Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article

from prince c Saturday, May 12, 2007 - 03:36 (Agree/Disagree?) they kingdom come....thy will be done, Don Irwin (reply to this comment)

from shikaka Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 08:16 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm filled with a great weariness when I hear stories like this. "Hate crime" is far too ambiguous and uncategorizable (is that a word? It is now) a term to be bandied about so freely. These hate crime charges smack of "big brother". It seems obvious that Irwin was not promoting nazi ideals. I wonder what they would have charged him with if he had stripped to the waist, painted the contents of his message on his body, and stood in front of the councilman's office? This seems like a case of simple vandalism blown all out of proportion by American society's retarded sense of "right". No, I am no affiliated with al-quaeda. Just disenchanted with "civilization". (reply to this comment)

From EyesWideShut Saturday, May 12, 2007, 10:18 (Agree/Disagree?) I totally get that.(reply to this comment)

From shikaka Wednesday, May 09, 2007, 08:17 (Agree/Disagree?) ** "not affiliated with al-quaeda"(reply to this comment)

From roughneck Wednesday, May 09, 2007, 15:02 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree: calling juvenile shit like this a "hate crime" dilutes the phrase for describing actual hate crimes. "Felony Vandalism with Hate-Crime Enhancement"? What a joke! I could see felony charges being deservedly filed if he'd caused actual, hell, even minimal property damage or had used or threatened violence, but seeing as how he apparently didn't, I'd reckon he should be charged with misdemeanor mischief or the local equivalent at worst. Add to this the fact that Irwin was championing the cause of Jewish-American Children and hate-crime charges are all the more ludicrous. I can just picture the DA's opening statement: "The State of Califo-ni-A will prove that Mister Irwin did commit hate-enhanced felony vandalism with this UHU stick, exhibit A. So deep and abiding was Mister Irwin's hate for all Jewish people, that he compared Jack Weiss, who is Jewish, to Hitler, for ignoring the concerns of Jewish-American children. To redress this heinous HATE-ENHANCED crime the state seeks 3 years in pound-me-in-the-ass state prison for Mister Irwin. Absolutely fucking farcical if you ask me. The irony in all this is that if Donny-boy wasn't a swastika-lovin' racist to begin with, getting drafted into the Aryan Nation in LA County Lockup/CA State Prison while being "rehabilitated" should do the trick nicely. I hear it sucks being a little fish swimming with sharks. As for the idea of painting his message on his body, he might just possibly be able to get Endowment for the Arts funding for the idea, so, shh!. :D All that being said, I do hope he seeks some professional help, he does seem to need it in a bad way. -I'd recommend he start with a good defence attorney, and proceed on to the therapist and from thenceforth to pharmacist. But hey, the one thing all the crazies I've ever met have in common is that they all think they're perfectly sane and rational and that none of the fucked-up shit they do is ever objectionable. What can I say but: Don, here's your sign.(reply to this comment)

From rainy Friday, May 11, 2007, 12:52 (Agree/Disagree?) I totally agree with your assessment of the situation. Is he really getting three years in prison? He needs three years of psychiatric care.(reply to this comment)

From ErikMagnusLehnsher Thursday, May 10, 2007, 19:28 (Agree/Disagree?) It goes without saying that Don is a bit of a loon. Over six months my opinion of him morphed from respect to concern...to shock...to general fatigue. I view his situation, however, with no schadenfreude whatsoever. I hope he's safe and can get some help somehow. Regarding the hate crime aspect I was honestly a bit curious about what legally constitutes a "hate crime". Dictionary.com states: "a crime, usually violent, motivated by prejudice or intolerance toward a member of a gender, racial, religious, or social group." It seems theoritically possible that a black man, for example, could become angry with his local councilman (who happens to be black) about inaction taken on behalf of poor black kids and tape up a couple of papers with "KKK" written on them and some rambling message about the councilman being a house negro, or somesuch. In this instance the "hater" isn't motivated by prejudice or intolerance of the councilman because he's black but is rather accusing him of expressing callous disregard to such a degree that he might as well be a member of the KKK. Of course, this makes more sense if the vandal is black. I don't know Don and I don't know if he's Jewish.(reply to this comment)

