High Springs Herald

Fran wrote on Oct 7, 2009 11:42 PM:

" ok i posted that last comment erroneously here instead of where the topic is. Sorry about that. I'm disgusted with the status quo on just about everything though. Hate & homophobia included. Peace "

Fran wrote on Oct 7, 2009 11:36 PM:

" Oh and Bill McCollum has experience 2001 as a bank lobbyist and, in congress he was involved in Bank over site and, you see where we are. NO THANKS. Please no more Bankers, Lawyers and, former or, aspiring lobbyist in our Government. "

Fran wrote on Oct 4, 2009 1:46 PM:

" Well, I for one am not amused. And, the fact that you love this is my motivation to be sure the proper authority has the information of someone here claiming to be a witness to this hate crime. And, I can do that because, I actually do have a civic life that enables me to do good works. "

no more today wrote on Oct 4, 2009 1:40 PM:

" OK, to all. I had a great time reading and posting a few things just to amuse myself today. Now its time to go. Enjoy the pleasures of the land, sea and air along with a refreshment, good food and real people who have a life. You really should try it sometime. God, I love this. And you too. "

Fran wrote on Oct 4, 2009 1:19 PM:

" Of course not. I am a homosexual you dummy. Only real problem I have here is someone claiming to be a witness yet, can not answer the simple question, Have YOU come forward as a witness to the investigation? The hair is trivial. The homophobic comments are expected. "

To crime solved wrote on Oct 4, 2009 12:46 PM:

" Have you come forward as a witness for the investigation? "

" Crime Solved wrote on Oct 3, 2009 5:48 PM:
" I was there... "

to Fran wrote on Oct 4, 2009 12:29 PM:

" Do you have a problem with a gay hair stylist? Or is it just his hair you do not like? Mr. Dupont, please also forward Frans "reference to gay" remark to the police as well. "

Fran wrote on Oct 4, 2009 11:43 AM:

" Mr. Dupont, In my previous post I have pasted a comment made by crime solved in which the claim is made to have been a witness. Since you are following this case would it be of interest to you and, law enforcement investigating this case that a witness has surfaced here? "

Fran wrote on Oct 4, 2009 11:37 AM:

" Crime Solved wrote on Oct 3, 2009 5:48 PM:
" I was there... this was about two idiots drinking too much and trading words. There is no hate crime here! I point to the cases of Sticks and Stones...
I will agree however homeboy needs to give the 80's back their hair! "

Have you come forward as a witness for the investigation? "

Fran wrote on Oct 4, 2009 11:11 AM:

" There is no escaping this Mug shot. It is linked nation wide and, at all my favorites saved I checked out this am have the articles.. Your right Charles and, maybe the presumption of guilt is premature. Maybe not is MO.We all will have to wait and see if justice prevails and, work to keep our own integrity intact.OH and, He obviously does not have a gay hair stylist because, he would have never been allowed to leave the salon with a hair do like that. "

standagainstviolence wrote on Oct 4, 2009 11:00 AM:

" Interpersonal homophobia is individual behavior based on personal homophobia. This hatred or dislike may be expressed by name-calling, telling "jokes, verbal and physical harassment, and other individual acts of discrimination.

Interpersonal homophobia, in its extreme, results in lesbians, gays, and bisexuals being physically assaulted for no other reason than their assailants' homophobia. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 4, 2009 8:26 AM:

" Good points "witnesses". I try my best to have a dialogue/discourse. Unfortunately there are those that are so afraid people might do that and learn from it that they feel obligated to try and disrupt it. I'll reserve my points on how to deal with "trolls" posted in another thread and simply encourage people to read past the childish posts and follow the thread and think about the article and the comments in a serious manner. "

Witnesses wrote on Oct 4, 2009 8:00 AM:

" Words exchanged are not provocation in front of the law. Too many drinks are not an excuse. "

Witnesses wrote on Oct 4, 2009 7:56 AM:

" Witnesses at a bar fight are usually as drunk as the fools fighting. Great observational skills in other words. Completely unclouded. Kicking unresponsive people is pretty much dishonorable. Great redneck strategy. Interested in more facts. Facts!
Charlie you certainly can roll out a monologue! "

Morning Coffee Troll Alert wrote on Oct 4, 2009 6:36 AM:

" Troll Alert:

Ignore the troll. They just want to distract us.

