I was one of the original commenters and will respond briefly.

You originally described the death of Gavin Cato as "murder," without saying anything further. That is a misleading description: you know that the word "murder," standing alone, suggests deliberate killing, and you know that wasn't the case. If you had described the death as the result of "murderously reckless driving" I probably would not have quibbled. You have no basis for suggesting that I am engaging in hair-splitting in the service of racism; if anyone is hair-splitting here it is you.

Your suggestion that the legal system did not respond to the death of Gavin Cato is also misleadingly incomplete. The district attorney asked a grand jury to charge the driver; the grand jury refused to indict. Perhaps they should have, and if they should have but didn't that is arguably a failing of the "legal system." But that doesn't excuse your implication that the legal system failed to respond at all.

Your suggestion that "[f]or the black community, the outrage was that he was charged with no crime at all" is erroneous. The unrest started almost immediately after the accident; Yankel Rosenbaum was killed just three hours after the accident. The unrest certainly wasn't a reaction to inaction by the legal system in this case. (I'm sure there were many in the black community who were outraged when the grand jury refused to indict, but in context it's hard to believe that's what you were referring to.)

Your suggestion that "the Jewish group involved brought in a private ambulance and took the injured driver away WHILE LEAVING THE HURT CHILDREN BEHIND" is also misleadingly incomplete. A city ambulance and a Lubavitcher ambulance both responded to the call and a police officer directed the Lubavitcher ambulance to take away the Lubavitcher men involved in the accident. That may have been a bad call by the officer -- not least because it upset the crowd -- but you omit to mention the officer's involvement entirely.

Look: I don't fundamentally disagree with you on Al Sharpton. I give him credit for organizing against police brutality. I think it's unfortunate that he is the only candidate running from what Paul Wellstone used to call the Democratic wing of the Democratic party. And even though his record excludes him as a candidate as far as I am concerned, I can see that he's not getting a fair shake from the media. (Confidential to Tim Russert: If you want to blow up Sharpton on camera, talk about Tawana Brawley -- don't go through a laundry list of things other black people (Louis Farrakhan, etc.) have said and done and ask him to comment. That just stinks.)

All that having been said, what happened in Crown Heights in 1991 was indefensible all the way around. I can't buy any of it as righteous anger, and I don't think anyone else should.

(For a somewhat lengthier description of the events in Crown Heights, see the introduction to this paper.)

I'm with Alkali here. The person who ran over Gavin Cato was driving recklessly and should be held accountable. Technically, he may have committed homicide, but morally, it cannot be called a murder. He did not intend to take Gavin Cato's life.

As for the Crown Heights riots: Blacks in Crown Heighs had many legitimate grievances that went beyond the handling of Gavin's death (i.e. the unfair allocation of community resources, the double standards). The point is, community leaders had an obligation to channel that anger into constructive form of protest. Al Sharpton not only failed to create constructive protest, he helped fan the flames of riots that were characterized by horrific anti-semitism.

Whatever good work Al Shaprton has done (and I agree that he's done good things that no one gives him credit for), Crown Heights will always be - and should always be - a strain on his reputation.

We just have a disagreement, both morally and legally, on whether "murder" requires intent. It doesn't. When children die of toxic waste, I'd call it murder as well if a corporation was recklessly dumping poison in their water supply.

I don't apply this moral belief just here, see my posts on MADD and AIDS. I'm pretty consistent in seeing moral culpability for allowing others to die through negligence of most kinds.

In many ways, I find killing due to emotional rage less horrifying. People are a weird bundle of emotions that can be inflamed to breaking points. But calm, measured acts that just disdainfully endanger others have no such emotional excuse-- they are just cold acts of evil disregard for the value of life.

As I noted, I don't actually trust Sharpton's judgement because of this history and probably wouldn't vote for him. But I also wouldn't vote for those who particapted in the anti-black hysteria against the "wilding boys" or would dismiss Cato Gavin's death as an "accident." You may feel the same about those who call it a "murder", which is your right, but I think there are serious double standards when Sharpton is accused of henious responsibility for Yankel Rosenbloom's death, while the actual driver who killed Cato Gavin is let off the hook morally with neutral words like "accident."

