Daily Kos

Texas Skinhead Sodomized Hispanic Boy, Trial Begins

Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 05:11:27 PM PDT

Originally posted at TexasKaos.com



David Tuck (on the left) is the skinhead who along with his buddies attacked a Hispanic boy at a party, including kicking a PCPPVC pipe so deep into his rectum that the boy fell unconscious.

Tuck and his posse (also charged was Keith Robert Turner) called the boy racist names and beat the boy so badly it was not known if he'd survive. They poured bleach on the boy's body and then left him for dead.

Tuck has not expressed any remorse.

Thankfully, the boy did survive after months in a hospital undergoing intensive surgery.  But do you think he will ever physically or mentally be the same? How long do you think it will take for him to stop having nightmares?

Is the kind of trash that conservatives like mAnn(see comment) Ann "Where's a skinhead when you need one?" Coulter and Michelle Malkin want in the Republican party?

GMT expertly  described how the hateful "free speech" of the Coulters and Malkins of the world transforms into violent criminals and sodomized victims in communities around the nation.

Politicians and pundits advance their careers by playing on hopes and fears, unaware or just not caring that the things they say have consequences.  The overheated rhetoric surrounding immigration doesn't distinguish between immigrants from Mexico and Americans of Mexican descent (they're trying to take back Aztlan, didn't you hear?), much less between legal and illegal immigrants.

What amazes me is that Tuck's attack was not labeled a hate crime. Maybe the prosecutors are being careful but an example must be made out of Tuck or more Texans will become victims of such bigotry.

We canNOT be timid about our response to Hate Crime.

The Hispanic boy was as American as any boy. He came to the house where Tuck attacked him to hang out with his friends and party. He was interested in sports, music and girls. He played football for his school which he will never do again. In fact, he will have physical disabilities for the rest of his life.

Listen to a neighbor who saw the boy taken to the hospital when his body was discovered in the morning:

Sunday morning, Nancy Benavidez saw the ambulance next door and wishes she hadn't seen who they brought out.

"He was severely beaten. Oh, I couldn't believe it. His face was so swollen. Lips everything. There was just blood everywhere," she said.

Tuck was a sociopath in trouble with the law previously for a cross-burning incident, thought of as "trouble" by other students, and avoided by neighbors.

It doesn't surprise me. I figured he would have done something like that," said a student.

"He always tells me that he would have and that he was going to one day and that was his destination for him to come to school was to find someone to put in their right mind," said student Anita Stockstill.

America which one of these young men would you want to represent you? Texas you tell me who represents your values better?!

I don't care if you want to build a moat around the US and never allow another immigrant in. The day we allow a man to rape and attempt to murder a boy because he's different is the day we are not worth putting a fence around anymore - except to protect people from us.

Tuck is the worst of America and Texas and this monster was enable by creatures worse than him: the hateful scapegoating agenda of conservatives who care more about their political power and ratings - than actually offering real solutions to a complex issues.

Nah, it's much easier to blame a bunch of brown people who eat funny food and speak funny and have funny names that are hard to pronounce!

After the pummeling the reputation of America and Texas have taken in the past few years because of divisive and arrogant leaders, we don't need more trash stinking our image up.

America & Texas, we are better than this. Let's prove it once again.

Tags: hate crimes, racism (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 71 comments

  •  Didn't Bush (10+ / 0-)

    veto the hate crime law when he was Gov. of TX? This is really dreadful. This kid Tuck shouldn't be allowed in society.  He is definitely psychopathic.

    My middle name is Hussein!

    by regis on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 05:16:24 PM PDT

  •  Ann Coulter should have to answer for this (12+ / 0-)

    as well.  Probably the best we could hope for is to hear her have to apologize publicly.  For Shame.

  •  Is there a fund (11+ / 0-)

    set up for the victim's medical bills etc.?

    If you think you're too small to be effective, you've never been in the dark with a mosquito.

    by marykk on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 05:20:46 PM PDT

  •  Texas really isn't like this (12+ / 0-)

    we have some of the best people down here who even if they disagree with ya, would just leave ya be if you left them be.  

    but there are jerks and evil people everywhere, here included. and there are manipulative politicians playing to the hate & fear for their seats.

    the biggest problem with Mark Foley wasn't his child molestation actually. it was the leadership that knowingly let him do it - THAT was the worst IMHO.

    you expect pedophile and evil people to be out there.

    you don't expect our leadership to enable these guys.

    limbaugh, malkin, coulter & all those Michael J Fox attacking, immgrant scapegoating, "where's a skinhead when i need one" types are the ones who enable and incite more violence in the world.

    rec if ya want. no mojo. please.

    this story just hasn't gained traction for whatever reason. not sure why.