From Elaine Friday, May 11, 2007, 13:24 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree. If simply calling someone a Nazi was a hate crime, then shouldn't Seinfeld have been shut down for the whole Soup Nazi thing? Or perhaps this is another instance of the hip-hop N word issue? (reply to this comment)

from time out Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 07:30 (Agree/Disagree?) More on tuneman's recent activities...not looking good http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-briefs9.1may09,1,5659096.story?coll=la-headlines-california&ctrack=1&cset=true Charges filed in posting of swastikas at office From LA Times Staff and Wire Reports May 9, 2007 Charges were filed Tuesday against Adonis Irwin, 32, the suspect arrested Friday and alleged to have glued printouts of swastikas and two rambling messages on the door of Councilman Jack Weiss' Sherman Oaks office last week. One of the messages implied that Weiss was a Nazi. He is Jewish. City Atty. Rocky Delgadillo charged Irwin with one count of vandalism, one count of posting a swastika on private property and one hate crime charge. Irwin could face up to three years in prison and $11,000 in fines if convicted. The Sherman Oaks man pleaded not guilty at an arraignment Tuesday. He is being held on $175,000 bail; trial has been scheduled for June 1. From LAPD Blog: Man Arrested for Vandalizing Councilmember Jack Weiss Office Los Angeles: A 32-year-old man was arrested for vandalizing the field office of Los Angeles City Councilmember Jack Weiss with anti-Semitic posters glued to the front entrance doors and windows. On May 3, 2007, at about 6:00 a.m., an employee from the neighboring business witnessed the incident and provided investigators with a detailed description of the suspect responsible for the crime. Investigators noted that this description closely matched that of an individual, Adonis Irwin, who patrol officers had stopped the previous day for creating a disturbance with the Council's staff. With the information provided, investigators were able to obtain a search warrant for Irwin's residence, located less than a mile from Weiss' office. A search of Irwin's home resulted in the recovery of evidence linking him to the crime. As detectives were preparing to leave the location, Irwin was sighted fleeing the neighborhood. Officers arrested Irwin in the 4600 block of Natick Avenue without incident. Adonis Irwin, a male white, was booked for Felony Vandalism with Hate Crime enhancements for the language posted and bail set at $40,000. (reply to this comment)

From ................ Wednesday, May 09, 2007, 07:59 (Agree/Disagree?) In the nicest possible way, couldn't he plead temporary insanity? I mean if the way he was acting on this site in recent months was any indication of his mental state his defence attorney should have a doddle proving that.(reply to this comment)

From So Sad Wednesday, May 09, 2007, 07:53 (Agree/Disagree?) I don’t know what to think, really. I know he did some crazy things and has obviously misplaced the better part of his brain, but I don’t want to see him go to jail. I would rather him go to some deserted beach where he could gather his thoughts, hopefully restore some damaged brain cells, swing his sword around, play with his dog, and dream of his lioness to be. I guess this could be done with a good imagination in a mental institution, but those places are scary. I only wish him peace and sanity and the sense to know better.(reply to this comment)

From MegaGroan Wednesday, May 09, 2007, 11:43 (Agree/Disagree?) Irwin was a walking timebomb. I agree that it's sad, but better this than slicing someone with those swords or something worse. A three year sentance is something you can recover from. It's 2007, 40 years since that shithead Berg started that abomination of a group in Huntington Beach. And STILL the evil he caused is marching on, destroying lives and minds. Am I the only one who dreams of what they could do with a time machine? (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Wednesday, May 09, 2007, 18:19 (Agree/Disagree?) So true. It reminds me of Shakespeare's "Tragedy of Julius Caesar" Mark Antony: Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears; I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him; The evil that men do lives after them, The good is oft interréd with their bones.(reply to this comment)

from Captain America Monday, May 07, 2007 - 21:12 (Agree/Disagree?) Fun with Irwin! http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2007-05/29527339.jpg (reply to this comment)