As a reader, I appreciate alkali and Peter's comments above. As I've mentioned many times both in the comments section to the Jan. 17th post, in email exchanges with Nathan, and now here again, the issue that those who disagree with the use of the term "murder" in the Jan. 17th post is not singularly with with what one person or another might think of the totality of circumstances surrounding the death of Gavin Cato, the Crown Heights riots, and the murder of Yankel Rosenbaum, although we all have a variety of opinions on those matters, and their racial, legal and social aspects.

My concern then, and now, is your continued refusal to see the incorrect use of a legal term as a statement of fact, perpetuating a falsehood as historical fact in the Jan. 17th post. None of your responses to the original protests against the use of the term in the Jan. 17th post have yet addressed this point. The territory you open with the statement "I find killing due to emotional rage less horrifying," opens up the Pandora's Box of moral equivalence, which, again, is emotional and philosophical, not legal and historical.

You can post all you want about what you think is murder, what you would like the legal definition of murder to include, and/or what you think should have happened in the above cases, but it is disreputable and egregious to attempt to rewrite history (as you attempt to do in your Jan. 17th post) based merely on what you would have liked the historical record to be, especially when the facts (Lisef was not charged with or convicted of murder), evidence (which it is obvious we disagree on) and legal rulings (Lisef was not charged with or convicted of murder, as if the point hasn't been made before...) do not support such a rewrite.

I'm actually losing track of what is wrong with my post-- other than you disagree with my view of what happened in Crown Heights. That Lisef was speeding and lost control of his car and ended up on the sidewalk, killing Gavin Cato, is undisputed.

So there is no "falsehood" when I call that a form of murder, since I've clearly now stated why I think that is a reasonable definition. You of course don't have to agree with it, but the fact that the courts don't agree with me is of little interest. I argue for many things that the law does not agree with me on-- yet.

As you suggest that you are actually losing track of what was wrong with your Jan. 17 post, let me try to help.

First, whatever disagreements we have as to our respective views re: the totality of Crown Heights, 1992, they are disagreements, but are not, to me, the primary thing wrong with the Jan. 17th post.

Second, I agree that driver was speeding, lost control of his car and ended up on the sidewalk, so that is not in disagreement. There are also many other aspects of the total story that I imagine we would also agree upon. Your lukewarm indictment in many of your comments of those who killed Yankel Rosenbaum is not one of these areas of agreement, however.

Your own words in your latest comment above, though, does offer a hope for long overdue clarity in hopefully conveying to you what was wrong with the Jan. 17th post, although I feel that every point made thus far by those who have pointed it out in other ways should have made the point equally clear.

In your most recent comment above, you state, "So there is no "falsehood" when I call that a form of murder, since I've clearly now stated why I think that is a reasonable definition. You of course don't have to agree with it, but the fact that the courts don't agree with me is of little interest. I argue for many things that the law does not agree with me on-- yet."
Posted by Nathan Newman at January 22, 2003 11:15 PM

Having pointed out what is not the primary wrong with the Jan. 17th post, let me try to point out what is -

In your Jan. 17th post there is a falsehood - in that post, you called it "murder," not a form of murder, as you state in the explanation above and elsewhere, but not on the Jan. 17th post (and even had you used "form of murder," you do not specify whether it is a form of murder in the legal sense, such as the form of murder known as murder in the first degree, or murder in the second degree, etc.) or whether it's, in your opinion, a form of murder in the casual sense of the word, (though the word murder in serious discussion should rarely be used casually) as in "meat is murder," "or "abortion is murder," for example. As has been repeated over and over, but bears repeating again, as it still seems not to have connected with you, the section of the post where you originally used the term, it was stated in a factual sense, not in the sense of whether it might be a reasonable definition, and not in the sense of an argument, as you also qualify above; it was simply stated as, "the murder of a young man," which is, by any measure of reasonable and professional discourse, the statement of a fact. The blog world certainly allows wide latitude in poetic license - Trent Lott is a racist, George W. Bush is a liar, etc., where the terms may very well have reasonable validity as opinion, if not fact, although fact is harder to prove in cases where motive is hard to discern, and a term has varying definitions. In the blog world, these offhand comments can also be offered as arguments, or as the blogger's opinion. The latitude even extends further - a blogger who thinks George W. Bush to have used cocaine in the past might suggest "the cocaine-using George W. Bush", although without proof of use, an admission by Bush, an unimpeachable witness, or a drug conviction, it would only be an argument that Bush did use cocaine, satire or humor. Even a reasoned allegation and valid argument would not rise to reputable journalistic or professional standards or ethics, which I would think your blog aspires to when you convey facts (poll numbers, election results, troop buildups, quotes, etc.) A great strength of blogging is that it allows for admirable, impassioned emotions, humor, satire, and irony, but reputable blogs strive to get the facts right.

