Timothy Caughman
The violence on Westminster Bridge last week was a horror, but so was this:
His name was Timothy Caughman. He was from Manhattan and was 66 when he died. The police say he was stabbed on Monday night by a 28-year-old man who had come to New York City from Baltimore looking to kill black men. It was Mr. Caughman’s misfortune to be male and black when the stranger with a 26-inch sword approached on Ninth Avenue near 36th Street, around the corner from where he lived.
We don’t know much else about Mr. Caughman, but the persona he shared with the world on Twitter was that of a man of buoyant outlook and varied interests, who was amused by many things, fond of music and movies, captivated by celebrities. His profile says he was a “can and bottle recycler” and collector of autographs. “I would love to visit California,” it says. A selfie shows him waiting in line to vote and declaring his love for America. His Twitter feed is generous with condolences for celebrities: for Chuck Berry, Joni Sledge, Al Jarreau. On St. Patrick’s Day he retweeted a photograph of the athletes of Team Ireland competing in the Special Olympics World Winter Games in Austria.
On Thursday, President Trump sent prayers and condolences via Twitter to the family and friends of Kurt Cochran, an American killed in a terrorist rampage in London. He called Mr. Cochran “a great American.” He did not tweet about his fellow New Yorker, Mr. Caughman.
Mr. Trump is easily provoked to outrage. But he seems unable to summon that emotion on behalf of Mr. Caughman, who was poor and black and lived in a shelter for homeless people with H.I.V. and AIDS. Maybe he’s not that kind of president.
No, he’s not.
There probably would have been “Presidential” tweets had the skin colours of assailant and victim been reversed.
It can be argued that he is not really any kind of president. Except fake.
It certainly was an act of horror, but was it an act of terrorism? If not, are we expecting Trump to acknowledge every single murder of an American citizen that occurs during his tenure?
Karellen, yes — to my mind, any violence perpetrated out of hate, particularly this act by a White Supremacist who seems to have confessed to travelling to NY specifically in order to kill any black person, is certainly precisely terrorism.
Why does it need to be any “correct” colour to qualify as such in your view?
Ergo, yes — really has to put them on an equal footing. Or just shut up and go away, if that’s an option.
Sorry, just noticed I was too upset to even spell out T r u m p above.
I do remember his (predicted) silence on this matter to be quite conspicuous… and then something else happened. When the news cycle is crazy enough to push out the story of a black man who was murdered by a white supremacist with a (I believe) gladius, you know everything is fucked up…
Karellen @ 3 –
Well there’s a lot of territory between an act of terrorism and “every single murder.” Trump’s noticing this murder wouldn’t equate to noticing every single murder, because this murder does in fact have much in common with an act of terrorism. It’s like Dylann Roof’s act of terrorism that way, even though it was “only” one murder. “The police say he was stabbed on Monday night by a 28-year-old man who had come to New York City from Baltimore looking to kill black men. It was Mr. Caughman’s misfortune to be male and black when the stranger with a 26-inch sword approached.” You see what I mean? It was a racially motivated targeted killing of a stranger, so yes, that does amount to an act of terrorism, unless there’s some reason a single victim rules out that word.
I disagree. It certainly amounts to a hate crime – murder motivated by bigotry (race) – but not terrorism, unless all hate crimes are automatically terrorism as well. Which they aren’t.
But hate crimes *are* meant to inspire terror in the group targeted by the crime, rather than to settle some kind of score with the individual(s) against whom the crime is perpetrated. If ‘terrorism’ means anything at all, it certainly means just that.
Agree with Seth here. Hairs are better split on a different topic.
I think the deliberation and the interstate travel nudge it into the terrorism column.
Also the sword. It’s similar to the machetes in the terror murders of atheist bloggers in Bangladesh. Can we call that terrorism? I think we can.
The killer also apparently considered his first kill sort of a warm-up. In short, he *hoped* to go on a killing spree against black people, and possibly to inspire more violence, just like the Charlotte shooter wanting to start a race war. Terrorist.
OB at 11, plus the sword has a ring of the Crusader to it.
Technically if it was a gladius not a crusader weapon, but do we expect white supremacists to get all pedantic about swords? I suspect if the sword resembles a cross or a confederate cavalry sabre, close enough.
Also, my vote, terrorism AND hate crime. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Don’t forget the business about inter-racial romance. He wanted to dissuade white women from dating men of color. That is an attempt to control behavior, another feature of terrorism.
The killer was a follower of the misogynist pseudo-philosophy known as Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) (along with the usual white supremacist garbage.)
Why am I completely unsurprised.