehand. If you watch the footage, you can see part of Hunter on the left edge of the frame. A man with glasses seems to be looking down at him. It looks as if MH was knocked to the ground and came up to his feet with his pistol drawn.

The Angels were beating people with pool cues. They could have easily killed any number of people. Fortunately they didn't.

Had Hunter killed one of the Angels and got out of there he might have done okay in court. A lawyer might have been able to make a case that he did what he did in self defense. The video or the Angels actions that day would have helped him.


It is scary how quickly Passaro got that knife out and started stabbing. To see him calmly sitting on the stage at the end of the concert is disturbing. He was obviously bad news. He did spend a lot of his life in jail. It seems like it all caught up with him in 1985. I don't think anyone just goes for a swim with 10 thousand dollars on them.


I researched it once ( always interested in obscure figures who made news at one point ) and the theory was that he was chased to the Lake by some bad guys and his only way out was to try to swim for it. I can't remember the evidence to support that. I remember that it seemed somewhat logical.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2018-04-03 17:44 by stanlove.

Reading that "Sonny" piece (again..), he seems to be very angry towards Jagger for blaming the Angels. Does anybody know in where and when Jagger initially voiced that opinion that seemed to cause such a stir? What he actually said?

In the end, Jagger seems to be the center of attention in many things associated to Altamont (including the idea that he, and not, say, Bill Wyman, was tried to shoot there). America's rock culture's biggest voice, ROLLING STONE, ended up blaming him and his vanity for the fiasco of Altamont. Yeah, Mick's power and responsibility is beyond comprehension, but that's quite a far-reaching conclusion still...

In my eyes, if we are to play moral judges, I think the 'blame' typically is directed against two biggest factors there: (1) The Hells Angels for doing the actual dirty work, and (2) The Stones for causing that event to happen in the first place (and thereby, being the highest cooks in the food-chain of organising the event). In my mind, the whole Frisco scene, The Dead & Scully, their association with the Hells Angels, and all that, are usually - and oddly - given a free pass. If something stupid Jagger & Co. did, that was that of a naive belief that these cats know what they do. Which they obviously didn't. Like Ron Schneider has recently argued here in IORR, The Stones weren't directly involved in hiring the Hells Angels. It wasn't even a 'Rolling Stones free concert', but 'A Free Concert', just headlined by the Stones. To my eyes, The Stones were an 'easy target' to blame in moral sense, them being not local but sort of distant international rock stars - outsiders; them not being directly involved in trying sort out the aftermath of Altamont or trying to cope with under the conditions the event shattered. I think especially ROLLING STONE took this line of reasoning, thereby 'saving' the home ground for taking more responsibility into their own shoulders. Interestingly, if we look at the piece ROLLING STONE wrote about Passaro after he was released, it is rather 'humanist' one in trying to understand the actions and motives of this good husband and a father, almost making him if not a hero, but a some kind of victim of the event. Of course, this is the magazine who used Charlie Manson as a cover boy...

Of course, there are all other possible reasons - such as the weather, location, too low stage, bad acid, etc. etc. - to cause Altamont to be what it turned out to be, but just to simplify things I just picked up the ones more directly linked to the people's decisive actions. And blames.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2018-04-03 18:28 by Doxa.

Quote
terraplane
Hunter never pointed the gun at Passaro (according to available footage). So how is it that Passaro was acting in self defense (unless Hunter had threatened to shot him prior)? I always found that curious.

Not sure if this is a serious question ... if you waited for the person to point the gun directly at you, would that not be too late to react? (Of course it would be too late, I realize, just not sure if you realize that). Not to mention, if the gun is out, do you not need to make sure he doesn't shoot anybody, i.e. did it really have to be "self defense" to stop him?

Quote
curt
Are you at all aware of the rather racist outlook of the Hell's Angels?
I was in attendance at this gig, and per my observations the Angels did nothing but cause all manner of discord and violence.

