I just saw this on cable, and something occurred to me that I don’t have an answer for.
The night of the truck robbery, where Derek Vinyard killed two of the three potential thieves, resulting in the famous “curb stomp” is the focus of the question.
If I recall correctly, Vinyard received only three years or so for the two killings.
I am assuming they were not labeled as murder, but perhaps manslaughter, and certainly not premeditated. However, the curb stomp doesn’t seem to fall into a death which happened as a result of someone trying to stop the commission of a crime.
Shooting the armed perpetrators, and having them die is one thing. But how did they explain away the evidence of the head stomp? Clearly, he was already shot. His mouth just didn’t happen to open up and fall on the curb, and Vinyard didn’t accidentally step on his head in this position.
This was a malicious act. Murder seems to fit the description. How did this play out in court where he didn’t get charged with it? Surely the autopsy would show what happened.
Is it legal in Calif. to do whatever you want/can to the criminals if you catch them in the act?
Well, this is a white guy being robbed at his own home by black guys, and as I recall the only witness was his brother who refused to testify… I can see a deal being made to treat this as manslaughter by a DA who thinks a jury might be sympathetic and unmoved by dry forensic (as opposed to eyewitness) testimony.
When Danny is typing his report on Derek, we see something along the lines of “Derek was sentenced to three years. If I had testified, it would’ve been life.” He then deletes the second sentence.
And both guys were killed. Derek specifically stated that he took two men’s lives.
Actually, rereading the summary of the movie - Derek’s dad was a fireman killed by a black guy, Derek killed two black guys that were trying to steal his truck, his trial would have taken place in Los Angeles in the early 1990s, possibly just after the Rodney King riots, Derek himself is intelligent and articulate…
If he downplays his neo-Nazi skinhead interests (a suit will cover his tattoos and he’d have time before trial to let his hair grow to a more socially-acceptable length) and the jury is full of whites, I can see him getting acquitted, and I’m sure a Los Angeles D.A. could see it, too, hence a favourable deal.
Actually, I’m not sure why Derek wouldn’t just take his chances at trial, once he knew his brother wasn’t going to testify.
I’m also under the impression that it was a deal. The guys he killed were in the process of committing a crime, so that is a mitigating factor to the jury. Yes he was a member of a white surpremicist group, which surely the DA would have mentioned and he would have probably done well with downplaying, but the bottom line is that he didn’t go seeking it out. On top of that, these were the same guys he had beaten on the basketball court, presumably earlier in the day, so it wasn’t a random crime but he was specifically targetted. While obviously it doesn’t excuse his excessive reaction, I still think most juries would be sympathetic to some extent to going overboard in that sort of situation.
The film was released in '98 and he’d been in jail for 3 years, so presumably the crime would have happened around 94-95, maybe even a little earlier, so the whole Rodney King fiasco was still fresh in everyone’s mind; in fact, I got the impression that the argument that they had about Rodney King had happened at dinner that night since he said he’d be gone in the morning but the incident happened at that house. I think the DA was aware that creating a public spectacle of this issue wouldn’t go over well and would have likely been wary of how the jury would have reacted to tearing open those fairly recent wounds.
So I suspect either they cut a deal or the DA specifically chose not to charge with murder so at least when it went to trial it wouldn’t get as much press.
He was also the leader of a white supremacy group which means that a trial that went negatively could have resulted in greatly increased racial problems in LA.
The movie’s a bit unclear on this issue. Danny says “If I had testified, it would’ve been life” when perhaps more accurately it should have been “If Derek had gone to trial, I would have been forced to testify and it would have been life.” Of course, that doesn’t scan as nicely.
I can picture a D.A. thinking the only eyewitness he has is the epitome of “hostile”, another reason to cut a deal.
The family was living in a relatively nice house at the time. When Derek is released they’re living in a cheap motel. My assumption was that they sold or lost the house due to Derek’s legal bills, meaning they didn’t use a public defender but a sharp (and expensive) private attorney who got him a much lesser sentence.
Apparently nobody in prison knew about the curb stomp or I don’t think his laundry room friend, the black convicts, or his teacher (Avery Brooks) would any of them give a damn whether the Aryans raped or killed him or used his skin for clothing. The fact that it was a curb stomp would probably trump the fact it was a black guy; a racist pure sadist is only a degree worse than a libertarian pure sadist.
I don’t think it was a motel, was it? We see the exterior, and it looks like a housing project to me, anyway.
I interpreted the decline of the family to Derek’s father being dead, Derek not being around to help out the family, Derek’s mom being useless, and his older sister being in school. After all, they’re still living in the nice house when Derek curb-stomps the guy, which is well after his father’s death and Derek’s descent into Nazism.
I viewed the change in living arrangements as a direct result of Derek being in jail also, and not being able to support the family while in jail.
Sampiro, I got the impression that many of the blacks in jail knew about the curb stomp. Derek states that he believed that there were many guys itching to get at him, but in the beginning he hooked up with his AB gang. After the rape, the whites basically assume the blacks will either kill him or use him, so they chuck him out and ignore him.
The only way he survived is if the black laundry kid said something to the black leadership. That could be possible, I guess. I mean even if they knew about the curb stomp, they could just chalk that up as another death. So it was a bit messy. The guy is just as dead;
Thanks for the theories everyone. Obviously, it is something that wasn’t exactly explained clearly, and I’m glad I’m not the only one who didn’t get it.
I think the other thing I am not exactly clear on is that I’m not sure it is the same day/night they lost the basketball court. I’ll have to watch it again. I’m not sure if that make a difference or not, but it is an interesting angle to consider.