Try this, using two different adaptations from parts of your Jan. 17th post, the former which I hope would make you see how you did use an incorrect term, perpetuated a falsehood, and attempted to rewrite history, and the second offered as a way that could have set the record straight, still allowed you your views, and avoided the still uncorrected error that arose from the initial post.

Suppose that a female blogger of a widely read blog, with a good reputation among its readers believed as a matter of conscience that abortion is murder. The blogger posts on her site a discussion, in regard to  the candidacy of a woman running for political office (let's call the candidate "Roe"), and the blogger says, simply: (adapted from your Jan. 17th post...)

"Now I am no fan of Roe's more outrageous antics, as detailed, but I also question the quality of some of these attacks on Roe.

Yes, Roe has attacked others, and her rhetoric was unpleasant, guaranteed to rub tensions raw. But politicians use code words every day - so are female politicians singularly barred for life from politics if they appeal to the baser instincts of their constituents in building their political clout? If Roe continued to base her political appeal on such appeals, I'd have a deeper problem with her on that basis, but her sins on that score have been sporadic-- dramatic admittedly -- but not continual, except for the murder of a young child in 1992."

Now the blogger, who believes that abortion is murder, would be wrong in accusing candidate Roe of murder, as abortion is legal, and as no murder charges had been charged to Candidate Roe, thus no murder conviction. Had the blogger said, "except for what I feel to be the murder of a young child in 1992," by suggesting a known and proven fact that candidate Roe did, in fact, have an abortion, and, in her mind (the mind of the blogger), that constitutes murder, that would have been the right of the blogger to do. But for her to suggest that candidate Roe had been charged and convicted with the murder of a young child in 1992, absent the truth of that statement, and without the qualifiers suggested above, she, like you, would have been incorrect, perpetuating a falsehood, and attempting to rewrite history. (Not to mention attempting to defeat candidate Roe, and most likely. depending upon the status and readership of her blog, opening herself up to a slander or libel suit). Even among those readers of her blog who share her view that "abortion is murder," without including the qualifiers noted above, the blogger would have cheapened her standing in the blog community by posting a false account of Roe's history, and one or more of them might have asked,"I know Roe had an abortion, but were you referring to something else she did, where she was tried and convicted of murder?" as in the vein of the comment from one of your readers of your Jan. 17, who knew about the Cato case and felt it necessary to ask in the comments section whether you were referring to something else.

As for how all this could have been avoided, and my hope is that you will still update that part of the Jan. 17th post (not correct, rewrite and replace the post, as it was only an update that I was originally hoping for) that part of the Jan. 17th post, consider the two posts below:

Your original post:

But there are three points here:
(1) First, it does explain the anger behind the murder of a young black man in Crown Heights, when the expectation is that the police will ignore such a murder because the assailant was white or Jewish.

A post that could have made the same point, and avoided the incorrect facts, perpetuated falsehoods, and attempt to rewrite history:

But there are three points here:
(1) First, it does explain the anger behind the what I and many others, including some of the rioters, felt to be a murder of a young black man in Crown Heights - when Gavin Cato was killed by the driver of a speeding car who lost control of the car which veered onto the sidewalk and hit Cato - when the expectation is that the police will ignore what some felt to be a murder because the assailant was white or Jewish.