  •  Thanks for your diary (11+ / 0-)

    I wrote a diary about the hateful attack on then sixteen year old David Ritcheson back in April:

    Which Came First - Demagoguery or Violence? White Teens Beat Latino Youth for Kissing White Girl

    It's good to see that the skin heads are going to trial.

    ```
    peace

  •  I'm going to say something un-popular. (5+ / 0-)

    And I'm gay, so this effects me personally.

    But I don't like hate crimes.  I don't like them, because they criminalize thought.  What was done to that boy was awful.  His attackers should be in jail for a long time.

    But we can do that without criminalizing what someone thinks.

    I honor that service, and I respect [McCain's] many accomplishments, even if he chooses to deny mine. Obama 6/3/08

    by AUBoy2007 on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 05:23:44 PM PDT

    •  Do they? (7+ / 0-)

      We already recognize a distinction in crimes: there are different degrees of murder (although, as Bierce quipped, it hardly matters to the victim).  Dave Neiwert argues that a hate crime is functionally different because it's an act against a community, not an individual.  You should check out his essays on it, and see if you feel the same way.

      I understand your fear on this, but I think he makes some good points, as well.

      Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

      by pico on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 05:29:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  DAMN! (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Avila, pico

        i thought of the "community" link w/o reading his essay.

        man, i'm getting good at this.

        i'm spending too much time here.

      •  Well... (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        michael1104

        Distinction in crimes like Murder has nothing to do with motive (which is what a hate crime would cover... why was person x attacked/killed).  Murder distinctions occur when there's a difference on whether or not you intended to kill the person, did so accidentitally, etc.  Intent is different then the why.

        As for the essay you linked too, I take issue here:

        Many mainstream liberals have capitulated to the right-wing, pseudo-libertarian contention that hate-crimes laws create "thought crimes." As I explained then:

          ...

           As I point out in the book, hate crimes have the fully intended effect of driving away and deterring the presence of any kind of hated minority -- racial, religious, or sexual. They are essentially acts of terrorism directed at entire communities of people, and they are message crimes: "Keep out." (emphasis added)

        They are acts of terrorism. I can agree with that.  But when we punish terrorists, we punish them for the acts they commit (or attempt to commit).  Not for the fear they were trying to create.

        I honor that service, and I respect [McCain's] many accomplishments, even if he chooses to deny mine. Obama 6/3/08

        by AUBoy2007 on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 05:38:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wrong. (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          wu ming

          In most jurisdiction, your sentence is doubled or worse if your victim is a policeman.  So we do already make value judgments according to the victim.

          And you aren't even allowed to talk about causing bodily harm to certain elected officials.  It's against the law.  Unless you're Ann Coulter, that is.

          •  Wait a second. (0+ / 0-)

            The fact that a victim is a police man has nothing to do with the rationale behind the crime.  The same is true for the elderly and children.

            Hate crimes are about the victim yes, but specifically why this victim was singled out.  If you attack someone and they just happen to be gay, that wouldn't be a hate crime.  The hate crime is when you attack them when they're gay.  This distinction is not there with a police officer.  Now unless you are suggesting that minorities become a protected class in that sence (such as if the victim is x, it is an automatic additional y years on the sentence), then they are two fundamentally different things.

            And I'm not comfortable with that.  I don't know why, but it just doesn't seem correct.

            As for politicians, I'm cynical in that respect.  But there is the guise of national security, should you choose to accept that.

            I honor that service, and I respect [McCain's] many accomplishments, even if he chooses to deny mine. Obama 6/3/08

            by AUBoy2007 on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 06:02:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  i love good debate (5+ / 0-)

      & appreciate your perspective.

      as a minority, perhaps i'm biased but i think hate crime should have another level attached to it.

      why?

      b/c it attacks a community not just an individual. when a community feels attacked it can not only hurt that community - but it can spark the kind of hatred between communities that can break or divide societies.

      look at what Bush's divisive policies have done to the US. it has been incredibly caustic & left unchecked could undermine social order.

      and i know that sounds melodramatic but if you continued the divisive GOP policies, where else would you end?

      just a thought.

      •  lil love took my answer. (0+ / 0-)

        On some level, all crimes are against the community.  Break-ins inspire fear in the neighborhood.  Muggings, attacks, and rapes inspire fear.

        Even more so, we don't criminalize things for the fear it causes.  We criminalize the act.  The only thing I can think of that come close is burning crosses.  But is that actually criminal?

