Police have arrested a 16-year-old in connection with a mob attack by large numbers of black teenagers against a young white couple in a car, a case which has sparked national outrage.

As WND reported in a story posted on the popular Drudge Report, the couple was pummeled April 14 by dozens of black teens, and the Virginian-Pilot newspaper did not report the incident for two weeks, despite the fact the victims, Dave Forster and Marjon Rostami, are both news reporters for the paper.

Police arrested the suspect this morning, but authorities will not release his name due to his age. According to the Virginian-Pilot, he has been charged with throwing a missile at a vehicle, a felony, as well as two counts of simple assault by mob, destruction of property and participation in a riot, all misdemeanors.

The attack was first reported in an opinion piece by columnist Michelle Washington.

“Wave after wave of young men surged forward to take turns punching and kicking their victim,” Washington wrote, describing the onslaught that began when Dave Forster and Marjon Rostami stopped at a traffic light while driving home from a show on a Saturday night. A crowd of at least 100 black young people was on the sidewalk at the time.

“Rostami locked her car door. Someone threw a rock at her window. Forster got out to confront the rock-thrower, and that’s when the beating began. …

“The victim’s friend, a young woman, tried to pull him back into his car. Attackers came after her, pulling her hair, punching her head and causing a bloody scratch to the surface of her eye. She called 911. A recording told her all lines were busy. She called again. Busy. On her third try, she got through and, hysterical, could scream only their location. Church and Brambleton. Church and Brambleton. Church and Brambleton. It happened four blocks from where they work, here at the Virginian-Pilot.”

Washington said neither suffered grave injuries, but both were out of work for a week. Forster’s torso ached from blows to his ribs, and he retained a thumb-sized bump on his head. Rostami reportedly fears to be alone in her home, while Forster wishes he’d stayed in the car.

Pilot editor Denis Finley addressed the paper’s decision not to cover the attack in a front-page column today.

“Some have assumed the worst and accused The Pilot of everything from liberal hand-wringing to outright lying about the incident,” he wrote. “We did not cover up anything. What would we gain by protecting some thugs who beat up two of our reporters? The accusation is ludicrous.


Dave Forster
“We bend over backward to treat ourselves the same way we would treat any other member of the community. In fact, we go overboard at times to make sure there is no perception that we have treated ourselves favorably. Based on the facts, this story did not cross the bar to be published because as a general rule, The Pilot doesn’t publish stories about simple assaults.”

In her column about the assault, Washington said the day after the beatings, Forster searched Twitter for mention of the attack, and one post in particular chilled him.

“I feel for the white man who got beat up at the light,” wrote one person.

“I don’t,” wrote another, indicating laughter. “(do it for trayvon martin)”

Trayvon Martin is the unarmed black teen who died after being shot by a community-watch captain with white and Hispanic parents, George Zimmerman, in Sanford, Fla., sparking a wave of outrage long after the incident.

But at a press conference today, interim Norfolk Police Chief Sharon Chamberlin said the department is not investigating the case as a hate crime.

“At no time in our investigation or in statements taken from the victims did it appear this assault was racially motivated,” she said.

Just yesterday, a police spokesman told WND authorities were not sure if the attack was racially motivated.

“Could it have been? Yeah, it could have, I guess,” said police spokesman Chris Amos. “We certainly haven’t ruled that out, but we haven’t seen anything that jumps out at us other than someone throwing a rock at someone’s car.”

“A whole lot of racial implications have been made. We don’t know the motive of this. Race didn’t become a factor until Twitter comments later. No one at the scene said it was racially motivated. They didn’t tell us then and they didn’t hear any [comments such as] ‘Remember Trayvon Martin.’”

Rostami estimated there were around 100 people in the crowd, with about 30 near their car.

However, Chamberlin said police think only a few people in the crowd participated in the attack.

“It is important to clarify that 30 people did not carry out the assault,” she said. “There was a large group in the vicinity, but our investigation and the statements of the victims show that no more than a handful of people were involved.”

She said the crowd had emerged from three entertainment venues around the same time on the night of the attack.

“This is a situation where you had a whole bunch of events let out all at once, you had a lot of people on the street, you had an assault occur and that was isolated with a small number of people,” Chamberlin said. “The streets of Norfolk are safe. We are a vibrant city, we are growing, we are changing each and every day and citizens should not judge our streets in light of this particular thing.”

The police investigation is continuing. Amos told WND suspects are “facing felony charges, if we can find them and identify and if our victims can identify them.”

Medium of Death wrote:Could the guy have ran them over instead, if they were blocking his way, and claimed self defence?

I know I wouldn't be getting out of my car to confront a crowd of people that just threw a rock at it... unless I had some form of gun... where was this man's gun?