This was not an heroic act, it was murder.

It was NOT murder. The guy had a gun for God's sake

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-04-03 22:51 by Koen.

Quote
potus43

Quote
curt
Are you at all aware of the rather racist outlook of the Hell's Angels?
I was in attendance at this gig, and per my observations the Angels did nothing but cause all manner of discord and violence.

This was not an heroic act, it was murder.

It was NOT murder. The guy had a gun for God's sake

I suppose in the technical sense it may not have been murder for the seeming lack of premeditation. However, it would be difficult to say that it WAS NOT: assault, assault and battery, assault with a deadly weapon, aggravated assault, or other such related charges summed up under the heading of manslaughter.

Quote
Doxa
Reading that "Sonny" piece (again..), he seems to be very angry towards Jagger for blaming the Angels. Does anybody know in where and when Jagger initially voiced that opinion that seemed to cause such a stir? What he actually said?

In the end, Jagger seems to be the center of attention in many things associated to Altamont (including the idea that he, and not, say, Bill Wyman, was tried to shoot there). America's rock culture's biggest voice, ROLLING STONE, ended up blaming him and his vanity for the fiasco of Altamont. Yeah, Mick's power and responsibility is beyond comprehension, but that's quite a far-reaching conclusion still...

In my eyes, if we are to play moral judges, I think the 'blame' typically is directed against two biggest factors there: (1) The Hells Angels for doing the actual dirty work, and (2) The Stones for causing that event to happen in the first place (and thereby, being the highest cooks in the food-chain of organising the event). In my mind, the whole Frisco scene, The Dead & Scully, their association with the Hells Angels, and all that, are usually - and oddly - given a free pass. If something stupid Jagger & Co. did, that was that of a naive belief that these cats know what they do. Which they obviously didn't. Like Ron Schneider has recently argued here in IORR, The Stones weren't directly involved in hiring the Hells Angels. It wasn't even a 'Rolling Stones free concert', but 'A Free Concert', just headlined by the Stones. To my eyes, The Stones were an 'easy target' to blame in moral sense, them being not local but sort of distant international rock stars - outsiders; them not being directly involved in trying sort out the aftermath of Altamont or trying to cope with under the conditions the event shattered. I think especially ROLLING STONE took this line of reasoning, thereby 'saving' the home ground for taking more responsibility into their own shoulders. Interestingly, if we look at the piece ROLLING STONE wrote about Passaro after he was released, it is rather 'humanist' one in trying to understand the actions and motives of this good husband and a father, almost making him if not a hero, but a some kind of victim of the event. Of course, this is the magazine who used Charlie Manson as a cover boy...

Of course, there are all other possible reasons - such as the weather, location, too low stage, bad acid, etc. etc. - to cause Altamont to be what it turned out to be, but just to simplify things I just picked up the ones more directly linked to the people's decisive actions. And blames.

- Doxa

You're suggesting blame on a lot of people of people and actions, but none of them seem to be listing either the dude w/ the gun and him pulling it out.

Quote
LeonidP


You're suggesting blame on a lot of people of people and actions, but none of them seem to be listing either the dude w/ the gun and him pulling it out.

My post above was a comment not directed towards the direct responsibility for the death of Meredith Hunter but towards to a larger responsibility for the event taking the nature it took, Hunter's killing being the most tragical consequence or top of it all. Jagger (and Stones' people) and Hell's Angels are traditionally pointed at (didn't Hunter's mother even tried to sue the Stones for the death of his son?), but I just wanted emphasize the role of West Coast scene in that (as Ron Schneider has recently done here). Actually I see some cowardness from their side to take responsibility, starting with Grateful Dead having not balls to perform at all.