        The point is, we can criminalize actions.  Add penalties for the damage done, and still not criminalize the thought behind it.

        I honor that service, and I respect [McCain's] many accomplishments, even if he chooses to deny mine. Obama 6/3/08

        by AUBoy2007 on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 05:58:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  is cross-burning criminal? (0+ / 0-)

          yes, the same as assault is criminal, because it is a threat of violence.

          intent is prosecuted in lots of cases, hence the distinction between first and second degree murder. hate crimes are intended to terrorize a specific community. they are not the same as regular crimes, which are generally personal or symbolically null in nature.

          surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat

          by wu ming on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 07:06:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ah, but... (0+ / 0-)

            the intent is to commit the crime.  That's the difference between the degree of murders.  It's not the intent behind the crime (aka the motivation).

            If I shoot a man in the head, I've committed first degree murder.  If does not matter if my intent was be make a statement about gays or to releave a dying man of his pain.

            Any distinction above that is criminalizing the thoughts behind the action.  No matter what the movtivation, we look at the crime itself.  In these cases, the crime is the murder/assult/whatever.

            I honor that service, and I respect [McCain's] many accomplishments, even if he chooses to deny mine. Obama 6/3/08

            by AUBoy2007 on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 07:16:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Agree (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      AUBoy2007, Matthias, elie

      This is reprehensible and the guys should do a long stretch of time in Prison.

      But 'hate crime' legislation does criminalize thought and that is wrong.

      •  i see your concern (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        billlaurelMD, Albatross

        & thought shouldn't be penalized but the act should be.

        consider the community argument listed above.

        •  but (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          krazypuppy, redcardphreek

          aren't all crimes, crimes against the community? That is why it is the state v perp and not the victim v perp in any criminal case. Isn't rape a crime against the community - sexual terrorism is often used to describe that crime because it doesn't just affect the victim. I just don't think the community rationale holds up.

          ehem, troops out now please.

          by lil love on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 05:46:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  an example (0+ / 0-)

            i appreciate the issue you make regarding thought & understand the slippery slope issue it can be.

            it IS dangerous to attack thought - however, i don't believe we're punishing thought.

            to your question, no i don't believe we are speaking  the same "community".

            the community you speak of is a generic community too abstract to incite an emotional connection with most people.

            however, if you say "black community" or "gay community", it creates a very emotional & personal response in that community.

            no one takes "State" personally - but the latter, oh yeah, it's personal.

            Just think the Rodney King trial.

            take this example: a black man is killed by a white man.

            scenario 1: the black man is killed b/c the white man was robbing him.

            scenario 2: the black man is killed b/c he is black.

            which scenario can create a more violent reaction in the black community? which one would breed more hatred within the black community, cause self-esteem issues in impressionable black youth, and create long-term animosity in black Americans that would continue for years?

            a black man was beaten in 1994 because he was black and we had riots. if he was beaten b/c he was just a man, it wouldn't have been such a big deal.

            the elevation of hate crime is important IMHO b/c it prevents the community wide fissures that tear societies.

            a black or gay man being murdered is sad enough. families are devastated and a life is lost.

            but a murder that damages a community takes that murder and multiplies the violence and damage - for a long time.

            on a more pragmatic level, we're accustomed to a nation of laws but having gone through a civil war & seeing the violence that results from inciteful speeches in Iraq, it is IMHO dangerous to allow such violent crimes tear communities apart.

            just some thoughts.

        •  Would not the act be punished (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          elie

          under regular law?

          Does hate crime legislation act as more of a deterrent to a crime?

          Believe me, I see your point, but I disagree with it.

          Would not a similar crime inflicted on someone by the same ethnic heritage be a crime against the community?

          •  i don't think (0+ / 0-)

            of it as a deterrent, but rather as a pressure release valve and as an education vehicle.

            if you ignore the source of the crime, then it doesn't address the issue. by calling it a hate crime, it gets discussed in society.

            ignoring the hate only allows the pressure to build.

            i dont believe the hate crime legislation is about the individual attacker but force discussion.

            to your last question, yes but its not a crime that will incite one community to attack or hold animosities against another community.

            which perpetuate a cycle of violence.

    •  You are not criminalizing what... (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Cynical Copper

      ...someone thinks. You are criminalizing announcing that hatred and then acting on it through violence.

      If you express your hatred toward a man because you think he is gay (or hatred against a man because you don't like the fact that he was born in Mexico), there is no criminal penalty.

      If you express hatred toward a man because he is gay or mexican or white or French and then rape him with a foreign object, almost killing him, you will be punished criminally for your hate crime. The emphasis is on the crime here, not the hate. But we do wish to discourage hateful violence, but punishing it more highly than mindless violence.

