ハローウイン殺人事件：１９９２年に発生した日本人留学生射殺事件で、米国の銃社会と拳銃による殺人を正当化。本質は、白人による黄色人種の殺人です。米国南部では、白人は、それ以外の者を殺しても構わないとする考え方が定着していると言える。
当時、１６歳の交換学生である服部君がハロウィーンパーティに呼ばれて、その招待した家庭を探していて、誤って別の家の玄関アプローチを進んだところ、その家の主人に英語で「Freeze」と言われたが、それを「Please」と理解したらしく、そのまま前進したら射殺された。殺した白人は、強い恐怖を感じたので射殺したとある。何の武器も所持しない１６歳の少年がニコニコと笑いながらそばに近づいてきただけで、射殺したのである。これでも、実質、無罪放免です。
日本人留学生射殺事件
Back in 1992, a Japanese boy aged 16 and named Hattori was shot to death by a white man named Rdney Peairs residing in Louisiana, U.S.A. during a happy Halloween holiday. Hattori full of smiles and excited over his first Halloween party, was on the way to attend a Halloween party, looking for the home who invited him to the party. Apparently he stepped into a front yard of the wrong house by accident. However, that piece of shit named Pearis killed him with his handgun after telling him to freeze which sounds like “Please” to most of the native Japanese.
Considering the circumstances, he should have been sentenced to at least "manslaughter"even under the U.S. laws. The fact he got away with murdering the innocent boy evidently proves that everyone involved in the case seems to have had racial prejudice, although its degree differes among them, against the Japanese people
Suppose a white American boy walks into a doorstep of the Japanese house in Japan and he is stubbed to death by a Japanese man with a kitchen knife under the similar circumstances as described below. I’m sure he will be convicted of some crimes such as “negligent manslaughter” or “murder” under the existing criminal laws of Japan.
However, the deranged Pearis was acquitted. Practically no compensation was paid by him even after the court (Civil Trial) ordered him to pay $653,000 to the family of the victim. (According to Wikipedia in Japanese)
Fatal incident (from Wikipedia in English)
Two months into his stay in the United States, he received an invitation, along with Webb Haymaker, his homestay brother, to a Halloween party organized for Japanese exchange students on October 17, 1992. Hattori went dressed in a tuxedo in imitation of John Travolta from Saturday Night Fever. Upon their arrival in the quiet working class neighborhood where the party was held, the boys mistook the Peairs' residence for their intended destination due to the similarity of the address and the Halloween decorations on the outside of the house, and proceeded to step out of their car and walk to the front door. (Fujio 2004; Harper n.d.)
Hattori and Haymaker rang the front doorbell but, seemingly receiving no response, began to walk back to their car. Meanwhile, inside the house, their arrival had not gone unnoticed. Bonnie Peairs had peered out the side door and saw them. Mrs. Peairs, startled, retreated inside, locked the door, and said to her husband, "Rodney, get your gun." Hattori and Haymaker were walking to their car when the carport door was opened again, this time by Mr. Peairs. He was armed with a loaded and cocked .44 magnum revolver. He pointed it at Hattori, and yelled "Freeze." Simultaneously, Hattori, likely thinking he said "please," stepped back towards the house, saying "We're here for the party." Haymaker, seeing the weapon, shouted after Hattori, but Peairs fired his weapon at point blank range at Hattori, hitting him in the chest, and then ran back inside. (Kernodle 2002; Fujio 2004; Harper n.d.) Haymaker rushed to Hattori, badly wounded and lying where he fell, on his back. Haymaker ran to the home next door to the Peairs' house for help. Neither Mr. Peairs nor his wife came out of their house until the police arrived, about 40 minutes after the shooting. Mrs. Peairs shouted to a neighbor to "go away" when the neighbor called for help. One of Peairs' children later told police that her mother asked, "Why did you shoot him?"
The shot had pierced the upper and lower lobes of Hattori's left lung, and exited through the area of the seventh rib; he died in the ambulance minutes later, from loss of blood.