From Benz Wednesday, May 09, 2007, 03:16 (Agree/Disagree?) Ha ha ha....if thats vandalism then I guess the good ol US of A really is an Orwellian nightmare(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Thursday, May 10, 2007, 06:45 (Agree/Disagree?) Benz, if you worked as a professional, would you want someone pasting swastikas on your office door? Painting or pasting swastikas (or other hate symbols) on someone's door is also an intimdation tactic still used today by certain gangs and hate groups. (reply to this comment)

From roughneck Thursday, May 10, 2007, 08:02 (Agree/Disagree?) I don't think anyone's actually defending what Don did, you know. Personally, if someone was going to commit "felony vandalism" on my property, I think I'd much prefer it to be a couple pieces of paper stuck on my glass door to a half-brick (or worse) thrown through it. Just sayin'. (reply to this comment)

from afflick Monday, May 07, 2007 - 17:59 (Agree/Disagree?) TFI will use this instance to re-state how "the Lord" deals with Vandari. "See kids, this is what happens to those who stray from His Still Small Voice." As a public figure in The Family domain, Don was an outspoken young man and now anything that happens to him is fair game. As a feminist, a career women, a future law student (this fall, yay!) I have had a real souring on his ideals in the past year, but I wish him help and health. Maybe it's good that things came to such a crisis for him, because now he will get mental health attention he needs. While there is NO excuse for his actions, I cannot imagine what I would be going through if Mene were my sister. My soul would be in torment. Get better, Don. (reply to this comment)

from Nancy Monday, May 07, 2007 - 17:34 (Agree/Disagree?) Doesn't this “reason” for his actions sound a whole lot like the cult's argument when they claimed they were doing God's work and saving souls, so, therefore, anything done towards that end was righteous? "This is the law of love, so it is righteous." "I am God's prophet, so what I say is God's word." But, the world just doesn't work that way. If it did, then Paris Hilton wouldn't be going to jail. Just because she's a socialite and special, a different standard doesn't apply. In the law, there are certain crimes which are strict liability meaning that if you committed the act, you are guilty, regardless of your intent. Your mind set isn’t an element that the prosecutor has to prove to convict you of a strict liability offense. Who you are or claim to be and what you claim was your intent in these cases is irrelevant. If you sleep with a 14 year old, that's statutory rape. If you thought she was older, if you thought she consented, if she actually consented, if you think the law is wrong, if you were statutorily raped yourself, none of it matters a wit. If you spent your life working with underprivileged kids, no matter. Do it and you are guilty. It has been a long standing excuse by the cult that they are above the law, man's laws don't apply to them, or they did what they did out of love, blah, blah, blah. But, it doesn't matter. Almost every crime has some excuse, especially murder. There's almost always a reason. It's called a motive, but it's not exculpatory. When there's not a motive per se, then you're usually dealing with a psychopath who kills for the sake of killing. Does any of it change the law? No. I just wonder when, as a collective and individually, we're going to stop blaming someone else and take responsibility for our own actions? Was I physically and sexually abused? Yes. But that no more gives me excuse to violate others' rights than it does Paris Hilton. I may not be responsible for my trauma, but I am responsible for my actions. Most parents will understand this, if something happens to my son, I am responsible. The buck stops here. It doesn't matter if I never had loving parents to model ideal parenting. It doesn't matter that I was abandoned and suffered physical, medical and emotional neglect. It just does not matter. What happens to my son is my responsibility as his parent. How much more am I responsible for myself now as an adult? And it really is time to understand that there are numerous restraints on what people frequently refer to as "free speech." Blather all you like until you begin infringing on others' rights to be free of your speech and that is where the law kicks in. Is it entirely fair the hand we were dealt as children? No, of course not. It's not fair that I got less than seven years of an education before I was pulled out of school as a child. But, it doesn't change the fact that I have to obey road signs and traffic laws, even if I can't read. It doesn't matter that I struggle immensely with math. If I overdraft my checking account, I pay the bank fees. If I steal, even to feed myself or child, it’s theft. If I fail to provide my son with necessary care, then I am charged and/or lose custody, despite whether or not I am even aware of what constitutes neglect, abuse or abandonment, even if those things were the norm in my own childhood. The law doesn't change for me or any individual. Our cries for justice are muted any time we engage in any activity for which we condemn the cult. We cannot stoop to cult tactics, even in trying to right the wrongs done to us. If that were the case, there would be no law, and most wars would be perpetual, tit for tat, on and on until society crumbled. And it is not lost on me that Berg was a massive anti-Semite. I am so tired already of the very, very old hate argument spawned by that self-proclaimed prophet that he passed onto thousands of his followers. The Jewish people I have known in the US have been some of the most morale and salt of the earth individuals I have had the pleasure of knowing. It disgusts me that someone I knew and appeared with on television would engage in this behavior and use the abuse I suffered and my siblings suffered and my friends suffered as an excuse. I think this is time for introspection because a line has certainly been crossed here, and I, for one, never want to allow this to be my demise. And I am just not willing, despite everything I’ve been through personally, to lay this at the feet of the cult. There is a distinction between saying we don’t condone violence and breaking the law or violating the rights of others and really not condoning violence, breaking the law or violating the rights of others no matter what the “reason” or excuse. Blurring that distinction leads to becoming what we are fighting against. (reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Tuesday, May 08, 2007, 01:15 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree, all too often people will confuse empathy with condoning a criminal's actions. That said, I don't consider what Don did to be a particularly serious crime. More of a nuisance than having actually caused any harm or damage. However, the fact or the matter is that his actions crossed the line of legality.(reply to this comment)