A version of that post, along with any further comments you would like to make as to why you and others did believe a murder charge might have been in order, such as the comments you posted in the comments section of both the Jan. 17th post, our email exchanges, and the more recent Jan 21st post and your Jan. 22nd comments on that post, would still allow you to make your point in full, and remain faithful to the legal use of the term murder, not perpetuate a falsehood, and not attempt to rewrite history. Such a version would enhance both your credentials as a passionate blogger on issues of inequalities of race in our justice system, society and culture, and also allow you the latitude in personal opinion, and for informing your readers, as long as opinion is made clear from fact, and the information provided is accurate. That the young man Gavin Cato was murdered is personal opinion, not accurate information, no matter how much you would like to tell us why it should be different. I've offered you a fair, effective, and very easy way to resolve this dispute, if you are truly interested in a fair resolution which would strengthen your integrity as far as this matter is concerned. There's always a much harder way to achieve the same goal - team up with Ashcroft & Co, the current Congress, the current Supreme Court, and our current President and try in the future to get laws struck down on double jeopardy, statutes of limitations, and legal definitions of murder, and then if you want to organize a non-violent, peaceful organization (as opposed to the "emotionally enraged" Crown Heights rioters) to successfully bring new charges in the Cato death, gain a new trial of the driver, and come up with a murder conviction, your post can stand as is, and, at least as far as your Jan. 17th post is concerned, I'd consider that a resolution of the dispute, as well.

Short of the former, easy way suggested above, or the latter, more complicated one, the pertinent part of the Jan. 17th post was, is, and continues to be false.As you suggest that you are actually losing track of what was wrong with your Jan. 17 post, let me try to help.

First, whatever disagreements we have as to our respective views re: the totality of Crown Heights, 1992, they are disagreements, but are not, to me, the primary thing wrong with the Jan. 17th post.

Second, I agree that driver was speeding, lost control of his car and ended up on the sidewalk, so that is not in disagreement. There are also many aspects of all that when on there and then that I imagine we are in agreement on.

Your own words in your comment above, though, does offer a hope long overdue clarity in hopefully conveying to you what was wrong with the post, although I feel that every point made thus far by those who have pointed it out in other ways should have made the point equally clear.

In your most recent comment above, you state, "So there is no "falsehood" when I call that a form of murder, since I've clearly now stated why I think that is a reasonable definition. You of course don't have to agree with it, but the fact that the courts don't agree with me is of little interest. I argue for many things that the law does not agree with me on-- yet."
Posted by Nathan Newman at January 22, 2003 11:15 PM

So, now that I've pointed out above what is not the primary wrong with the Jan. 17th post, let me try to point out what is -

In your Jan. 17th post there is a falsehood - in that post, you called it "murder," not a form of murder, as you state in the explanation above and elsewhere, but not on the Jan. 17th post (and even had you used "form of murder," you do not specify whether it is a form of murder in the legal sense, such as the form of murder known as murder in the first degree, or murder in the second degree, etc.) or whether it's, in your opinion, a form of murder in the casual sense of the word, (though the word murder in serious discussion should rarely be used casually) as in "meat is murder," "or "abortion is murder," for example. As has been repeated over and over, but bears repeating again, as it still seems not to have connected with you, the section of the post where you originally used the term, it was stated in a factual sense, not in the sense of whether it might be a reasonable definition, and not in the sense of an argument, as you also qualify above; it was simply stated as, "the murder of a young man," which is, by any measure of reasonable and professional discourse, the statement of a fact. The blog world certainly allows wide latitude in poetic license - Trent Lott is a racist, George W. Bush is a liar, etc., where the terms may very well have reasonable validity as opinion, if not fact, although fact is harder to prove in cases where motive is hard to discern, and a term has varying definitions. In the blog world, these offhand comments can also be offered as arguments, or as the bloggers opinion. The latitude even extends further - a blogger who thinks George W. Bush to have used cocaine in the past might suggest "the cocaine-using George W. Bush", although without proof of use, an admission by Bush, an unimpeachable witness, or a drug conviction, it would only be an argument that Bush did use cocaine, satire or humor. Even a reasoned allegation and valid argument would not rise to reputable journalistic or professional standards or ethics, which I would think your blog aspires to when you convey facts (poll numbers, election results, troop buildups, quotes, etc.) A great strength of blogging is that it allows for admirable, impassioned emotions, humor, satire, and irony, but reputable blogs strive to get the facts right.

Try this, using two different adaptations from parts of your Jan. 17th post, the former which I hope would make you see how you did use an incorrect term, perpetuated a falsehood, and attempted to rewrite history, and the second offered as a way that could have set the record straight, still allowed you your views, and avoided the still uncorrected error that arose from the initial post.