Thank you Mr. Grapski for your thoughtful comments. "

going to spend the money instead of looking at it for free wrote on Oct 4, 2009 1:31 AM:

" No, Charles I'm not trying to set you up and I don't even know you, but it is very clear that you do not have a girlfriend. You have to much idle time responding to every article the mullet wrapper prints.(with a girlfriend this idle time would be utilized differently) "

ask chuck wrote on Oct 3, 2009 7:02 PM:

" Witnesses sometime are not correct in what they saw and say. "

Fran wrote on Oct 3, 2009 6:50 PM:

" "Witnesses told police that the man was beaten while being called gay, according to police."

I will also add it was unprovoked. Unlike you are doing here. "

Crime Solved wrote on Oct 3, 2009 5:48 PM:

" I was there... this was about two idiots drinking too much and trading words. There is no hate crime here! I point to the cases of Sticks and Stones...
I will agree however homeboy needs to give the 80's back their hair! "

Tee Hee wrote on Oct 3, 2009 4:55 PM:

" They really are pathetic. I wish the public could see who they are. They would be surprised to find out what positions they hold locally. "

Tee Hee wrote on Oct 3, 2009 4:23 PM:

" They really are pathetic. I wish the public could see who they are. They would be surprised to find out what positions they hold locally. "

Oh puleez wrote on Oct 3, 2009 4:12 PM:

" Yep there you all go again obsessing with Grapski. I'll say it again thanks Grapski for all your thoughtful comments. At least someone here acts like an adult. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 3, 2009 3:39 PM:

" Ah so you admit you are one person with many anonymous identities. Also that you have a childish focus in your posts. And that you have an obsession with me. Now back to the story. "

2sides wrote on Oct 3, 2009 3:20 PM:

" OK, now your side. "

sorry chuck wrote on Oct 3, 2009 3:06 PM:

" Hope you have a sense of humor, just need to lighten this blog up. There is just a little similarity, wouldn't you agree. :) "

or this wrote on Oct 3, 2009 3:00 PM:

" http://www.gainesville.com/article/20081015/NEWS/810162913 "

Chucky wrote on Oct 3, 2009 2:53 PM:

" he's back again.
http://joerenzetti.net/ChuckyMad.jpg "

Fran wrote on Oct 3, 2009 1:56 PM:

" Yes, same report I was referring to. And, it is suspect because, the data / Forgey's comment is based on law enforcement reports alone. This criteria is flawed. Law enforcement is not exempt from bias and homophobia. But, that aside, other credible organizations have data of homophobic and, other hate related violence that should be inclusive in State and Federal reports. Hate violence is not rare. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 3, 2009 11:02 AM:

" Wow now there is a good post/point?!?!

What is your "name" a reference to by the way? That is really unclear.

How do you know I don't have a girlfriend? What if I didn't want a girlfriend? Why would my status with a girlfriend be any of your concern? What does your post (no point) have to do with my points?

Are you offering to "hook me up"? "

going to spend the money instead of looking at it for free wrote on Oct 3, 2009 10:42 AM:

" Grapski get a girlfriend! "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 3, 2009 1:46 AM:

" But again I did not criticize an EYE-WITNESS or the VICTIM.

And if you notice the story does not say THIS PERSON "did" X. It says SOMEONE did it (but not who). This is why I said it is not a "worst-case" example.

The problem is with the photo and name ASSOCIATING this person with the facts of what occurred to the victim.

For all we know, from what is written here even, this person is being charged for being merely ASSOCIATED with the person who did the actual beating. It only says "for his alleged involvement." NOTE THE WORD ALLEGED - but it doesn't say what, exactly, HIS involvement was (and if there were other involved parties).

But I think you reveal yourself with your inconsistencies and lack of logic. Why, exactly, is this particular case of interest to you (from the accused standpoint)? And why does your statement, which was the equivalent of mine, about two-sides, not equally constitute being "insensitive" to the eye-witness (how that could be even possible I don't know)?