from sarafina Monday, May 07, 2007 - 12:02 (Agree/Disagree?) Here's why Don was at Weiss office..it seems they weren't listening..typical. I hope they start listening. http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_5823596 "Irwin made two previous visits to Weiss' office in the past week to talk about child abuse prevention and concerns about a religious organization called The Family and Children of God, according to sign-in sheets from Weiss' office." (reply to this comment)

From Nancy Monday, May 07, 2007, 13:01 (Agree/Disagree?) No ends justify his means. I'm not sure who he means when he says "we." It's certainly not me. I don't support hate, of women or minorities or people of the Jewish faith, even when it is in retaliation for perceived rebuff. An nothing justifies violence. If you have to stoop to the level of the cult, to fight the cult, then you've already lost the battle. (reply to this comment)

From Paradoxic Monday, May 07, 2007, 14:02 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree. If he came off half as batty as he always does, it's no wonder they wouldn't listen to him. It doesn't matter how righteous your cause is, if you go around acting barking mad no one will listen to you. (reply to this comment)

from shikaka Sunday, May 06, 2007 - 10:07 (Agree/Disagree?) Its good to see that the LAPD "prioritizes and solves" these type of "hate crimes" so quickly! God forbid that a FELONY, someone posting pieces of paper on a door, should go unpunished. Yes, it would be unthinkable to let this kind of horrific vandalism go unpunished. Let's put the other threats, murders, drug dealers etc. on the back burner. Useless fucking pigs, why the fuck are my taxpayers dollars paying to keep him in jail? (reply to this comment)

From Oddman Monday, May 07, 2007, 02:35 (Agree/Disagree?) Well, lucky me... He's locked away, and it's not MY tax dollars. Sorta saw that coming though...(reply to this comment)

From Pink Slip Monday, May 07, 2007, 06:30 (Agree/Disagree?) It's your tax dollars at work whether you live in California or not because the feds subsidize both corrections and mental health services in every state. Problem is, there isn't nearly enough federal subsidy to assure that truly dangerous, paranoid people with psychotic disorders don't slip through the cracks in a local system and go postal. I suspect there's enough local money in the LA MH system to prevent a major incident like the VT shooting from occurring. Access to care is the difference between a state like CA, which got a "C" on NAMI's MH system report card, and VA, which got a "D." (reply to this comment)

From Nancy Monday, May 07, 2007, 08:27 (Agree/Disagree?) What? California, specifically LA, has the largest homeless population in the country, a majority of which is mentally ill. Did you not see the incident recently in California where hospital workers took a homeless man who'd been checked into a local hospital to an ally and dumped him, tubes still in place? There may be access to emergency care in some circumstances, but it is only to stabilize. It is by no means a long term solution. The problem is that unless the law is broken and sometimes even when the law is broken, a patient cannot be forced to receive care. (reply to this comment)