Suppose that a female blogger of a widely read blog, with a good reputation among its readers believed as a matter of conscience that abortion is murder. The blogger posts on her site a discussion, in regard to  the candidacy of a woman running for political office (let's call the candidate "Roe"), and the blogger says, simply: (adapted from your Jan. 17th post...)

"Now I am no fan of Roe's more outrageous antics, as detailed, but I also question the quality of some of these attacks on Roe.

Yes, Roe has attacked others, and her rhetoric was unpleasant, guaranteed to rub tensions raw. But politicians use code words every day - so are female politicians singularly barred for life from politics if they appeal to the baser instincts of their constituents in building their political clout? If Roe continued to base her political appeal on such appeals, I'd have a deeper problem with her on that basis, but her sins on that score have been sporadic-- dramatic admittedly -- but not continual, except for the murder of a young child in 1992."

Now the blogger, who believes that abortion is murder, would be wrong in accusing candidate Roe of murder, as abortion is legal, and as no murder charges had been charged to Candidate Roe, thus no murder conviction. Had the blogger said, "except for what I feel to be the murder of a young child in 1992," by suggesting a known and proven fact that candidate Roe did, in fact, have an abortion, and, in her mind (the mind of the blogger), that constitutes murder, that would have been the right of the blogger to do. But for her to suggest that candidate Roe had been charged and convicted with the murder of a young child in 1992, absent the truth of that statement, and without the qualifiers suggested above, she, like you, would have been incorrect, perpetuating a falsehood, and attempting to rewrite history. (Not to mention attempting to defeat candidate Roe, and most likely. depending upon the status and readership of her blog, opening herself up to a slander or libel suit). Even among those readers of her blog who share her view that "abortion is murder," without including the qualifiers noted above, the blogger would have cheapened her standing in the blog community by posting a false account of Roe's history, and one or more of them might have asked,"I know Roe had an abortion, but were you referring to something else she did, where she was tried and convicted of murder?" as in the vein of the comment from one of your readers of your Jan. 17 post, who knew about the Cato case and felt it necessary to ask in the comments section whether you were referring to something else.

As for how all this could have been avoided, and my hope is that you will still update that part of the Jan. 17th post (not correct, rewrite and replace the post, as it was only an update that I was originally hoping for) for that part of the Jan. 17th post, consider the two posts below:

Your original post:

"But there are three points here:
(1) First, it does explain the anger behind the murder of a young black man in Crown Heights, when the expectation is that the police will ignore such a murder because the assailant was white or Jewish."

A post that could have made the same point, and avoided the incorrect facts, perpetuated falsehoods, and attempt to rewrite history:

But there are three points here:
(1) First, it does explain the anger behind what I and many others, including some of the rioters, felt to be the murder of a young black man in Crown Heights - when Gavin Cato was killed by the driver of a speeding car who lost control of the car which veered onto the sidewalk - when the expectation is that the police will ignore what some felt to be a murder because the assailant was white or Jewish.

A version of that post, along with any further comments you would like to make as to why you and others did believe a murder charge might have been in order, such as the comments you posted in the comments section of both the Jan. 17th post, our email exchanges, and the more recent Jan 21st post and your Jan. 22nd comments on that post, would still allow you to make your point in full, and remain faithful to the legal use of the term murder, not perpetuate a falsehood, and not attempt to rewrite history. Such a version would enhance both your credentials as a passionate blogger on issues of inequalities of race in our justice system, society and culture, and also allow you the latitude in personal opinion, and for informing your readers, as long as opinion is made clear from fact, and the information provided is accurate. That the young man Gavin Cato was murdered is personal opinion, not accurate information, no matter how much you would like to tell us why it should be different. I've offered you a fair, effective, and very easy way to resolve this dispute, if you are truly interested in a fair resolution which would strengthen your integrity as far as this matter is concerned. There's another, much harder way to achieve the same goal - team up with Ashcroft & Co, the current Congress, the current Supreme Court, and the current President and try to get laws struck down on double jeopardy, statutes of limitations, and legal definitions of murder, and then if you want to organize a non-violent, peaceful organization (as opposed to the "emotionally enraged" Crown Heights rioters)to successfully bring new charges in the Cato death, gain a new trial of the driver, and come up with a murder conviction, your post can stand as is, and, at least as far as your Jan. 17th post is concerned, I'd consider that a resolution of the terminology dispute, as well.