I really don't have a strong opinion who to blame (and probably the whole idea to point at one 'guilty' there sounds naive afterwards), because the whole thing was a result of many contingent factors, but what I do resist is to think that everything was alright had not there been this one crazy black guy with his gun. To reduce all the blame to Hunter sounds stupid to my eyes. Like I have argued here, taking the technical evidence available, I think it was right that the jury freed Passaro from murder charges, but this doesn't mean that the actions of Hell's Angles didn't have a big role for Hunter's tragical fate, which begs to ask who was there to have this moron idea to 'hire' them there in the first place. And so on. True that Hunter acted stupidly, and he paid the biggest price for it, but according to my interpretation, he was driven into it by the odd, violent circumstances (that him being a stood-out, fancy dressed black man with a white girl friend probably didn't help either - and him carrying a gun). I take his reactive gun pointing as much being an act of 'self defence' as I take Passaro's reaction to it being as well.

Altogether, discussing Altamont and of its happenings and those who are responsible, is not, I think, a 'legal' issue to be settled in a court room, but more that of morality and trying to understand what the hell did happen.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2018-04-07 10:40 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa
Interesting to think about if there weren't the crucial film footage at all, what would happen then? Most likely there wouldn't haven't been the Passaro trial at all, because Passaro's identity was discovered from the base of the footage. In a hindsight one could say that shooting for GIMME SHELTER made the things to happen. Taking the damn lousy investigation (disinterest), my guess would be that without teh footage there hadn't been any trial at all. It all would have been based on testimony of drug-head hippies some drunken Angels. The facts being one throbbed to dead body, and then people like Scully saying things like "there's been this one crazy person who was threating everybody with his gun, but who, fortunately, was took off by the people who were hired there - by me, by the way - to do such a thing. Not need for any investigation. Let's move on." The testimonies would vary from person to person - as they actually did - and the police force would happily come to the conclusion that 'yeah, they didn't want us cops there in the first place, so let them sort this out by themselves. Hells Angels supposedly killed one black guy who supposedly was shooting there around, but no one seems be coherent enough to tell accuratively what happened. Big deal. Let us clear our hands from this shit."

Of course, the theories what actually happened and who to blame would be in that case even more wild as they are now. But most likely we would never heard of Alan Passaro (so for him GIMME SHELTER was also the reason to get into a court, but also the reason to get off the hook.)

- Doxa

One must wonder why the sole "result" of the autopsy was the determination that Meredith had meth in his system. I am certain that at least one of the assailants had the same in his bloodstream. Why is there no public airing of the findings of grievous bodily harm inflicted upon the victim ?

In addition: If Passaro was simply doing a righteous act in the way of civic responsibility why did it take 47 days before the police got hold of him ?
I mean why didn't he give a proper report of his actions to the local police.

Another item of interest would be commentary from the undercover officers present.

I intend to write more fully on this subject but am currently eyeball deep in the final stages of producing a book that has been in the works for some 43 years with the Rolling Stones as the subject matter.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2018-04-08 23:33 by curt.

Quote
curt

Quote
Doxa
Interesting to think about if there weren't the crucial film footage at all, what would happen then? Most likely there wouldn't haven't been the Passaro trial at all, because Passaro's identity was discovered from the base of the footage. In a hindsight one could say that shooting for GIMME SHELTER made the things to happen. Taking the damn lousy investigation (disinterest), my guess would be that without teh footage there hadn't been any trial at all. It all would have been based on testimony of drug-head hippies some drunken Angels. The facts being one throbbed to dead body, and then people like Scully saying things like "there's been this one crazy person who was threating everybody with his gun, but who, fortunately, was took off by the people who were hired there - by me, by the way - to do such a thing. Not need for any investigation. Let's move on." The testimonies would vary from person to person - as they actually did - and the police force would happily come to the conclusion that 'yeah, they didn't want us cops there in the first place, so let them sort this out by themselves. Hells Angels supposedly killed one black guy who supposedly was shooting there around, but no one seems be coherent enough to tell accuratively what happened. Big deal. Let us clear our hands from this shit."

