The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
The Infamous Vincent Chin Murder in 1982 Didn't Happen the Way it's Often Portrayed
I always find it disturbing when an incident that "I know" turns out to have been quite different from how it's consistently reported and what I believed to be true.
Here's the standard media version of the Chin murder, via NPR last year:
Forty years ago, 27-year-old Vincent Chin was enjoying a night out with his friends in Detroit. It was meant to be a celebration ahead of Chin's upcoming marriage, but he didn't make it to the wedding. That night he was beaten to death by two white men who worked in the auto industry and, according to witnesses, were angry over what they perceived as the loss of American jobs to Japanese imports.
The men targeted Chin because he was Asian – not knowing he was Chinese American, not Japanese. The killing galvanized Asian Americans across the entire country to fight for civil rights. It's a battle that continues today.
Here's what I learned about the incident when reading lawprof Robert Chang's book Disoriented: Asian Americans, Law, and the Nation-State while researching my book Classified and then doing a bit more research:
Chin was drinking at a bachelor party at a strip club. He got into a verbal dispute with some white patrons. At trial, one witness, a stripper at the club, testified that the white patrons, auto workers, made racial remarks related to the loss of auto jobs to the Japanese. However, the defendants denied it, and the witness who so testified received a lighter sentence for another matter in exchange for her testimony, raising doubts about her credibility.
As for the violence, Chin threw the first punch in the bar. When they were all kicked out of the club, he yelled to the white men in the parking lot, "Come on you chickenshits, let's fight some more." That should have been the end of the incident.
Instead, the white guys tracked him down at a McDonald's (after telling a black man they would pay him $20 for helping them find "a Chinese guy"—so much for not realizing he was Chinese) and beat him severely. He became unconscious and died.
That's enough for me for a murder conviction, which is what the defendants were charged with. The district attorney, however, agreed to allow them to plead guilty only to manslaughter. Outrageously, in line with the probation office's recommendation, the killers received probation based on their lack of criminal history. This was said to be standard in Wayne County for first-offense convictions for manslaughter; if so, the DA should not have agreed to the manslaughter plea.
The ridiculously lenient sentence galvanized activists, in part because the possible racial angle of the incident was highlighted and exaggerated, and also because the light sentence was blamed on the judge. The judge had been interned in a Japanese POW camp during World War II and was therefore suspected of harboring racial animosity to Asians. Moreover, some of his remarks at sentencing seemed to display undue sympathy for the defendants.
So there was, imho, clear injustice in this case. The killers were let off way too easily, and there was justified outrage about that. But contrary to how the case has been remembered, it's not clear that the altercation itself was racially motivated, and the notion that Chin was set upon randomly by autoworkers is false.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Today, if you mention the victim's race or other protected attributes during a crime then you have committed a hate crime. Maybe it's supposed to work otherwise, but I see the enhancement used successfully even when the motive was clearly not racial.
I think Dylan Roof is worse than the Vegas shooter because Roof is a racist while the Vegas shooter married a Philippino woman.
It's really hard to tell when SBF is being sarcastic or just his usual idiot self.
"Progressives'" take on things is so absurd (insane!) that normal people often mistake it for sarcasm. I've done so myself:
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/04/26/women-only-workout-areas-in-exercise-facilities/?comments=true#comment-8874811
I don't know, I'm always troubled by taking a perp's motive into account for the charge and sentencing. You can never truly get into someone's head and in things like murder is it more aggrecious based on why they did it? After all they are just as dead regardless of why they were killed.
Yup. I suspect people would have a big problem if the government tried to crack down on protests by enacting severe enhancements for crimes motivated by disagreement with government policy, for example.
Not only enhancements. The perps in the Chin killing had the Federal government swoop in and double jeopardy them (no, I don't buy the separate sovereigns malarkey) for blatantly political reasons.
Sure, the original trial produced a travesty of a sentence. But that isn't why the Feds got involved.
Much of our criminal law turns on what is in the perpetrator's head. It's called mens rea. A homicide can be murder, manslaughter, or no crime at all precisely because of why the killer killed the victim and what was in the killer's mind. Did he kill with malice aforethought, or serious provocation, or the reasonable belief that the victim was going to kill the killer? We don't seem to have much problem with this -- unless the mental state in question is one you just don't want people to care about.
So no problem with harsher penalties for crimes motivated by disagreement with the government?
