The University of North Carolina community has been traumatized by a report that a gay student, Quinn Matney, was attacked and burned in an anti-gay incident. The college freshman says that a man called him an anti-homosexual term and burned his hand with a piece of hot metal while he was standing on the bridge.
Chancellor Holden Thorp has issued a statement that “The Department of Public Safety has determined that the alleged aggravated assault … did not occur. That report, filed with campus police on April 5, was false.”
As the University moved to deal with the hate crime, Matney’s father, David Matney, a lawyer in Asheville, said his son suffered tendon and ligament damage. A picture of the burn can be found in the article below.
The false report will likely cost this student dearly — likely leading to expulsion (or al least a suspension). It is also a setback for gay and lesbian students who face serious threats and discrimination.
Source: News Observer
I would have had problems with the “piece of hot metal” claim. Metal cools fairly rapidly after being heated. How would the attacker maintain the metal at a high temperature? An odd “weapon” to begin with.
mespo,
A virtue, to be sure… (Thanks for the quote.)
As my grandmother always says, “It will all come out in the wash.”
AN:
“Ah, and humble, too”
*****************
As Churchill said of Clement Atlee, “but then I have much to be humble about.”
AY:
“This just makes be flaming mad…. enough to stay away from red hot pokers….”
*********************
Damn, punsmith! And good at it too.
mespo,
Ah, and humble, too… (Thanks for the smile on this end…)
AN:
” … who see things through a “legal” lens.”
****************
Through a glass, darkly.
mespo,
I don’t know — you very well could be right… To be clear, no conclusions, yet, on my end…
Appreciate the keen insights of those who see things through a “legal” lens…
BIL:
I’m ot equating UNC with Caesar’s wife just noting that I would need considerably more proof before labeling the UNC community –or any part thereof — as homophobic.
That’s all well and good, mespo (and to a certain extent I agree), but the vested interest of the university – even though attached to limited liability – is still attached to an economic interest.
Independent verification over verification of an interested party I would think is preferable in a situation such as this.
Sorry to disagree with my friends here, but the whole story sounds contrived: Solitary freshman on bridge attacked at 3:00 a.m. for no good reason and slanderously labeled as a homosexual in an instant; no description of the attacker except “college aged”; no witnesses to the event; tendon and liagment damage suffered to his wrist but he still has time and wherewithall to turn in a paper at his morning class before seeking medical attention; limited liability exposure for UNC given the unusual nature of the attack and the notion of criminal superceding, intervening causation. Doesn’t pass my legal smell test either.
Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit.
(He who asserts must prove)
And what Buddha said… I know of at least a few cases in which victim complaints have not been investigated by colleges. The alleged victims are called “crazy” and/or otherwise discredited. End of story. For all but the victim/s.
This just makes be flaming mad…. enough to stay away from red hot pokers….
What raff said. I’m not going to accept the college’s word when they are facing a potential civil liability. I want to know if a false report was actually made and, if so, then the answer to James M’s why the false report was made.
Poin (said with a French accent), should be “point”…
“Earlier Tuesday UNC-CH Police Chief Jeff McCracken said the investigation had found no suspects and had just Matney’s word to go on.” -News Observer
Excellent points, rafflaw. As you rightly say, it’s hard to know at this poin.
The school public safety office claims it was a hoax. Did Matney confess or is this just the opinion of the university? I will hold judgment until I can see more evidence that it was a hoax. It could be the University’s attempt to deflect blame.
Why would a student smart enough to get into college not understand that the video surveillance equipment now installed on every college and university campus would reveal as false every such false crime report?
Just as when women file false rape and domestic abuse reports, this fool has made it all the more difficult for true victims of anti-gay attacks.
Not only should he be subject to the full force of the law, but the full force of his father’s hand against his head.
I’d be interested in finding out why the false report was made. Was the student doing something illegal when he got burned and made up a story to cover it up?