I’m Not The Only One

In Long Island, three teenage girls (two 14-year olds and a 13-year old) were found guilty of beating another teen girl, and videotaping the beating on their cell phone

The beating was initially about an argument over a boy and was planned with the intention to record the December 18th one-sided fight as a way to harass the victim and to brag about the incident to their friends. They e-mailed the cell phone video to their friends and eventually it was posted on YouTube and Myspace.

My problem with this story, besides the two abovementioned acts, is the charges these girls were given: juvenile delinquency and attempted assault. Local police said the offenders got a slap on the wrist because the victim’s bruises and bumps had disappeared by the time her parents learned of the incident (by seeing the video on YouTube) and reported it to the police.

To me, this is another piece of evidence of how the criminal justice system is biased in favor of females. Had these teen offenders been boys of the same age videotaping the beating of another male adolescent, they would’ve been charged with assault and battery, and may have even been tried as adults.

From a legal standpoint, battery is defined as hitting a person whereas assault isn’t actually striking a person but attempting to commit battery or even making gestures and verbal threats to make a person believe you are going to commit battery against them. So what the hell is attempted assault?

The police also exhibited their favor for these young female offenders by justifying the cushy charges with a lack of evidence of the beating. Excuse me, lack of evidence? What about the damn video? Here’s the description of the video of the beating from 1010 Wins, a news radio station in New York City:

The video was shown on YouTube and MySpace, two Web sites popular with teenagers, and then on national television. Screaming can be heard as the victim cowers on the ground while she’s attacked. Several others look on without intervening as she attempts to kick back but is overpowered.

Sounds like assault to me.

By showing females such special treatment in the criminal justice system, it not only hurts males by setting a stricter set of rules for them, but it sends a message to other agressive young females that beating up their peers is hardly considered a crime in the eyes of the law.

In New York City some members of the City Council are considering a ban on the sale and possession of pit bulls, a misguided notion based on a few isolated incidents in which pit bulls have attacked (sometimes fatally) humans and other animals. The following is an excerpt from the New York Daily News:

Councilman Peter Vallone Jr. (D-Queens) has introduced a resolution asking the state Legislature to make it easier for the city to implement a ban. He said pit bulls are dangerous and are bred to be violent.

Now I like Mr. Vallone. I was a reporter for several Queens newspapers for about six years and I’ve had many chances to interview him. He’s a great Councilman, and he heads the Council’s Public Safety Committee, but I think he’s wrong on this issue. This proposed law, if approved, will indeed be all bark (just a song and dance) and no bite (will have absolutely no effect on the real issue, irresponsible owners).

This proposal is severely misguided for two reasons. First, to regard all pit bulls as dangerous and bred to be violent is stereotyping, pure and simple. Banning pit bulls from New

York City because they are believed to be violent is like prohibiting Asians from obtaining driver’s licenses because they are perceived to be bad drivers. It would be like forced sterilization of every third Latino because we are percieved as reproducing in excess.

And let’s not forget, the pit bull has only been the “tough dog”, the breed most favored for use as guard dogs or by so-called tough guys for intimidating others for a decade or so. Rottweilers, bulldogs, German Shepherds and Doberman Pinschers have all shared this same stereotype with pit bulls. I understand that pit bulls are not selected by their owners because they get along with children, or are cute and fluffy.

The name alone, “pit” and “bull” implies this animal is a snarling, charging brute among canines.

But breed names and genetics do not dictate whether a dog is going to wind up killing an innocent person, it’s how they are raised and/or trained. Pit bulls are often the pet of choice for families who live in high-crime areas.

The few incidents in which pit bulls claim innocent lives are often cases where the owners were irresponsible and either let them off their leash or simply trained them to be vicious attack dogs. Lots of so-called tough guys like to raise pit bulls so they can walk around with them and enjoy intimidating passersby. I get it. But you can’t simply paint an entire breed of dog with the same brush simply because of the irresponsibility of a few owners.

Second, lets assume, for argument’s sake, that every single pit bull on the planet has claimed a human life. So the City bans pit bulls, and the next day there are no more pit bulls, right? The aforementioned breeds of dog will take the place of the pit bull as the guard dog, the attack dog, the animal most frequently chosen to make insecure men look like tough guys. It’s not like pit bulls are the only breed of dog to have ever attacked or killed anyone, and while I don’t have the stats to back it up, I’m willing to bet that most canine attacks on humans have not been committed by pit bulls.

In short, if pit bulls are banned, New Yorkers will continue to be threatened with the possibility of a canine attack, it will just be with a breed other than pit bulls.

A third possible argument concerns mixed breed dogs, namely those that are only part pitbull. Would they be banned too, or only partially given their mutt status?

In short, this is an issue I feel the government should keep its nose out of. In the case of human attacks by dogs, these animals are raised to be weapons, or are abused by their owners and therefore liable to attack any human. The owner of any pitbull who savagely mauls or kills a person should be arrested and prosecuted in the same manner as if he killed that person with a knife, firearm or a blunt object.

Come on, Mr. Vallone. Criminalize the behavior of the owner, and leave the dog alone.

(Who’s that doggy with the floppy hat? Que chula! It’s Chuly, a.k.a. Crybaby, an American pit bull-terrier mixed puppy that belonged to my fiancee when she lived in the Bronx. Her family bought Crybaby after their home experienced a third push-in robbery. Crybaby now lives with another family, also in the Bronx.)

With one blog already under my belt, I decided to launch I’m Not The Only One (INTOO) as a New Year’s Resolution.

The name of this blog comes from the belief that my opinions are not that unique, that despite the fact that my views may not be shared by those in the public eye or by our so-called leaders many people do think the same way I do about various political and social issues affecting our towns, cities, country and world.

I hope my posts will provoke thought and hopefully even meaningful debate. Even if you don’t like what I have to say, please feel free to contradict me.

Later.