Of course, the theories what actually happened and who to blame would be in that case even more wild as they are now. But most likely we would never heard of Alan Passaro (so for him GIMME SHELTER was also the reason to get into a court, but also the reason to get off the hook.)

- Doxa

One must wonder why the sole "result" of the autopsy was the determination that Meredith had meth in his system. I am certain that at least one of the assailants had the same in his bloodstream. Why is there no public airing of the findings of grieves bodily harm inflicted upon the victim ?

In addition: If Passaro was simply doing a righteous act in the way of civic responsibility why did it take 47 days before the police got hold of him ?
I mean why didn't he give a proper report of his actions to the local police.

Another item of interest would be commentary from the undercover officers present.

I intend to write more fully on this subject but am currently eyeball deep in the final stages of producing a book that has been in the works for some 43 years with the Rolling Stones as the subject matter.

It wasn't up to Passaro to go give a report of his actions. You are inventing things in your head that just don't make sense. It was up to the police to get a hold of him to question, take a report, etc.

And what do you mean about the autopsy ... it was reported how many times he was stabbed, again you are creating things, conspiracies or whatever about things that simply aren't there.

It is pretty simple. A guy had a gun and he was stabbed. That's it.

Could he have been stopped without being stabbed? Most likely, but once you put yourself in that position, you cannot guarantee how others may react ... getting killed is one possible result, and in this case that is what happened.

Wow what a thread. Just read it all in one go. Was delighted when Doxa popped up.
My 5 cents?
Americans, alone, and to the bemusement of most Europeans have a very strange relationship with firearms. So to me it's not surprising MH pulls out one when clearly feeling very threatened by these racist thugs.
He'd been targeted for his flash clothes and most importantly his @#$%& you to white society of daring to be seen with a white woman.
The angels were scum and any apologists for them should be ashamed.
The Stones? They did what they've always done. Got the hell out of Dodge refused to take any responsibilities for their actions and imho allowed, through the release and editing of the movie, the events of the day to add to the outlaw reputation they had traded on since ALO walked through the door.

No

Satisfied since 1976

Quote
vertigojoe
Wow what a thread. Just read it all in one go. Was delighted when Doxa popped up.
My 5 cents?
Americans, alone, and to the bemusement of most Europeans have a very strange relationship with firearms. So to me it's not surprising MH pulls out one when clearly feeling very threatened by these racist thugs.
He'd been targeted for his flash clothes and most importantly his @#$%& you to white society of daring to be seen with a white woman.
The angels were scum and any apologists for them should be ashamed.
The Stones? They did what they've always done. Got the hell out of Dodge refused to take any responsibilities for their actions and imho allowed, through the release and editing of the movie, the events of the day to add to the outlaw reputation they had traded on since ALO walked through the door.

That would be the SJW version of it. He brought a gun to a concert. He was not one of the many who were beaten by the Angels. He stood out yes, but he was not the only black guy there - he was the only one dressed as a pimp. I think he had an attitude that collided with a sociopathic criminal gang. Americans are not obsessed with guns, some are. Europeans are obsessed with something else right now. But let's leave out the politics and just say that there is a reason more and more europeans arm themselves.

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
vertigojoe
Wow what a thread. Just read it all in one go. Was delighted when Doxa popped up.
My 5 cents?
Americans, alone, and to the bemusement of most Europeans have a very strange relationship with firearms. So to me it's not surprising MH pulls out one when clearly feeling very threatened by these racist thugs.
He'd been targeted for his flash clothes and most importantly his @#$%& you to white society of daring to be seen with a white woman.
The angels were scum and any apologists for them should be ashamed.
The Stones? They did what they've always done. Got the hell out of Dodge refused to take any responsibilities for their actions and imho allowed, through the release and editing of the movie, the events of the day to add to the outlaw reputation they had traded on since ALO walked through the door.