Oh, there are plenty of problems with that, just not that there’s something generally wrong with taking state of mind into account or the alleged difficulty of getting into someone’s head. We do both of those all the time, usually pretty well. Now if you have a specific reason that you’re willing to talk about for not taking them into account in hate crimes in particular, you’re welcome to tell us about it.
I think James Early Ray was worse than either because if he'd been a better shot he could have taken out (Reverends) Jesse Jackson and Ralph Abernathy and we'd have gotten 2 more Federal holidays.
A quick and dirty Google:
Seems to cover the basics, though jurisdictions will vary:
“The prosecution must present evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the charged crime in whole or in part because of the alleged victim’s actual or perceived disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or association with a person or group having one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics.”
As if.
"Today, if you mention the victim’s race or other protected attributes during a crime then you have committed a hate crime."
The 1984 death of Charlie Howard is a good example of this -- he was the gay man from New Hampshire who was thrown off a bridge into Bangor, Maine's Kenduskeag Stream -- at low tide in late summer of a dry year -- Howard drowned in less than 3 feet of water*. And over the four decades since, this has been paraded as an unpunished hate crime -- which it really wasn't.
First and foremost, the perps were aged 14, 15, & 16 and Maine law at the time mandated that they be tried as juveniles, with the maximum possible sentence for any crime being the juvenile system until age 21 and then a clean slate. (The law has since been changed, in part because of this incident.)
Secondly, they were the sons of the most politically important families in Bangor, this back when major industries were still locally owned. Think "Hunter Biden" -- these boys were from really important families and hence were exempt from all laws -- Bangor was that corrupt back then. Things like underaged drinking and OUI were no big deal to them as the worst that could possibly happen would be the police taking them home.
Third, Bangor was a regional hangout for closeted Gay men, and as the city did not yet have a gay bar, they would hang out and meet at the bus stop that was on this bridge -- which was also the transfer stop between the various bus routes. The economy was not good at the time, with minimum-wage jobs hard to find, and drugs were relatively expensive -- so a lot of male high school students would prostitute themselves for either drug money or drugs themselves.
(The advantage of a gay bar is that it is over-21 with a liquor license to lose if it doesn't try to enforce that, the high school students are not welcome.)
Fourth, the 14-year-old had been "sexually assaulted" earlier that evening. To the best of my knowledge (and what I can reveal here) I believe that the 14-year-old was either mistaken for a prostitute and/or something went a lot further than he had expected/intended it to -- as these kids had money, I'm inclined to believe the former.
And instead of going to the authorities, he got his two older male friends who (accompanied by some girls) drove around the city, drunk, and wound up "avenging" the assault by throwing Howard into the water. Even if I knew if it had been Howard who had sexually assaulted the 14-year-old, I wouldn't be able to state that -- but published reports stated that the crime was provoked upon recognition.
I'm not justifying any of this, including Howard's friend who did pull a fire alarm (this was BC -- Before Cellphones) but then disappeared like a thief into the night. (I would have waded in after him, but that's me.
But this was not some machismo orgy of homophobia in a city that couldn't care less about it -- notwithstanding who the perps were, they still received the maximum sentence under Maine law as it existed at the time. And there was the issue of the prior sexual assault.
* Drowning in water shallow enough to simply stand up in actually isn't unheard of -- the victim (who can't swim) panics and never tries to simply stand up and walk ashore.
Dr. Ed pretending that he has some hidden secret knowledge into why this murder happened is even funnier when you realize that one of the murderers literally wrote a book about why they did it. (Turns out it was anti-gay animus!)
If you rely on the most woke sources many facts about everything will be "secret" from you.
Ed is of course not pretending to any "secret knowledge".
E.g., it is revealing that he gives details omitted here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Charlie_Howard
The Wikipedia version is no better than NPR's.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Vincent_Chin
E.g., the stripper witness becomes "witnesses" and there's no mention of the two looking for "a Chinese guy".
Not surprising. Both of these are publications where the narrative is more important than the facts.
Right. Wikipedia & NPR (as well as the rest of "mainstream" media) will lie to you whenever doing so advances the Left's (i.e., the Democratic Party's) agenda.
yawn
No one is trying to wake up a hopeless ignorant contributes-nothing like you.
Commenters (like you) who are only here to make ideologically driven, Fox News retreaded garbage comments are tiresome and boring and repetitive. Who do you think you are convincing here with your drivel? Do you actually imagine you are some kind of knowledgeable contributor?
