Talk:Killing of Latasha Harlins

Factual Accuracy

This article says Soon Ja Du was convicted of involuntary manslaughter, but the article on the 1992 Los Angeles riots says she was convicted of voluntary manslaughter. The vast majority of web references say voluntary manslaughter, including a court transcript, so this page is probably the one that is wrong.

You Are Wrong...

Since when did she punch the owner? I've seen the video. She didn't even steal anything, as best I can remember. The owner was just acting on a stereotype. Ridethefire3211

You are wrong Ride, Latisha punches Du viciously in the video. So vicious that Du falls to the ground, Du would later pass out from the blows. From news coverage back then, video showed Du with severe bruising from the attack. Yes, Latisha was 15, but she was 150 lbs and nearly 6' tall up against an elderly woman under 115 lbs. Its tragic what happened, and there is blame to go on both sides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.238.76 (talk • contribs) 20:56 13 September 2005

That is what she said so she wouldn't be jailed for life for second degree murder. But this is what the police said 2 days after at a press conference: "Du was arrested Saturday afternoon on suspicion of murder, Bostic said, just hours after she was treated at a hospital for what Bostic described as "superficial injuries" she sustained in the scuffle." There is hardly blame to be divided. Du was in a tough situation that many of us would have also failed. But it was her crime.

lots of issues | leave me a message 22:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I saw the video on a PBS program on the L.A. Riots, and Latasha immediately throws punches upon being confronted. The punches seemed powerful to me as evidenced by Du's head recoiling after each blow. And to the police, bruising, even severe bruising is considered superficial.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.238.76 (talk • contribs) 02:24 15 September 2005

The division of the blame in this case is not between that of two specific people. Understanding the circumstances in which the murder was committed blame goes to both the African American and Korean Communities. Other African Americans had stolen from Du's store previously and so she had reason to be suspicious. Ms. Harlins was one of many victims of the racial tensions in LA. The Korean community can be blamed for setting up so many liquor stores in the ghettos and being "rude" to African American customers. However, Korean's often had no choice but to set up shop in such places where no other racial groups would go. As for the common myth that immigrants receive more loans than inner city entrepreneurs, nothing could be further from the truth. Asian American entrepreneurs often get money from family abroad or save for decades working odd jobs in hopes of opening businesses. Koreans blaming African Americans and African Americans blaming Koreans is exactly how some would like the system to continue. Hopefully, some day, people will stop all this bickering and get to the real issues. FantajiFan 01:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You left out one very important word in your sentence. Harlins immediately throws punches upon being PHYSICALLY confronted. It was Du who first used her hands. 130.156.30.59 (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

biased

this article is biased and is only up here because of the supposed 'hate crime'. i think we should put this up for deletion.

What in the article do you feel is biased, and how so? Mwelch 22:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This is clearly biased, due to the phrasing. "Du was easily overcome and at just 115 lbs. she was certainly unable to push the street brawl hardened 150 plus pound Latasha off of her." The entire article gives only the perspective of an Asian storekeeper who's victim. What about the fact that she was convincted, with two witnesses against her? Shouldn't more information be provided on that? And how about a neutral perspective? ~Ako —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.181.207 (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

What is this rubbish about the witnesses being less reliable because they are "black youths"? What racist trash! This article is an embarassment to the reputation of Wikipedia. -p1nkfl0yd 01:23, 03 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.98.77 (talk)

Merging of Soon Ja Du and Latasha Harlins articles

Take a look and compare. These two articles are identical in scope with a few details unique to both. ie. names, ages, roles of Billy and Charles Du, Du's lawyer, video proof, Tupac. It seems like a waste of space to have the two when they don't go into the actual lives of the two individuals, and all we know about them stems from this one incident. I'm not entirely sure what the new article should be called - I'm trying to find an article which was titled after an incident with a similar background - Would this be a precedent? As voluntary manslaughter is still murder by definition, it could be called "Murder of Latasha Harlins," but I'm sure someone wants think of something that sounds "less biased." (The Lake Effect 09:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC))

Agreed with the merger idea. Definitely think that "Death of . . ." or even "Killing of . . ." would be a better title. Whether voluntary manslaughter is truly the same as second-degree murder is a subtle legal point that in truth would vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction even within the United States, to say nothing of possible legal variances in other countries. One could certainly make an reasonable argument that there's no substantive difference, and that "murder" is therefore just as appropriate a word. But it isn't Wikipedia's place to make such an argument. So, since Soon Ja Du was not convicted of murder, a "Murder of . . ." title definitely should not be used. Mwelch 20:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to try merging the two. --Seazzy 21:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Be bold! 8-) Mwelch 21:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

What absolute bullshit, seriously lads. Let's discuss, then change.