That would be the SJW version of it. He brought a gun to a concert. He was not one of the many who were beaten by the Angels. He stood out yes, but he was not the only black guy there - he was the only one dressed as a pimp. I think he had an attitude that collided with a sociopathic criminal gang. Americans are not obsessed with guns, some are. Europeans are obsessed with something else right now. But let's leave out the politics and just say that there is a reason more and more europeans arm themselves.

Islam?

I said a strange relationship not Obsessed.
And if Meredith Hunter wants to dress like a pimp then I think he's within his rights to do so.

"pimp" like "thug" is very loaded racial terminology that has historically been very commonly effective in stoking embedded and entrenched racist energy.
they are not referring to Asian sexual trafficking; or European....
...well for me it's a good thing peopeo are different colors,
so i can tell the good ones from the ones that might be, you know,,,
some useless flashy 'common' thug...cause i wouldn't want to
get raped or beaten or drugged-up or kidnapped by some lazy-ass flash criminal parasite...some of these people are on welfare too and drink a lot and
even shoot each other like animals...i forget which color right now but some of them for sure....
....look at the way they dress; they all dress like that.
they'd have class if they ever went to one hawwwwwwwwwww gimme another beer...

[rationalwiki.org]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-04-09 01:20 by hopkins.

Quote
vertigojoe
Wow what a thread. Just read it all in one go. Was delighted when Doxa popped up.
My 5 cents?
Americans, alone, and to the bemusement of most Europeans have a very strange relationship with firearms. So to me it's not surprising MH pulls out one when clearly feeling very threatened by these racist thugs.
He'd been targeted for his flash clothes and most importantly his @#$%& you to white society of daring to be seen with a white woman.
The angels were scum and any apologists for them should be ashamed.
The Stones? They did what they've always done. Got the hell out of Dodge refused to take any responsibilities for their actions and imho allowed, through the release and editing of the movie, the events of the day to add to the outlaw reputation they had traded on since ALO walked through the door.

Thanks, I am totally sharing your sentiments, and the reason why I 'popped up' was some of the opinions and attitudes I saw here that I never thought would be possible to be made public in 2018. But then again, I do understand why that is even okay in today's world. Unfortunately. As far as Hunter's tragedy goes, I need to say that I've never been that interested in searching that one that further, but this very thread made me to do so.

For those attitudes in regards to the killing of Altamont, and the sentiments saying that 'Hunter deserved it', I'll make just three remarks. These are reflections based on what I have read in this thread. I don't specify from whom they are, or anything like that - the people can see that by themselves to whom I am talking to. These are just general observations - the very reason I started initially to write on this very thread.

First, that of 'why did he needed to go there in the front in the first place', even 'leaving' his girl friend aside occasionally and all that. My god - isn't that such an unthinkable scenario in a Rolling Stones concert???? Could it be possible that him, like like many of us, would like to see our heroes as near as possible???? Our moderator made a post some years ago how 'everyone is on their own when the concert starts, and no friendships hold there if one wants to get as good view as possible', etc. Why would have Hunter, as a Rolling Stones fan, being any different? Does some people here even think him as a fellow Rolling Stones fan? Like he did act like a Rolling Stones fan like any of us? Or as someone or something else?

Secondly, him dressed flashy like a 'pimp' (no offend, Carpet) or any way other differing from the crowd (or some other black person), like having a white girl friend. Would that make his beating, harrassing and killing justified? Because he was no Uncle Tom? 'He was looking for it', indeed. Had he been a smart little black boy, dressed nicely, and stayed behind, not carrying his white girlfriend there, and just to be non-seen, he wouldn't have seen that trouble to come, right? Oh yeah. Thank god, not all of his ethnic contemporaries, starting with Doctor King and the people refused anymore to be going to 'coloured' toilets, backseats of busses or restaurants, etc. didn't think so - behaving like black people should do in order to be tolerated and not beaten up by the people in charge. Yeah, The Angels back in 1969 think so, as I see some people here still do. The scope of intolerance and pure racism here is simply terrifying.