I'm inviting all my enemies to Detriot for one last strip club party.
Instead, the white guys tracked him down at a McDonald's (after telling a black man they would pay him $20 for helping them find "a Chinese guy"—so much for not realizing he was Chinese) and beat him severely.
This doesn't quite track with:
But contrary to how the case has been remembered, it's not clear that the altercation itself was racially motivated,
Did they ask the Black guy to help them find any Chinese guy, or did they describe Chin specifically?
Other sources make it clear that they were looking for the Chinese guys from the strip club.
...which isn't exactly the same as the Bernstein/Chang version.
Also, from Wikipedia, this: "Chin's friend Jimmy Choi had at first supported Ebens' version of no racial animosity or epithets and that Chin threw a chair that injured Nitz, but he changed his statement after meeting the ACJ[American Citizens for Justice] attorney.[15][30]"
Which is maybe where the plural in "witnesses" comes from.
https://rumble.media/the-man-who-killed-vincent-chin-by-michael-moore/
When they found him, they should've made a hilarious Hawaii-Five-0 reference by shouting "Chin Ho!"
....speaking of someone who thinks its hilarious to shit in his own pants. ^^^^^
Much like the Matthew Shepard case.
And turning mlk and milk into saints. Very few among even ‘educated’ adults know or want to know the truth. It’s narrative over history these days. Although I don’t begrudge mlk in his taste for some booty. Whereas progs either deny it or squirrel the info into some shameful corner of their subconscious. So in a way I accept mlk. The REAL mlk more than the vast majority of people who claim to admire him.
MLK got into the game in the early 1950s, at which time being Black ianywhere in the U.S. sucked, and being Black in the deep south REALLY sucked. (Northern racists don't care how high a Black man gets as long as he doesn't get too close, whereas Southern racists don't care how close a Black man gets as long as he doesn't get too high. To wit, racism in the North was based on [legitimate] economic and [illegitimate] fear of Black whereas racism on the South was about
By the early sixties, MLK was a rockstar. To wit, women were throwing themselves at him, and it's not easy for a young man to "just say no".
Meanwhile, as great as his accomplishments were, they pale in comparison to those of Lyndon Johnson.
"We campaign in poetry; we govern in prose".
To wit, a
The
LBJ was a turd.
Just wondering: Are you on record saying it's OK that Trump said ~"They let you grab their pussies"?
Also see:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/06/04/how-to-make-sense-of-the-shocking-new-mlk-documents-227042/
Just wondering: Are you on record saying it’s OK that Trump said
I assume you mean disqualifying.
That forces you onto the field of 'whataboutism' Not sure where we are supposed to go from that position.
Obama's statements are littered with statements against the Constitution. His famous statement "we are days away from fundamentally changing the United States".
fundamental; Forming or serving as an essential component of a system or structure; central.
Of great significance or entailing major change.
That is a direct assault on our Nation. Treasonous.
Pointing out women trade sex for advancing their goals is as old as man. pointing that out is small beer.
ChrisF was making the argument that when a man is rock-star famous, women will go to great lengths to get his attention. Gandydancer's question, as he wrote it, merely assumes intellectual consistency.
Actually I was questioning rather than assuming intellectual consistency.
And I was not asserting whether or not it was OK to grab willing pussies (or how safe it might be to intuit willingness when the evidence may not be dispositive), so, anyway, inserting "disqualifying" in place of "OK" in what was intended to be a near-quote would make no sense at all.
Also, if one follows my link you will find that MLK was accused of rather more than not turning down willing groupies. I don't have strong opinions on the credibility of that information, but it's something to keep in mind before making the excuse ChrisF made for him.
Juris:
Which the liberal media were quick to acknowledge.
What?
Shepard was killed in 1998. In 2009, there was an expanded anti-"hate crime" bill that was proudly passed using his name, based on the idea that he was killed because of anti-gay animus.
In 2018, Shepard's ashes were interred at the National Cathedral.
In 2019, he was one of the original name put on the National LGBTQ Wall of Honor.
More than 20 years later, the media and activists are still using him and his name as an example of "anti-gay hate crimes", rather than acknowledging all the information that actually came out during and after the trial.
I don't think that's "quick", except by geological scales.
