Talk:Vincent Chin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Pre 1982 Info

more pre-June 1982 background needed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcorr (talk • contribs) 2004-04-01 05:14:50

Vote for Deletion

This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 01:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Kind of Men

So the judge said "These weren't the kind of men you send to jail... " What "kind of men" do you send to jail? Apparently not white men who spend 30 minutes tracking down someone and beating them to death with a baseball bat, just because they are from another race? I can't think of a better candidate to send to prision, personally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.186.36.172 (talk • contribs) 2006-11-22 17:48:43

Agreed. I remember having a discussion about the case with some white colleagues and I was aghast to hear "Well, they got the trial. What more do you want?" Um, justice? RahadyanS 13:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I am having a very hard time attributing this quote through a primary source. Everybody says he said it, but where? Certainly not in any court transcript of the criminal case, his letter defending his decision, or his formal "Opinion and Decision". Perhaps he was goaded into the quote in the Bill Bonds interview? MMetro 09:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Kaufman as POW

What should be done about the POW issue? Twice put in, twice removed, but ACJ did list it as a reason that Kaufman's objectivity was compromised.MMetro 07:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Beginning of the Asian American movement

According to the source provided, Vincent Chin's death marked the "emergence of Asian Pacific Americans as a self-defined American racial group", so I guess we'll have to go with that. But really, the Asian American movement had its beginnings a few decades earlier when Asian Americans marched for civil rights during the civil rights era. Vincent Chin's death was definitely a turning point in the movement though, but it was more of a re-emergence rather than the beginning of the movement.

By the way, June 23rd (today or tomorrow depending on your timezone) marks the 25th anniversary of Vincent's death. There are events planned across some major cities in the US. Go check them out - http://www.apaforprogress.org/node/190

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

may the likes of Ebens & Nitz be enlightened over their irrational & narrow-minded points of views due to the lack of better judgements & pre-understandings which will eventually cause the great catastrophic outcomes such as what we see the events of wars as the largest scale of conflicts in the modern world.mr_xmlv 16:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Little Facts

Robert Nitz was not working at an automotive company at the time of the murder he worked at a furniture store on Eight Mile Road.

Ronald Ebens owned a bar near the Lynch Road Chrysler (where he worked and was fired after the murder)Plant prior to the murder.

According to JButera and what I found in old phone directories, Ron's Place closed long before any of this happened. MMetro 14:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

What I want to know about Ronald Ebens and Michael Nitz: 1) Why are neither men listed on http://www.state.mi.us/mdoc/asp/otis2.html as they were both were convicted of murder? 2) Does this mean that someone cleaned their records? It does not seem right to me that neither men appear on the Michigan Offenders data base.Talk

Highland Appliance Picture

The theater next to the former Highland Appliance was the Paris theater. I'm not sure if it ever was a strip club, but it was definitely not the Fancy Pants club. If I want to cite court records as I make changes, how would I go about doing that? MMetro 06:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed your "fancypants" reference, because it actually refers to Hiland Theatre[1] being closed, not Fancy Pants being closed. What we really need is a reference to say that specifically Fancy Pants was closed as a result of the murder. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Understood, although I was looking more at Brian74's comments, and it led me to two conclusions: one, the Fancy Pants is not the Hiland (that has led to much misinformation); and two, what was the Fancy Pants was closed down due to a fight, although it leaves the unlikely possibility that there was a seperate incident.

"The Fancy Pants was a bottomless bar located further south along Woodward Ave. on the E. side of the street. It was actually one block south of the Davidson expressway The Fancy pants was torn down many years ago after it was closed perminately following a beating incident which resulted in death." posted by brian74 on Jun 14, 2004 at 5:33am

"Why everyone thinks that he was killed at the Hiland Theatre is beyond me. Perhaps someone with mystic powers of mind control is working on the general populace making them beleive it was the Hiland Theatre. " posted by brian74 on Jun 21, 2004 at 5:22am

I do have sources that the arbiter of the original civil case had awarded the Chin estate $50,000 from the Fancy Pants for negligence that led to the death of Vincent Jen Chin, and am thinking about inquirying about demolition permit records from the City of Highland Park. MMetro 04:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Legal history section

Do we really need to make subsections for the Legal history section? It's not really long enough to warrant subsections. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I created the subheadings because there are seperate trials, each of which has enough info to warrent its own subheading if somebody documents the research (perhaps with Dr. Frank Wu's upcoming book). The statements of mens rea and actus reus of the current 1 Sept 2007 page are oversimplifications, because that's true for any criminal act, but the state and federal cases had specific and important nuances.