Thirdly, the attitude of people thinking 'I wouldn't have done like he did - got there in front and 'start trouble' because I very well know what the Hells Angels are like' tells just nothing else but of their own cowardness in the front of illegal violence (or some sort of sick adoration of The Hells Angels and/or the authority of pure power based on violence). That just say that the people, if not adoring the cruelty, have no the courage to defend justice and have no balls to stand for their rights. And they accuse a person who had those balls - to be what he is, and proudly, and not tolerate everything - for being 'stupid'. Is that kind of loser attitude that once made America great, uh??? That never mind the rightness or wrongness of the things, if I just can save my own very balls??? Thank god that there are people among us, in America and everywhere, who have the courage do something different, no matter if that will cost even their lives. It is great that for some people the justice - the ability to distinguish the good from the evil - do actually matter.

All in all, like you did vertigojoe, I find that disturbing that some people find the actions of The Hells Angles at Altamont justified, and have the nerve to accuse people like Meredith Hunter, and I guess every damn hippie who got beaten up there, just 'looking for it'. Unfortunately, I do see the agenda by these people here.

Never thought I should need to go through things like this shit in a Rolling Stones discussion board. It is a cruel world out there, indeed. But if I see some people simply symphatizing cruelty and injustice, I need to do - or at least say - something.

- Doxa



Edited 14 time(s). Last edit at 2018-04-09 02:43 by Doxa.

Doxa; I love your posts so much generally speaking; this one makes me weep with gratitude.
I haven't read you in a few months and was just really appreciative of the thought went into it;
and your ability to communicate has really helped me strive to be more clear with myself; and then work harder on being clear with others....
...tho your color and imagination, like many here, are inspiring...,

many here, even those I've tussled with in the past are loved and appreciated. this is such sensitive material.
I appreciate the forum where we could share about it; I don't think people conciously wanting to be mean to others; and wouldn't be in person;
there's so much seperation; it's hard to understand; as even those close to the dynamics of seeming cohesive racial integration;
there are very much different worlds; and different sub-cultures within these worlds...

division is stoked by both sides; enemies are absolutely necessary or you've gothing to talk about; raise funds for, SAve people from, scare people with...
...stoke their egos or shame with professional psychological marketing,
very much hyper-aware, as it is a technology, how to code things;
target things; you can't have a 'side' or issue unless one is the crusader
fighting the eevil fascists and saving the world click to donate...carry a sign...write a check...take a picture....
now you know who you are and who they are.
perfect.
any issue at all.
it just plain works.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2018-04-09 02:19 by hopkins.

I've followed this thread in fits and starts. It was great to see the return of bemused. Ronnie is always wonderful to find here.

There is so much speculation in this thread that can never be answered. The facts, for me, are that Altamont has one thing in common with the tragedy at Kent State a few months later: if you have volatile elements and let them mix, the resulting explosion is inevitable.

This wasn't Woodstock, this was darker and harder-edged. Angels with booze and hippies (including a black hippie with a gun) with acid are a tragedy waiting to happen. The whole thing is awful, but thank God it wasn't even worse.

It's a bit like college kids protesting in Nixon's America. Someone, likely not the victims, threw stones and possibly even dog shit. The National Guard weren't supposed to have bullets and weren't supposed to open fire, but when one does, someone follows. The result is tragedy. Thank God it wasn't an even worse bloodbath.

The awful thing about stereotypes is there's enough truth to give many people license to say ignorant things in public.

Spoken as an American who doesn't own a gun and hates violence. What a shame there's enough justification for the stereotype of Americans as gun-toting rednecks. Even more of a shame it hasn't changed in nearly half a century and countless examples of violence year after year.

As a further aside, I worked in Northwestern Alberta for a couple years in an oil field. Canadians have a very different view on guns than their neighbors to the South. Working in the oil sands, many of those guys lived in remote areas. Most have hunting rifles for hunting or protection. They don't have handguns.