Short of the former, easy way suggested above, or the latter, more complicated one, the pertinent part of the Jan. 17th post was, is, and continues to be false.

And yet akili and you Jeff referred to the killing of Cato Gavin as simply an "accident" which is no more truthful nor argumentative than me calling it "murder."

Either word is freighted with assumptions of culpability and responsibility. This is the reality of words-- they are not "objective" but reflect the opinions of the writers.

Now I don't actually have a big problem with your Blogger referring to Roe's 1992 murder background-- if that is their belief in the situation. People have the right to battle over language, since that determines quite a bit of how things evolve.

If Bush insists on calling his tax plan a "stimulus" package, I am under no obligation to call it that, even if it is passed by the GOP Congress under that name.

And I can sure refer to something that is often legally described as murder -- criminally irresponsible driving leading to death -- even if no was was convicted for the act.

Am I barred from referring to all the lynchings in the South over the last century, just because no one was convicted for those murders?

I'm also not sure what the complaints are, since the comments have fully elaborated on most of these points. I go out of my way to make the comments and debates as accessible as the posts themselves by having my heavily commented posts directly available on my right-hand column.

And yet akili and you Jeff referred to the killing of Cato Gavin as simply an "accident" which is no more truthful nor argumentative than me calling it "murder."

No, it is more truthful and less argumentative. The word "accident" does not imply that no one bears any responsibility; it implies that no one intended the result. The word "murder", standing alone, generally implies an intentional act. Perhaps someone should have been held criminally responsible for Gavin Cato's death, but no one intended for him to die.

And I did not refer to his death "simply" as an accident. I explained that he was killed in a car accident, which leaves open the question who was culpable. You used the word "murder" without further explanation. Implying that a Jew intentionally killed a black child comes perilously close to the blood libel.

And if I'm the one who devalues black lives and you're not, perhaps you could get the kid's name right. His name was Gavin Cato.

My own concern with your Jan. 17th post was, from the beginning, the false impression your post leaves with the reader. Much of my concern since, which still seems to escape you, centers more on what responsibilities a blogger has to separate fact from opinion, if they purport to offer both on their blog. Whatever disagreements we have as to our respsective opinions about Crown Heights, there are facts of the case, many of which have been adressed in the comments to your posts. In some of the debate, you and your readers have disputed particular facts; in some of the debate, you and your readers have offered differing opinions. But my own disagreement with the Jan. 17th post centers, as I have said, on what I would think you would want to make clear to your readers - when you are relating to them facts, and when you are relating to them an opinion.

Just so you're clear on the implication of what you've written above - if your website states that abortion is illegal in the U.S. in 2003, when it's actually legal, that's fine with you, because words are not objective, only the opinion of the writer, and if an anti-abortion blogger feels that abortion is murder, he or she has no responsibility to separate that feeling from the legal status of abortion in reporting on a real, historical person or event. Because of your dislike of the term "stimulus" in regard to Bush's tax package (which I also deplore, both the term and the package) you're OK with letting your readers think it didn't pass regardless of whether it did or didn't, because the facts of a congressional vote and presidential signature have no bearing to you on your own perception of the reality of the situation. And because you have a different take on what is or what is not murder, you're fine with battling over language to help determine how things evolve, rather than relate how they did evolve. Your goal in using language to change things for the better in the future is admirable; your persistence in using language to erroneously revise history is regrettable.

Hey Akali -

I just want to say thanks for the sense and wisdom you began the debate with, and continue to exhibit, and a thank you to Peter, too, for his comments.

I guess I can't agree that "accident" is "truthful" and "less argumentative." An accident implies more than just lack of intent. If I dump toxic waste in water and children die, that is not an accident even if I had not intent to kill someone, since such an act shows reckless disregard for the obvious likelihood of death ensuing.

Similarly, speeding through a residential district leading to death shows intent-- and intent to risk other peoples lives and if death ensues, that is no accident.

I agree with you.