From Pink Slip Monday, May 07, 2007, 11:24 (Agree/Disagree?) Yup, you hit the nail on the head. Getting into the hospital and extended psychiatric observation is nigh onto impossible in most states. California criminalizes the mentally ill, which means they get more coersive about psychiatric evaluation if the individual has actually broken the law and proven themselves to be a big enough nuisance. If someone I suspected of having a mental illness ever threatened me--whether verbally or in writing--I wouldn't hesitate to file a report with the appropriate court officials, particularly if I knew there was a court that already had jurisdiction in a case that amounts to a felony public disturbance. This isn't about being vindictive; it's about to duty to inform in the interest of public safety. If the individual isn't truly a danger to others, an extended psychiatric observation on a forensic unit should be sufficient to determine that. A psychiatric evaluation of this type is expensive to the taxpayers, and MH officials try to use the state's limited resources judiciously. The more information they have, the better chances they'll to do a reasonably good risk assessment. (reply to this comment)

From Nancy Monday, May 07, 2007, 09:10 (Agree/Disagree?) Cho didn't get court-ordered treatment WASHINGTON - The gunman who killed 32 people at Virginia Tech failed to get the mental health treatment ordered by a judge who declared him an imminent threat to himself and others, a newspaper reported Monday. Seung-Hui Cho was found "mentally ill and in need of hospitalization" in December 2005, according to court papers. A judge ordered him into involuntary outpatient treatment. However, neither the court nor community mental health officials followed up on the judge's order, and Cho didn't get the treatment, The Washington Post reported, citing unnamed authorities who have seen Cho's medical files. Federal, state and local law enforcement and local mental health officials contacted Monday by The Associated Press would not confirm the story. School officials did not immediately return multiple calls seeking comment. "The system doesn't work well," said Tom Diggs, executive director of the Commission on Mental Health Law Reform, which has been studying the state mental health system and will report to the General Assembly next year. On Dec. 13, 2005, Cho e-mailed a roommate at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg saying that he might as well commit suicide. The roommate called police, who took Cho to the New River Valley Community Services Board, the area's mental health agency. Cho was detained temporarily at Carilion St. Albans Behavioral Health Clinic in Christiansburg, a few miles from campus, until a special justice could review his case in a commitment hearing. On Dec. 14, special judge Paul M. Barnett found that Cho was an imminent danger to himself and ordered him into involuntary outpatient treatment. Special justices are lawyers with some expertise and training who are appointed by the jurisdiction's chief judge. Terry W. Teel, Cho's court-appointed lawyer at the time, said he does not remember Cho or the details of his case. But he said Cho most likely would have been ordered to seek treatment at Virginia Tech's Cook Counseling Center. The court doesn't follow up because "we have no authority," Teel said. Virginia Tech mental health officials would not discuss Cho's case because of privacy laws. Virginia law says community services boards "shall recommend a specific course of treatment and programs" for people such as Cho who are ordered to receive outpatient treatment. It also says these boards "shall monitor the person's compliance." "That's news to us," said Mike Wade of the New River Valley Community Services Board.(reply to this comment)

From Pink Slip Monday, May 07, 2007, 11:04 (Agree/Disagree?) Very interesting. It appears that Cho went through a court diversion program (a mental health docket) and was ordered to outpatient treatment, but the court had no way of following up on his compliance. That's less than a stellar diversion program, particularly when the local mental health authority (CMHS Board) that has the legal responsibility for assuring follow-up if OP commitment 1) doesn't know the state law, and 2) apparently never received a referral from the court. VT's MH officials' refusal to discuss the court referral of Cho's case directly to them on the basis of privacy laws will be challenged in court. If VT's MH officials were informed that Cho presented a danger to self and others, under most state laws they have a duty to protect and warn that supercedes the privacy law. You can bet the family members of the victims will eventually subpoena Cho's medical records to determine whether there was negligence. If the state mental health authorities aren't looking into the VT MH service provider's conduct in response to the court referral, the state deserves an F-.(reply to this comment)