The criminal trial of Peairs (from Wikipedia in English)
Initially, the local police quickly questioned and released Peairs, and declined to charge him with any crime. They felt that "Peairs had been within his rights in shooting the trespasser." Only after the governor of Louisiana and the New Orleans Japan consul general protested, did Peairs get charged with manslaughter. Peairs defense counsel's strategy consisted of a claim that Hattori had an "extremely unusual manner of moving", one which any reasonable person would find "scary", and emphasis on Peairs as an "average Joe", a man just like the jury members' neighbors, a man who "liked sugar in his grits".
At the trial, Peairs testified about the moment just prior to the shooting: "It was a person, coming from behind the car, moving real fast. At that point, I pointed the gun and hollered, 'Freeze!' The person kept coming toward me, moving very erratically. At that time, I hollered for him to stop. He didn't; he kept moving forward. I remember him laughing. I was scared to death. This person was not gonna stop, he was gonna do harm to me." Peairs testified that he shot Yoshi once in the chest when the youth was about five feet away. "I had no choice," he said. "I want Yoshi's parents to understand that I'm sorry for everything."
District Attorney Doug Moreau concentrated on establishing that it had not been reasonable for Peairs, a 6-foot-2, well-armed man, to be so fearful of a polite, friendly, unarmed, 130-pound boy, who rang the doorbell, even if he walked toward him unexpectedly in the driveway, and that Peairs was not justified in using deadly force. Moreau stated, "It started with the ringing of the doorbell. No masks, no disguises. People ringing doorbells are not attempting to make unlawful entry. They didn't walk to the back yard; they didn't start peeking in the windows."
"You were safe and secure, weren't you?" Moreau asked Peairs during his appearance before the grand jury. "But you didn't call the police, did you?"
"No sir." Peairs said.
"Did you hear anyone trying to break in the front door?"
"No sir."
"Did you hear anyone trying to break in the carport door?"
"No sir."
"And you were standing right there at the door, weren't you - with a big gun?"
Peairs nodded.
"I know you're sorry you killed him. You are sorry, aren't you?"
"Yes sir."
"But you did kill him, didn't you?"
"Yes sir."
Peairs testified in a flat, toneless drawl, breaking into tears several times. A police detective testified that Peairs had said to him, "Boy, I messed up; I made a mistake."
The defense argued that Peairs was in large part reacting reasonably to his wife's panic. Peairs' wife testified for an hour describing the incident, during which she also broke into tears several times. "He was coming real fast, and it just clicked in my mind that he was going to hurt us. I slammed the door and locked it. I took two steps into the living room, where Rod could see me and I could see him. I told him to get the gun." Peairs did not hesitate or question her, but instead went to retrieve a handgun with a laser sight that was stored in a suitcase in the bedroom, which he said "was the easiest, most accessible gun to me."
"There was no thinking involved. I wish I could have thought. If I could have just thought," Mrs. Peairs said.[4]
The trial lasted seven days. After the jurors deliberated for three and a quarter hours, Peairs was acquitted.
The civil trial
In a later civil action (95 0144 (La.App. 1 Cir. 10/6/95), 662 So.2d 509), however, the court found Peairs liable to Hattori's parents for $650,000 in damages, which they used to establish two charitable funds in their son's name; one to fund U.S. high school students wishing to visit Japan, and one to fund organizations that lobby for gun control.The lawyers for Hattori's parents argued that the Peairs had behaved unreasonably: Bonnie Peairs had overreacted to the presence of the two teens outside her house; the Peairs had behaved unreasonably by not communicating with each other to convey what exactly the threat was; they had not taken the best path to safety—remaining inside the house and calling police; they had erred in taking offensive action rather than defensive action; and Rodney Peairs had used his firearm too quickly, without assessing the situation, using a warning shot, or shooting to wound. Furthermore, the much larger Peairs could likely very easily have subdued the short, slightly built teen. The gun was also out of line with the type one would use to defend one's home. Contrary to Peairs' claim that Hattori was moving strangely and quickly towards him, forensic evidence demonstrates that Hattori was moving slowly, or not at all, and his arms were away from his body, indicating he was no threat. Overall, a far greater show of force was used than was appropriate. Out of the total compensation, only $100,000 has been paid by an insurance company.
@mitsusan2010
Recent Comments