      Please don't tell me you feel sorry for Ben. Ben is a well cared for dalmatian and has not been harmed by my political views.

      by Bensdad on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 07:07:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wait a second... (0+ / 0-)

        You are criminalizing announcing that hatred and then acting on it through violence.

        I don't think you'd have to annouce it for it to fall under the suggested hate crimes laws.  I think would probably be enough for the prosecutor to show the hatred behind it though any means possible.

        And with this you are still criminalizing a thought.

        Even if you say, I'm going to kill you because you are (whatever minority), we punish you for the murder, and not for the motivation behind it.  Punishing the motivation, not matter how vile it may be, is still punishing thought.

        he emphasis is on the crime here, not the hate. But we do wish to discourage hateful violence, but punishing it more highly than mindless violence.

        I think you'll find that most violence is not "mindless."  There's a lot of reasons why people do things, and I should think it is rare that one would commit a crime with no reason.  The point is, to avoid this, we punish the crime and not the reason.

        I honor that service, and I respect [McCain's] many accomplishments, even if he chooses to deny mine. Obama 6/3/08

        by AUBoy2007 on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 07:20:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You are incorrect... (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          KathleenM1

          ...the hatred must be express. The expression is almost always verbal. You could express it in writing. ("I hate fags and one of these nights I'm going to go to the fag area of town and hit one over the head with a pipe and then ram it up his ass").

          If you merely think this, there is no crime. If you express it and then shortly thereafter act on it through violence you are guilty of a hate crime. Not a thought crime.

          You are punishing the crime, and not the thought. However, because of the societal interest in reducing crimes against hated minorities (or even hated majorities), we ENHANCE the punishment -- that is, the punishment is greater. This sends a message to others who might commit such crimes that society takes them more seriously than simple acts of violence.

          Most violence is, I think, pretty mindless. Usuallly completely thoughtless. But when you say to someone "I hate mexican fags" and then you find and assult someone you perceive to be Mexican and gay, society will convict you of the crime, and then, because you targeted a Mexican and a gay person, your sentenced will he enhanced. You will spend more time in jail for acting on your express hatred.

          I understand your point of view. But the courts disagree with it.

          Please don't tell me you feel sorry for Ben. Ben is a well cared for dalmatian and has not been harmed by my political views.

          by Bensdad on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 08:01:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  No, you're not criminalizing thought. (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Bensdad

        You're criminalizing the action of targeting an individual for violence, based on that individual's membership in a particular group.  

        Targeting someone for violence is an action.  The slur that accompanies the violence is not the crime, but the evidence of the targeting.  

    •  no....it criminalizes the actions they took... (0+ / 0-)

      in response to the thought.  Would they have done this randomly to just any boy?  I don't believe they would have.

      Article 6: "...no religious test shall *ever* be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the U.S."

      by billlaurelMD on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 07:41:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

      I think what these assclowns did is sufficient enough to merit 30 to life already without a lable. I don't even have a problem with the death penalty in some cases (I do have issues with the class disparity upon who actully gets it.)
      That said, I feal everyone should be prosecuted under the same rules. Hate crimes, drug offenders, enemey combatents, sex offenders, ect. are all labels that could be loosley interpeted to circumvent the bill of rights.

      Just when they think they've got the answer, I change the question. -Roddy Piper

      by McGirk on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 08:49:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is a terrible story (1+ / 0-)

    David Tuck looks very young to be so damaged that he would commit this atrocity. I immediately wondered about his parents.

    Think Tank. "A place where people are paid to think by the makers of tanks" Naomi Klein.

    by ohcanada on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 05:30:00 PM PDT

  •  It is even uglier (10+ / 0-)

    following the trial of the men who brutally murdered James Byrd Jr., in texas, the sister of the deceased actually met with then-governor bush to lobby him to please sign the texas hate crimes bill into law.

    he shook her hand, made nice chat, and eventually vetoed the bill. remember, her brother, james byrd, had been dragged behind a truck, and was decapitated while being dragged behind the truck.

    hate crime legislation is not about what someone THINKS, but about how someone ACTS.  when someone deliberately does something injurious to someone -- knowing that a fundamental reason for doing such is because of that person's race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender -- that goes far beyond the issue of "thoughts."  

    _______________

    it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."

    -9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)

    by dadanation on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 05:31:54 PM PDT

  •  hard choice (0+ / 0-)

    Let's see, rampaging skinhead cold-blooded lunatic punk or a hispanic guy . . . are you really serious in asking, even rhetorically, "America which one of these men [sic] would you want to represent you? Texas you tell me who represents your values better?"