I’ve seen some halfbaked acknowledgements here and there. (Mostly since it’s beyond argument). But the average Joe off the streets mental image of the Shepherd incident remains somewhat along the lines of poor white bread shepherd on the way to volunteer at the soup kitchen being jumped by evil homophobic redneck Christians with crucifixes and the scalps of previous gay victims dangling from their necks, looking for a thrill kill because trump ordered them to. And that’s how the media likes it. Knowingly spread lies then hide the correction in some corner so you can state that you did correct yourself while still doing all you can to keep the lie spreading.
This provides some useful qualification as to whether race was the motive for the killing, which it may not have been. But we’re still left with a clear murder where the perpetrators got $3000 fines and probation. You can’t escape the conclusion that nobody involved on the government’s side - prosecutor’s office or judge - cared if the killers were punished or not. There’s a reason for that. I’m willing to be persuaded that the reason wasn’t Chin’s race, but I haven’t heard any other theories.
I don’t think it’s facially implausible that prosecutes in Detroit in the 80s cared similarly little about most homicides.
Maybe. If a first offense murder in 1980s Detroit only set you back the cost of a Hyundai and some probation you’d have been a sucker not to take advantage.
“I’m willing to be persuaded that the reason wasn’t Chin’s race, but I haven’t heard any other theories.”
So you didn’t read the post?
Saying “the reason” appears to be intentionally obscurantist, btw. The cause of the initial fight may have been hostility to Chin’s and Choi’s race and Chin’s reaction to the expression of that, but the reason for chasing him down and whacking him on the head with a baseball bat may have been the injury to Nitz and his and his uncle’s unwillingness to leave it at that.
So now you’ve heard an “other” theory.
And I've now consulted another link supplied above and, sure enough, the "other" theory pops right up:
“All I wanted to do was inflict a little injury, to get even for Mike’s split head.”
https://rumble.media/the-man-who-killed-vincent-chin-by-michael-moore/
Well I guess that settles that!
So your theory is that the prosecutor cared so much about getting these guys that they pressured a witness into fabricating evidence to make them look bad, and then offered them a plea agreement that resulted in no jail time? That doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense.
Apparently Choi also denied it, until changing his mind for the Federal civil rights violation/double jeopardy trial.
And it's not apparently contested that the stripper got a deal in return for her testimony. That the only reason to elicit her evidence was to introduce the racial claim is YOUR proposition, and if you have any evidence for that claim you haven't mentioned it. That she got a deal indicates merely that her evidence made the case easier for the prosecution, not that they gave her a script. If this was the black stripper (or even if not) it may simply be the case that making it a racial thing was a natural path for her inventiveness.
It was indeed the black rather than the white stripper that came up with the Japs-cost-us-our -jobs dialog. I'm not sure at which trial, but I read that somewhere.
The strippers testified at the subsequent Federal civil rights trial, where Ebens was initially convicted and sentenced to 20 years, but the conviction was overturned and he was acquitted on retrial.
I can't find anything to confirm that it was the feds that gave her a plea agreement, but that would make more sense.
The question is whether the motive here should make any difference. It was a brutal murder, and the perps got away with a slap on the wrist. That itself is a gross injustice, regardless of motive.
Whether they went after the victim because he was Chinese, or because they wanted to continue their bar brawl seems to me to make little moral difference. Yet the law treats them differently. Query whether it should. (And, yes, I know SCOTUS upheld these kinds of law in Wisconsin v. Mitchell. Does not make it a good idea.)
Based on the discussion here, I foresee a difficulty with so-called reparations for slavery in America. Do the descendants of slave-owning Black men who were members of the Confederate Army (let's use Marlboro Jones as a name for each such veteran) receive or pay reparations? Do the [Black] descendants of the citizens of African nations who captured and sold slaves to [White] Americans receive or pay reparations? Who will make the determinations?
History has to contort to fit contemporary narratives.
Since it's never happening, don't worry too much about it. It's all a left-wing fantasy.
So there was, imho, clear injustice in this case. The killers were let off way too easily
Sounds like they were hit harder than the average black murderer is hit by a Soros prosecutor.
So when the Left agrees that what the left wing prosecutors' is doing is wrong, evil, and a clear injustice, I'll be happy to agree that the Chin sentences were a problem.
But until then? That's the "justice" the Left wants, so they shoudl get it, good and hard
Boy, that escalated quickly. I mean, that really got out of hand fast.