For example, the original charge of 2nd degree murder could have been upgraded to 1st degree murder, but the prosecution was reluctant to prove a higher standard of premeditation to convict. This allowed the plea bargaining to third degree manslaughter and its ensuing probation. Just days after Kaufman's sentencing, a March 1983 Michigan Supreme Court decision on another case destroyed any chance that there could be justice done in the state courts. (People v. Dotson, I think, but I'm not a lawyer.)

The federal trial, to avoid double jeopardy, was entirely based on the racial motivations of the defendants, and where the instance of Ebens chasing Chin's Caucasian friends with the baseball bat shows premeditation to the state case, it could be argued that Ebens showed no discrimination on who he went after. The evidence that proves one case disproves the other! The federal case might have been open and shut ONLY if it was Jimmy Choi, the OTHER Chinese American in the group, who was killed. He did not partake in any physical altercation.

People want to know why there was no justice. This takes time and space to prove. Without, organizing the page to open up the need to do this work, how will it be done? The work is too much for a complete revision in one sitting. So, please, rather than undoing the work, hold discussions, ask for citations, or email my username (because I don't know how to reach you off of this page).

MMetro 18:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand there were seperate trials, and I have not reverted your edit, I'm only asking if they're really big enough to warrant subsections. In my opinion they're not. Mind you, this is a purely editorial matter - I'm well aware of the importance of Vincent Chin. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It will be MMetro 03:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not Dotson, but People v Whalen, 412 Mich 166, 169-170; 312 NW2d 638 (1981) (what Chan was trying to appeal with) and a Mich 3/29/1983 decision, this has been ignored by Zia, but key to understanding what happened under Kaufman. MMetro 00:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ebensnitz.jpg

Image:Ebensnitz.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

To anybody interested in keeping this picture - what we need to do is find a source. It says that the picture is a TV screen shot. But who took the screen shot? Was it downloaded from some website? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Whatever problems we have here, we have with the Ronald Ebens entry. I believe that pic is a screenshot taken from Who Killed Vincent Chin? Based on the editing style of the doc, I believe that picture to be from a 1984 in-depth report by CNN. That is all educated guessing. I have some interest in keeping it on the Ebens entry, but I never cared for it here. I'd rather have a map inset detailing where the events took place, pictures of the May 9, 1983 protest, or even the McDonald's (now a Coney Island). MMetro 15:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I take it neither OneViewHere nor anyone else wa able to provide the keep data? MMetro 20:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It was a while ago that I inserted that picture and I don't recall the justifications for fair use that I provided when I submitted the picture. I found the picture by doing a search on their names in Google. I believe the picture is a screenshot from the "Who Shot Vincent Chin?" documentary. OneViewHere 07:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That might be a trouble seeing as the DVD is $300. Of course, the filmmakers got that shot from a news source. I remember that your fair use rationale said something about how the two men were of interest to officials, but had "disappeared", meaning no new pictures could be obtained. MMetro 07:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, pictures of the two men definitely qualifies for fair use. We just need to provide a source for their pictures. If they were downloaded from some website, then that website needs to be attributed. If an editor made a screen capture himself/herself, then the image summary needs to say that, and say from what video/source the screen capture is. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

If OneViewHere Googled the screenshot, would any other Google search work, or do we have to know where OneViewHere visited? MMetro 20:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It should preferably be a specific website, and not the URL for a Google search. And as always, the more reliable/well-known a source, the better - an established news site is definitely better than, for example, some random website hosted on geocities, if you know what I mean. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

New Source

There was a Vincent Chin legal luncheon downtown Detroit last Tuesday. I now have a peer reviewed article focusing on the federal case and a real picture of the Fancy Pants. The Freep gave a copy of pic to a 501c non profit. I also had a brief chat with the Federal Judge who was Ebens' attorney at the time. He said the "because of you MFs" testimony was impeached at trial. Any help, especially in getting the pic past the hurdles, is greatly appreciated. MMetro (talk) 09:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The Free Press apparently owns the picture I referred to above, AFAIK. If anybody can get a hold of a non-journalism produced image of the trial or Fancy Pants, let us know. The FBI and prosecution had acquired many images of the Fancy Pants and crime scene, all of which are fair use as a work of the U.S. government. MMetro (talk) 00:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)