Keep posting. I only wish you had the courage do put your name on it. You are revealing yourself. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 3, 2009 1:40 AM:

" But that is the most "generous" interpretation of your babbling that I can give. That what you MEANT to say was that you deem it "disgusting" that I accuse people like Clovis Watson of committing crimes and being unethical on this site.

Well, I do indeed accuse him (as an example) of such things, and when I do, I present the EVIDENCE (the facts and the law) that I base my position upon.

And then you are free to CHALLENGE that evidence if you can and choose to do so.

But spare me the hypocrisy (when you were complaining that there are 2 sides - or do you only find this problematic when someone is accused of beating gay people. Perhaps you are of the view that this isn't really a crime - that's the best I can figure from your inconsistencies - and are concerned about this particular accused person only [whereas the 2-sides wouldn't apply to my cases, where I am the accused, where perhaps you think it was OK]. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 3, 2009 1:35 AM:

" Now what exactly do you say I do? Try my cases AS A DEFENDENT here (to the masses that you say aren't here, so then why do you say "preaching to the masses" in the first place [does the word "moron" have any meaning for you? I think it just may be applicable.]).

First of all, as an ACCUSED (but never found guilty of the reported accusations), I have been the subject of this very kind of "one-sided" (and uninformative) reporting. So I think I have first-hand knowledge of the problem - but this isn't about me - and my point is in general about ANYONE accused of any crime.

Perhaps, however, what you MEANT to say was that I, as an ACCUSER, am "trying" those >>I< accuse here. Is that it (I think Santa Fe COLLEGE has remedial English classes available. That might assist you in communicating consistently in the future.)

Hardly a parallel. But also not what I do. I present THE FACTS here about those I KNOW to have committed crimes [if this victim came here and accused this defendant I would not criticize the victim - my point is about news coverage.] "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 3, 2009 1:30 AM:

" Now back to the irrationality of 2sides. Putting aside that I agreed with your point on "two sides" - lets review what you say about me.

I am being insensitive to the eye-witness? I think not. But if I am being so (by agreeing with your point) then so are you - or do you not get fundamental logic?

My point has nothing to do with the victim (who I spoke about in detail when the story was first reported here). But reporting the name, the photo, etc., of the ACCUSED (not the "guilty" yet under the law), does not negatively impact the victim in any way (and also seems you are contradicting your own point).

In fact I said that what SHOULD be reported is HOW the victim's case is being pursued which CAN be done without putting the accused name (and photo) in the paper. I don't think we are better informed with that information now and in that manner.

So what, exactly, is "disgusting" about my point that stories of this nature do not portray the accused's side (which was your point) - or are you accusing yourself of this too? "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 3, 2009 1:24 AM:

" Fran,

You are probably referring to the same reported data as I am (from the Attorney General): http://myfloridalegal.com/civilrights

Here we have as you mention for the 2007 report 10 (8 GPD; 2 ACSO).

If we look to other counties the "rare" term may not be applicable - with Broward and Hillsborough at the top with 17 each. And the total for the state being 193 - so Alachua County with approximately 19% of the reported hate crimes and perhaps between 1-1.5% of the state's population.

I took it from the comment, however, in the sense of 10 being "rare" when considering the number of charges in a year in the County. If I recall when Oelrich reported to us on the Blue Ribbon Committee on County finances he said, and this is from the ACSO statistics of the jail, that about 40,000 people were coming into the jail a year (which I thought was absurdly high). From that 10/40,000 I think the "rare" makes sense. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 3, 2009 1:10 AM:

" Fran, not sure - but what I was saying is that while it may be "rare" in Alachua County for the CHARGES to be filed, this does not equate to it necessarily being a rare CRIME. But I might not have gotten your point on the published statistics (which would be something of real interest). Are you saying that in actuality the number of hate crimes in Alachua County, actually filed, is NOT rare?

As for 2sides, forgive me, I am having a hard time trying to interpret your version of English.

First, you DID make the point that there are two sides to every story, in reference to this story, and that one should NOT pass judgment without first having the evidence did you not?