There was one tragedy with gun violence in the entire nation during the two years I worked there. When I addressed my crew that morning, they were all traumatized about the news. I told them, honestly, I couldn't relate. I was an inner city kid growing up. I had guns pointed at me twice before I was eighteen. Once by cops in a case of mistaken identity or abuse of power (who can say) and once by a classmate who decided to bring a loaded gun to school and shut up my smart mouth. Shootings were common in my neighborhood. You react when it's on your street, not around the corner. Here they were upset over one incident in their capitol. The only incident in years. And yet, they were gun owners.

I look to what it's like in the States and the message is politicized. The media portrays gun control as no guns. No hunting rifles. Nothing. Seizure of arms. Violation of constitutional rights. Tyranny. Antithetical to our national values. No one says hunting rifles are legal, just not the stuff most crimes are committed with. So it goes. Year after year. Left and Right think the other is the threat. Administrations vacillate between political parties. The same big industries (bio-pharma, defense contractors, oil) stay in control. The people stay misinformed on both sides. It would be funny if it wasn't sad.

What's this have to do with Altamont? Nothing? Everything? The same problems then are the same problems now.

As for stereotypes, Penn Jillette did a great bit on statistics. Statistically, most terrorist attacks will be committed by Islamic extremists. Statistically, most Muslims will never commit or support a terrorist attack. People grasp the former, but not the latter when they let fear turn to intolerance. That becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy if you let the ignorance spread. The same is true with crime in the ghetto and every other nasty stereotype that's appeared here under the guise of "the truth."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-04-09 06:44 by Rocky Dijon.

With attitude I mean he probably wanted to stand out, didnt feel he belonged, didnt want to belong to the hippie crowd - nothing wrong in that of course but it might tell us something about why he was armed in the first place. On the other hand: why the hell was the Hells Angels armed with knives and what not. Had Hunter shot an Angel during one of their beatings my question would have been if he was a hero killing one of the thugs. Even if he was dressed like 50 Cent.

One of the emerging themes of this thread is that some IORR contributors just adore the Angels. No questions asked. They just love the Angels And will defend them without condition.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-04-09 17:32 by KevinLocksPerm.

Quote
KevinLocksPerm
One of the emerging themes of this thread is that some IORR contributors just adore the Angels. No questions asked. They just love the Angels And will defend them without condition.

Really?

I usually answer the questions here but I have one after checking this thread...

What would you say about the guy that killed the guy with a gun if he wasn't a Hells Angel?? remembering he had a knife against a gun..in a crowd of around 300,000?

Quote
bmuseed
I usually answer the questions here but I have one after checking this thread...

What would you say about the guy that killed the guy with a gun if he wasn't a Hells Angel?? remembering he had a knife against a gun..in a crowd of around 300,000?

Good question.
In both instances I would say it was self-defense or in the defense of others.

But, if the guy and his buddies had spent the day cracking heads, assaulting and threatening innocent people, I might argue that there were mitigating circumstances and the guy with a gun was provoked.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-04-09 19:36 by MisterDDDD.

Quote
vertigojoe
.... So to me it's not surprising MH pulls out one when clearly feeling very threatened by these racist thugs.
He'd been targeted for his flash clothes and most importantly his @#$%& you to white society of daring to be seen with a white woman...

Wow, that is a lot of assumptions you are making. You are stating them as facts yet have no idea if it was true.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
vertigojoe
Wow what a thread. Just read it all in one go. Was delighted when Doxa popped up.
My 5 cents?
Americans, alone, and to the bemusement of most Europeans have a very strange relationship with firearms. So to me it's not surprising MH pulls out one when clearly feeling very threatened by these racist thugs.
He'd been targeted for his flash clothes and most importantly his @#$%& you to white society of daring to be seen with a white woman.
The angels were scum and any apologists for them should be ashamed.
The Stones? They did what they've always done. Got the hell out of Dodge refused to take any responsibilities for their actions and imho allowed, through the release and editing of the movie, the events of the day to add to the outlaw reputation they had traded on since ALO walked through the door.