Hordini wrote:

Medium of Death wrote:Could the guy have ran them over instead, if they were blocking his way, and claimed self defence?

I know I wouldn't be getting out of my car to confront a crowd of people that just threw a rock at it... unless I had some form of gun... where was this man's gun?

I highly doubt he could have ran over one of them in this situation and claimed self-defense, especially because it sounds like none of them had weapons. It's hard to imagine a situation where running someone over with a car could be self-defense, except maybe if someone was shooting at you. Does anyone know of a case where something like that happened?


As for the question about where his gun was, like the vast majority of Americans, he probably doesn't carry one. Even in this case, pulling out a gun in front of a crowd probably wouldn't have been the brightest idea, and it's possible he could have even been charged with brandishing.


Also, I'm curious as to how they decide whether or not it's a hate crime just because nobody made. Does someone have to utter a racial slur during the crime for it be a hate crime, and if they don't they're in the clear? What if someone is charged with assault for getting in a fight and shouts a slur just because they were really mad at the time, but aren't actually racist? Would that be hate crime then? I'm against hate crime laws in general, but situations like this just make them seem even more ridiculous.

Frazzled wrote:
I would have chaged the one guy caught (sounds like a teenager) with attempted murder to get him to roll and catch a few dozen others.

mattyrm wrote: Frazz, 3 pissed Somalian women attacked a white lass in England, kicked the gak out of her, and whilst doing it shouted "Kill the white slag!"

And that wasn't a hate crime either.

Evidently you can only be a victim of a hate crime if your not white.

Hordini wrote:
Also, I'm curious as to how they decide whether or not it's a hate crime just because nobody made any racial comments during the beating. Does someone have to utter a racial slur during the crime for it be a hate crime, and if they don't they're in the clear? What if someone is charged with assault for getting in a fight and shouts a slur just because they were really mad at the time, but aren't actually racist? Would that be hate crime then? I'm against hate crime laws in general, but situations like this just make them seem even more ridiculous.

Private_Joker wrote:A heap of people watched while a handful carried out a crime. Nice work society.

Kanluwen wrote:

Hordini wrote:
Also, I'm curious as to how they decide whether or not it's a hate crime just because nobody made any racial comments during the beating. Does someone have to utter a racial slur during the crime for it be a hate crime, and if they don't they're in the clear? What if someone is charged with assault for getting in a fight and shouts a slur just because they were really mad at the time, but aren't actually racist? Would that be hate crime then? I'm against hate crime laws in general, but situations like this just make them seem even more ridiculous.

It has to be proven that you targeted the victim specifically because of their race.

Hordini wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Hordini wrote:
Also, I'm curious as to how they decide whether or not it's a hate crime just because nobody made any racial comments during the beating. Does someone have to utter a racial slur during the crime for it be a hate crime, and if they don't they're in the clear? What if someone is charged with assault for getting in a fight and shouts a slur just because they were really mad at the time, but aren't actually racist? Would that be hate crime then? I'm against hate crime laws in general, but situations like this just make them seem even more ridiculous.

It has to be proven that you targeted the victim specifically because of their race.

Do they just have to prove race was a factor in targeting the victim, or does it have to be the primary or only factor?

Kanluwen wrote:

Private_Joker wrote:A heap of people watched while a handful carried out a crime. Nice work society.

What did you expect them to do? Leap to the rescue?

People don't go out of their way to get involved in these kinds of things. There is a very real sense of "I don't have to do anything, someone else will" when it comes to witnessing crimes.

To assume it's a flaw of society is silly. It's a commentary of humans, period.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
I would have chaged the one guy caught (sounds like a teenager) with attempted murder to get him to roll and catch a few dozen others.

Impossible to even begin to show an intent to murder here. Or are you betting on the fact that he wouldn't know, nor have access to an even halfway-decent lawyer?

mattyrm wrote: Frazz, 3 pissed Somalian women attacked a white lass in England, kicked the gak out of her, and whilst doing it shouted "Kill the white slag!"

And that wasn't a hate crime either.

Evidently you can only be a victim of a hate crime if your not white.

Isn't that case on appeal?

Frazzled wrote:
If he was part of a mob pummelling the victim I could bring that to try as at least attempted manslughter.

I'd play the 911 tape, hear the victim screaming and the jury would go apeshit. Actually I'd just play it to the defense attorney and ask if the defendant would prefer to cooperate.
Tee hee.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
If he was part of a mob pummelling the victim I could bring that to try as at least attempted manslughter.

I'd be impressed if you managed to do that, given there's no such thing. How does one 'attempt' to accidentally kill someone, unless you're referring to willful disregard of the outcomes?

I'd play the 911 tape, hear the victim screaming and the jury would go apeshit. Actually I'd just play it to the defense attorney and ask if the defendant would prefer to cooperate.
Tee hee.