If so, perhaps you do not understand the English language that I used, for I concurred (that means "agreed") with your point. I said, and maintain still, that stories like this 1) do NOT present all the facts - and report AS IF a person accused were actually guilty; and 2) this story does NOT (as these stories generally don't) give the accused's side whatever it may be. "

Fran wrote on Oct 3, 2009 1:00 AM:

" Hopefully this specific hate crime will be included in the 2009 Florida Hate Crime Report. Some in the recent past have not. Although the numbers and, reporting methods are suspect they are: 10 (all assaults)against race in 2007 and 8 for 2008. Alarming nonetheless and, far too common an occurrence. "

Fran wrote on Oct 3, 2009 12:43 AM:

" Charles, The non reporting I was referring to is when looking at the Florida annual hate crime reports. I may not be reading you correctly but, it appears your distinction detracts from my point made. "

2sides wrote on Oct 2, 2009 9:34 PM:

" Grapski, Your being highly insensitive to the eye witnessed victim. I would find it hysterical other than here which made it disgusting, that you would come here preaching to the masses (that is supposed to be funny because no masses are here)about sensationalizing when YOU ARE the better example. Boorish is the least of which you do. Accusing and trying YOUR numerous cases as a defendant all over here. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Oct 2, 2009 6:08 PM:

" Fran raises some good points. I would emphasize however the distinction between the rarity of hate CRIMES and hate crime CHARGES. I think the disparity here is the problem.

I concur that there are some real IGNORANT posts otherwise below hers. So typical.

I would, however, concur that there ARE two sides to every story. I think the important issue here is, at this point, ONLY that there has been work FOLLOWING UP on this heinous crime.

I strongly disapprove of this kind of article, however, as it DENIES the assumption of INNOCENCE until PROVEN guilty.

I think it is too EASY to just throw up a jail photo (I think self-respecting journalists and news outlets should RECONSIDER this "standard" practice), and take a police report, and make it into a "story."

And certainly the accused has been given NO SIDE. And yes - he is, even IF he is the guilty party, ENTITLED to "his side" being heard and EVIDENCE being produced and crimes being PROVEN before being labeled as such.

I find this kind of journalism boorish and lazy - sensationalist, and really uninformative. This is certainly not the worst example however. "

DumbDumber wrote on Oct 2, 2009 2:51 PM:

" Grown rather than raised 37 year old?
2 sides? Are you crazy? there are no two sides if he did it and was kicking some unresponsive person on the ground, he is less than "well you know" "

Fran wrote on Oct 2, 2009 2:04 PM:

" different name same poo stirring posting idiot. "

2sides wrote on Oct 2, 2009 1:28 PM:

" Are we forgetting the pharse there are two sides to every story? so not pass judgement on someone when you do not have all the facts "

Fran wrote on Oct 2, 2009 11:08 AM:

" STEREOTYPES so beautifully exampled by wrote on below and, the hate they escalate into as in the case referenced in the article is a prime example of how one leads to another. Wrote on? Violence is not a coping tool. And, "stereotyping" you into the human race is just wrong. "

Fran wrote on Oct 2, 2009 10:47 AM:

" Forgey said that hate crimes charges are not common in the county.
There are very, very few, he said. They are rare and far between.

MY experience says otherwise. It is a crime of hate laced intimidation toward not only a victim but, a community. And, in fact, a lot of times go unreported and, anyone that really cares knows exactly why this is so. Alachua County Public information chose to keep it in the "closet" instead of educating those willing to rise above ignorance. So, he is out of jail. I hope the victim is healing and, well. "

wrote on Oct 2, 2009 10:35 AM:

" Look at the funny hair cut, thought only gay females wore this style anymore. Maybe he is not really a hater, he might only be trying to deal with his own sexualality and this is his only way to deal with it??????? "

J Wayne wrote on Oct 2, 2009 3:42 AM:

" His new address should be under the jail or state prison. "

resident wrote on Oct 2, 2009 12:30 AM:

" maybe someone should just beat him senseless and no jail time or waste of money on jail, trials etc. "