Thanks, I am totally sharing your sentiments, and the reason why I 'popped up' was some of the opinions and attitudes I saw here that I never thought would be possible to be made public in 2018. But then again, I do understand why that is even okay in today's world. Unfortunately. As far as Hunter's tragedy goes, I need to say that I've never been that interested in searching that one that further, but this very thread made me to do so.

For those attitudes in regards to the killing of Altamont, and the sentiments saying that 'Hunter deserved it', I'll make just three remarks. These are reflections based on what I have read in this thread. I don't specify from whom they are, or anything like that - the people can see that by themselves to whom I am talking to. These are just general observations - the very reason I started initially to write on this very thread.

First, that of 'why did he needed to go there in the front in the first place', even 'leaving' his girl friend aside occasionally and all that. My god - isn't that such an unthinkable scenario in a Rolling Stones concert???? Could it be possible that him, like like many of us, would like to see our heroes as near as possible???? Our moderator made a post some years ago how 'everyone is on their own when the concert starts, and no friendships hold there if one wants to get as good view as possible', etc. Why would have Hunter, as a Rolling Stones fan, being any different? Does some people here even think him as a fellow Rolling Stones fan? Like he did act like a Rolling Stones fan like any of us? Or as someone or something else?

Secondly, him dressed flashy like a 'pimp' (no offend, Carpet) or any way other differing from the crowd (or some other black person), like having a white girl friend. Would that make his beating, harrassing and killing justified? Because he was no Uncle Tom? 'He was looking for it', indeed. Had he been a smart little black boy, dressed nicely, and stayed behind, not carrying his white girlfriend there, and just to be non-seen, he wouldn't have seen that trouble to come, right? Oh yeah. Thank god, not all of his ethnic contemporaries, starting with Doctor King and the people refused anymore to be going to 'coloured' toilets, backseats of busses or restaurants, etc. didn't think so - behaving like black people should do in order to be tolerated and not beaten up by the people in charge. Yeah, The Angels back in 1969 think so, as I see some people here still do. The scope of intolerance and pure racism here is simply terrifying.

Thirdly, the attitude of people thinking 'I wouldn't have done like he did - got there in front and 'start trouble' because I very well know what the Hells Angels are like' tells just nothing else but of their own cowardness in the front of illegal violence (or some sort of sick adoration of The Hells Angels and/or the authority of pure power based on violence). That just say that the people, if not adoring the cruelty, have no the courage to defend justice and have no balls to stand for their rights. And they accuse a person who had those balls - to be what he is, and proudly, and not tolerate everything - for being 'stupid'. Is that kind of loser attitude that once made America great, uh??? That never mind the rightness or wrongness of the things, if I just can save my own very balls??? Thank god that there are people among us, in America and everywhere, who have the courage do something different, no matter if that will cost even their lives. It is great that for some people the justice - the ability to distinguish the good from the evil - do actually matter.

All in all, like you did vertigojoe, I find that disturbing that some people find the actions of The Hells Angles at Altamont justified, and have the nerve to accuse people like Meredith Hunter, and I guess every damn hippie who got beaten up there, just 'looking for it'. Unfortunately, I do see the agenda by these people here.

Never thought I should need to go through things like this shit in a Rolling Stones discussion board. It is a cruel world out there, indeed. But if I see some people simply symphatizing cruelty and injustice, I need to do - or at least say - something.

- Doxa

Thanks for taking the time to reply to my post Doxa. I think it's very difficult to say what any of us would do put in that situation. But you summed it up eloquently as ever. Your writing is one of the reasons I still check in here.
It sure ain't to hang with the Trump voters. ..Joke!

video: [youtu.be]

It looks like he’s aiming at the stage or the Angels in front of the stage.