  •  Minor correction (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    krazypuppy

    It's PVC pipe, not PCP.

    But thanks for keeping us updated on this awful story.

  •  James Byrd Jr (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    krazypuppy, peace voter

    And didn't this happen on Bush Junior's watch? Everything seems to turn to $#!t when Junior takes over, doesn't it".

    Texas sheriff 'knew somebody was murdered because he was black'.

  •  You wrote: (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    peace voter

    mAnn "Where's a skinhead when you need one?" Coulter

    Spewing this gender-crap of yours, what makes you any better than her?

    Just wondering.

    •  um (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      peace voter

      you're right. taunting a hateful, destructive person who happens to be a woman with an Adam's apple is equivalent to calling for the death of professors at the hands of skinheads.

      it's the same as oh, sending white powder to the NYTimes.

      and of course it's no better than demanding we invade Muslim nations, murder their leaders, and force them to  give up their faith for another's.

      tomAtoe, tomAHtoe.

      seriously. a boy was attacked & one letter was all that you can comment on?

      just wondering myself.

      •  It's a horrible situation... (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        krazypuppy

        ...a horrible story, and very distressing.  Couldn't it be told without the "mAnn Coulter" stuff?  It does nothing to attack Coulter, but rather disparages actual gender-variant people, who have done nothing to deserve that behavior.

        In your zeal to attack one person, you have struck innocent bystanders.  How does that make sense?

        •  yes it certainly could have (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          rserven

          actually i never saw the transexual element of your point. as i stated to peace voter below i meant no offense to anyone.

          i truly don't know where i stand on this but will think more deeply about it. given your eloquence & subject of the diary, it'd make no sense to rant against one group & (inadvertently) slam another, would it?

          but you absolutely right that it could've done w/o the mAnn reference. Coulter really brings out the worst in us sometimes. that's what hatred does.

          thanks for checking that. too many have stayed silent. i enjoy good criticism - makes a person better.

          thanks.

          & apologies for the defensive tone of the previous comment - not all responses here are as deep as yours & i made the mistake of thinking you were just being defensive.

          i will say that the 2nd comment elaborated further on your first & allowed me to see what you were talking about - i completely missed the transgender point.

          take care.

    •  I can't sleep (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      krazypuppy

      I shouldn't be up now - & I'm way too tired to write the kind of comment that I think is called for here.  I'd just like to explain that I recommended this diary before I had time to read it carefully - I was distracted - saw that the diary covered an important story and decided that I would come back to it when I had more time - when I came back I saw the offensive part about right wing Coulter and got that sinking feeling - it was an "oh no, here we go again" moment.  

      I'm going to assume good faith here - I'm going to assume that krazypuppy doesn't 'get it' yet - I'm going to assume that krazypuppy doesn't understand that the speculation about Coulter actually distracts from the diary and displays a destructive insenitivity to our transexual brothers and sisters - an insensitivity of which I too have been guilty - in the past - hopefully in the past - and now that I've seen the light, I think it's my responsibility to help krazypuppy understand how the remarks about Coulter are hurtful - not to Coulter - but to all of us.  The problem is that I'm waay too tired to do this subject justice - so I'm going to leave it for the night & hope to come back to the conversation when I'm not so tired.

      ```
      peace

  •  Has there ever in US history (0+ / 0-)

    ever been a right wing skinhead with the balls to fight anyone one on one? I don't think so.
    ( I put right wing in there because I remember back when skinheads were simply an apolitical punk / hardcore scene in the northeast. I had some old school skinheads freinds that liked black people just fine. I guess a few KKK sympathetic types also got into the scene back in the eighties. After they got on Oprah, all racists of the Gen Xers and Gen Yers became skinheads, much to the dismay of my old school friends. Once upon a time you even had black skinheads.)
    But I digress, Neo-Nazi skinheads are always pussies at heart. I remember going to Anthrax/ Public Enemy 15 years ago. When me and my freind got in line, all the black kids were one one side of the alley, and all the metal heads were on the other. There was no animosity on anyones part, they just wondered of the other side might have some. Then about four skinheads walked down the middle, they stopped in their tracks, shit their pants, and turn around and started running. Both lines broke out, chased them down, and kicked their asses. Everyone walked back together laughing their asses off, and we all enjoyed one of the best concerts I'd ever been to.

    Just when they think they've got the answer, I change the question. -Roddy Piper

    by McGirk on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 09:52:20 PM PDT

Permalink | 71 comments