All well and good to get some hot-blood running, but would actually do nothing to identify the defendant in question.

Kanluwen wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
If he was part of a mob pummelling the victim I could bring that to try as at least attempted manslughter.

I'd be impressed if you managed to do that, given there's no such thing. How does one 'attempt' to accidentally kill someone, unless you're referring to willful disregard of the outcomes?

Defining manslaughter as "accidentally killing someone" is a very, very narrow definition.

Manslaughter is when someone is killed, whether by negligence or the actions taken, with no actual intent to kill having been there.

I'd play the 911 tape, hear the victim screaming and the jury would go apeshit. Actually I'd just play it to the defense attorney and ask if the defendant would prefer to cooperate.
Tee hee.

All well and good to get some hot-blood running, but would actually do nothing to identify the defendant in question.

Which isn't the point of doing it like that...

By playing it to the defense attorney, you'd be "offering" the defendant the chance to roll over on everyone else involved.

Frazzled wrote:EDIT: This is to Hazardous Harry's post)
You haven't a clue of criminal laws at least in the states, do you boy?

Wait thats rude. To be clear in the States there is a crime (titled in various froms varying by state) of manslaughter and attempted manslaughter. "Attempt" crimes are common for the biggies: attempted murder, attempted rape, attempted stealing of my pizza (aka justifiable homicide). Its pretty common. I'm sure even your country has it.

To your second point-identify? WTF does that have to do with anything. I restate, you don't know gak about the law and trials do ya boy?

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
If he was part of a mob pummelling the victim I could bring that to try as at least attempted manslughter.

I'd be impressed if you managed to do that, given there's no such thing. How does one 'attempt' to accidentally kill someone, unless you're referring to willful disregard of the outcomes?

Defining manslaughter as "accidentally killing someone" is a very, very narrow definition.

Manslaughter is when someone is killed, whether by negligence or the actions taken, with no actual intent to kill having been there.

Manslaughter has a broader meaning in this part of Australia (essentially any unlawful killing that doesn't fit into murder). But how can you 'attempt' to do something without intention to do that said thing?

I'd play the 911 tape, hear the victim screaming and the jury would go apeshit. Actually I'd just play it to the defense attorney and ask if the defendant would prefer to cooperate.
Tee hee.

All well and good to get some hot-blood running, but would actually do nothing to identify the defendant in question.

Which isn't the point of doing it like that...

By playing it to the defense attorney, you'd be "offering" the defendant the chance to roll over on everyone else involved.

If the 911 tape is all the prosecution has to go on, there's no way a reasonable jury could convict the defendant. I'd guess Frazz is acting on the assumption that the defendant wouldn't know this, and would crack under the pressure of this confronting (though not in itself a trial-winning) piece of evidence.

Kanluwen wrote:
Okay.

The "attempted" part is not implying that there was an actual forethought attached to the action, but rather that your actions during the course of the event were directed towards a goal.

If you're at a protest, and you get into a fight and start trying to bash the other person's head in--you might feasibly be charged with the "lesser" crime as a way to get you to agree to a plea bargain.

That said, they very likely would not just play the 911 tape--not as some kind of evidence that the defendant is responsible for the action, but rather to frame the situation in context.
They'd likely show traffic camera footage or something of that nature to show that the defendant was there, and then play the 911 tape to show the gravity of the situation that the defendant was involved in.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
Okay.

The "attempted" part is not implying that there was an actual forethought attached to the action, but rather that your actions during the course of the event were directed towards a goal.

Intruiging, I can see where I've gone wrong. In Australia (Qld in particular) intention has to be an actual line of thought or goal. At the very least your actions would have to indicate that the 'attempted' outcome was your intended outcome, not just a possible outcome of your actions.

If you're at a protest, and you get into a fight and start trying to bash the other person's head in--you might feasibly be charged with the "lesser" crime as a way to get you to agree to a plea bargain.

So an 'attempted murder' charge would likely only be a ploy to get them to agree to a lesser offence?

That said, they very likely would not just play the 911 tape--not as some kind of evidence that the defendant is responsible for the action, but rather to frame the situation in context.
They'd likely show traffic camera footage or something of that nature to show that the defendant was there, and then play the 911 tape to show the gravity of the situation that the defendant was involved in.

Reading back I can see that, it just seemed that Frazzled was saying he could get a conviction on the evidence of the tape alone.

Kanluwen wrote:

Private_Joker wrote:A heap of people watched while a handful carried out a crime. Nice work society.

What did you expect them to do? Leap to the rescue?

People don't go out of their way to get involved in these kinds of things. There is a very real sense of "I don't have to do anything, someone else will" when it comes to witnessing crimes.

To assume it's a flaw of society is silly. It's a commentary of humans, period.