From Really? Monday, May 07, 2007, 07:00 (Agree/Disagree?) That is weird. I didn't know that Japan was taxed for California. :P(reply to this comment)

from rainy Sunday, May 06, 2007 - 05:01 (Agree/Disagree?) It's so strange...because even though he definitely seemed off his rocker, I was pretty sure he was against racism. Where did this anti semetism come from? (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Sunday, May 06, 2007, 05:19 (Agree/Disagree?) It's possible that he is a racist. But I think he may have been trying to convey a message that, in his view, Weiss is a racist because he was not listening to Jewish American children like him. Either way, he needs help. Even if he thought Weiss was a racist, pasting swastikas on his office windows is not the right way to express that opinion.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Sunday, May 06, 2007, 08:38 (Agree/Disagree?) I think you've got the right idea there, Sammy. In a way I'm glad this happened - hopefully it will prevent him from doing something even worse.(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Monday, May 07, 2007, 11:45 (Agree/Disagree?) Or it could push one over the edge..... Incidentally, you need to agree to the new terms to login, but somehow the pop-up isn't working. Well, I agreed.... Hope Jules didn't state I'd take out a life insurance policy then shoot myself...(reply to this comment)

From MovingOn Admin Monday, May 07, 2007, 12:01 (Agree/Disagree?) The terms of use are not displayed in a pop-up window. They show up on the login page (a little below the "Submit" button) when the link is clicked.(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Wednesday, May 09, 2007, 02:43 (Agree/Disagree?) Doesn't work... maybe something to do with the computer I'm using. It just says something about void script... But other Java applications seem to be working fine...(reply to this comment)

From MovingOn Admin Wednesday, May 09, 2007, 09:01 (Agree/Disagree?) Thanks for letting me know. I'll see what I can do to fix it.(reply to this comment)

From neez Tuesday, May 08, 2007, 03:55 (Agree/Disagree?) Do we really have to click that thing everytime we sign in? Surely a one off agreement is enough.(reply to this comment)

From rainy Tuesday, May 08, 2007, 04:41 (Agree/Disagree?) YES!! Thank you Neez! That's what I wanted to say but I couldn't be bothered clicking the box.(reply to this comment)

From MovingOn Admin Tuesday, May 08, 2007, 07:03 (Agree/Disagree?) No worries. It's only going to be there for another week or so. Does one extra click really take that much effort?(reply to this comment)

From Question for Admin and everyone: Thursday, May 10, 2007, 21:03 (Agree/Disagree?) I was curious if anyone else is having trouble receiving emails through this site, because mine doesn't seem to be working?(reply to this comment)

From MovingOn Admin Thursday, May 10, 2007, 21:43 (Agree/Disagree?) You may need to contact your email service provider and ask them about "whitelisting" mail sent from a specific domain name or IP address. Chances are your service provider is filtering out any email sent from this website because another website being hosted on this server got blacklisted in the past.(reply to this comment)

From Question Thursday, May 10, 2007, 22:00 (Agree/Disagree?) Do you mean blocked as spam, because I checked my features and I have it to where nothing is blocked and that still didn't work?(reply to this comment)

From MovingOn Admin Friday, May 11, 2007, 06:47 (Agree/Disagree?) As Big Sister said below, the ISP does filtering of their own. Generally they keep a blacklist of all servers that are known to be used for spam (and some others that they feel have the potential to be used for spamming) and they filter out all mail coming from those servers unless you specifically request to have a server whitelisted.(reply to this comment)

From Big Sister Thursday, May 10, 2007, 23:58 (Agree/Disagree?) Your isp is doing filtering on its own further up the pipeline so it's not a setting you control. YOu can try asking them to help out but I hope your isp isn't Earthlink because then you'll have to be on hold for weeks before you get to a person who can't help you!!(reply to this comment)

from Lithium Saturday, May 05, 2007 - 13:03 (Agree/Disagree?) Now THAT's what I call a smack down! I hope jail intensifies his general relaxation. (reply to this comment)

From Pink Slip Monday, May 07, 2007, 06:20 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm not an expert on how California's public mental health system works, but I've been told by knowledgable sources that the fastest way into an involuntary commitment and a thorough psychiatric evaluation is through the jail door. I can only hope that's an accurate assessment of how the system works and that Don will use this "smack down" as an opportunity to get help. If he has any serious detox issues, he should be put on a forensic unit for observation and treatment. (reply to this comment)