Who in the world puts an item IN their backpack, and then goes to pay for it. I doubt that girl was going to pay for anything, probably going to steal it.

Of course, it doesn't warrant her death but my god lads, let's get this straightened out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.178.93.113 (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

yes. She was absolutely, positively going to steal it. Pulling the money out of her pocket was a dead giveaway. Obviously people who have money in hand plan on stealing and should be punished with a shotgun.--Claude 19:58, 12 May 2007 (

Soap Box Section

Even though Wikipedia is not a soapbox, several users have used this page to express the opinion that Harlins deserved to die or that her death is somewhat less tragic because she was stealing. This idea, weak to begin with, becomes totally useless once one realizes that she WASN'T stealing, and one realizes this soon after beginning to read the article. Of course, those expressing this opinion are of the anonymous hit and run type, who can't be bothered with reading the text or the links. So I'm creating this section for them to speak their anger and ignorance, and so those wanting a real discussion don't have to be disturbed with their useless opinions. 130.156.29.112 19:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Du, a tiny elderly woman, used her hands to grab Harlin's backpack. As the storekeeper, she had a right to do that if she suspected shoplifting. And the girl WAS concealing merchandise. Du never tried to hit her, but Harlin wailed on the old woman. She was assaulted in her own store and in my opinion she had a right to defend herself. 76.115.59.36 (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

She probably planned on stealing it, noticed she was seen, and pulled the money out to cover for her actions. She still attempted to leave the store without paying. So drop the snotty sarcasm, people . . . it doesn't help and cases like this are not cut and dried. 76.115.59.36 (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

100% self defense. Du shouldn't have even received the probation. Latasha Harlins didn't deserve to die but deserve the reaction from an elderly store owner who probably never experience what she experienced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.180.95 (talk) 04:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You don't put something into your back pack if you intend on paying for it. The money may have been a ruse if she was confronted, to say she was going to pay for it. If you were going to pay for it, you don't start punching someone smaller than you when they come up and point out that you've put store merchandise into your back pack. You tell them "Sorry about that, I am going to buy this, I should have got a shopping basket". The article is written pretty POV for the dead girl. She didn't deserve to die for stealing juice, but from the sounds of it she assaulted the older/smaller shop owner quite viciously (probably something she'd been through before) and obviously felt extremely theatened to take retribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.132.10.250 (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

plagiarism!

This article contained several paragraphs copied (or nearly copied) from [1] (despite that page's prominent "reproduction prohibited" notice). Regrettably, the most recent revision I could find lacking the plagiarized text was from way back in December. I reverted it to be safe. Just thought I should explain myself. --kine (talk) 03:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC) u r an idiot she didnt leave with the merchandise she put it down and started to walk out..and thats not self-defense, Harlins was walking away the Bitch pulled some pussy shit and shot her in the head because she got her ass beat...and then she ran to Korea, she deserves to be thrown in jail and beat to death in there

Reliable sources noticeboard

Discussion here:[2] 130.156.29.230 (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Edits of 5/1/09

I am undoing several edits made today by an IP user. This has very little to do with the facts in the edits, but more to do with no sources given. From the articles I read none of the facts asserted by this editor were ever established. I could easily be wrong. If reliable sources can be provided that would verify the edits, by all means revert me. I will be leaving a similar message on that editor's talk page. Thanks. Tiderolls 22:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed Cites

I've reinserted several citations that were deleted without explanation. Verifiability is an import part of Wikipedia, see WP:V 68.38.183.158 (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand why you added the citations back, but all the information that the original citations refer to is obtainable through the court transcript. I deleted the citations to the articles, because the articles which the citations refer to have very sensational titles, favoring Harlins' side over Du's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saaws (talk • contribs) 01:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That may be the case, but I would think sources would always be welcome, if they are reliable. However, as a compromise, I offer this. All inline cites can be removed and put in the external references section. Cite 4 can be removed because its title is somwhat sensationalized, cites 1,2,8 and 10 can be removed since they aren't links. 68.38.183.158 (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Soon Ja Du

Does anyone know what has happened to Soon Ja Du? Did she end up going back to Korea? Does she still run a liquor store? A followup would be nice I can't find anything online but I will keep looking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.49.209 (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

Most of the narrative in the section "Summary" does not follow NPOV guidelines. The section says that it is a summary of the court case, but it is clearly not. The summary section uses language like "Du erroneously concluded" and " who falsely[4] claimed having been robbed". I think this section should just recount the facts as they appear in the case, and not make conclusions based on information that is unknowable. --Mherlihy (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the summary is pretty accurate. The wording could have been a bit better but it does tell the truth. Du, unfortunately, lied about being robbed (Harlins never took money from the register). Harlins only had two dollars in her hands and there was still money in Du's cash register.