-
Elle M 08/09/2009 1:43:00 PM
To commenter #21---
No one should dare blame Lily�s parents for any of this.
Raising such an amazing child proved what incredible parents that she had.
In terms of this being a �Random� event.
Random is defined as 1. By Chance. 2. An event in which all outcomes are equally likely. In other words, some argue that it was sheer fate that Lily should have been killed that day.
But this does a great disservice to the victim.
There were a great many variables that contributed to her death, so that it was NOT random.
Variable #1. The LA Times reported that Menlo House gave Samuels (with a history of kidnapping and robbery) a pass to visit the DMV the day that Lily was killed. After they found out that the DMV was closed the Menlo escort said that Samuel refused to come back with him to the house. At this point why didn�t the Menlo employee call the police or at least Samuel�s parole officer? Samuels was obviously at risk- had nearly beaten an elderly man to death in the past in order to get his drugs. Why was he allowed to roam LA freely?
Variable #2. The parking attendant at Southwestern sees Lily but does not insist on following her to her car. Had he done so, the carjacking may not have taken place.
Variable #3. For over one hour Lily was trying to remove money from the ATM at the Union Bank at Second and San Pedro Street in Little Tokyo. The police report that many people at the ATM saw Samuel with Lily at the Bank, but did nothing. The LA Times also reports that Samuels was �in control of Lily�s body� at the ATM. This would obviously have been suspicious to SOMEONE. If only 1 person- just 1- had alerted a teller or called the police over this one hour period, Lily could have been saved.
Variable #4. 4:52 p.m.: Samuel exits the driver�s side door of Burk�s Volvo at 458 S. Alameda St. in downtown Los Angeles. This was a street that many reported had a lot of traffic and movement during this rush hour. The police also report that Samuels had blood on his clothing. The police say that Lily did not die until 5:00. What if someone had noticed Samuel exiting the Luxury vehicle at 4:50 with blood on his clothing (obviously suspicious) and called the police or even looked at the car and called an ambulance. Perhaps in those 12 minutes Lily could have been rushed to a hospital or given CPR.
Her body was in the car for over 12 hours!!!! At some point, she could have been alive, although critically injured.
Random describes a meteor crashing the earth or someone killed by a bold of lightning.
To say that it was �random� diminishes Lily�s death.
You are saying that it was �chance� and it �could happen again.�
But if we stand up and say NO. This was not RANDOM.
Changing any ONE of these variables would have saved Lily�s life, we can work as a society on fixing the variables and saving someone�s life in the future.
Do we want to be a passive society and accept brutal killings as �random� and �inevitable?�
Or do we want to stand up, especially for the children, the voiceless, and the vulnerable and be active so that someone else�s life is not extinguished so needlessly.
If we say this is Random, we are simply a passive society.
It is our choice. What kind of community do we want to live in? A passive on that accepts horrific crimes like the one against Lily Burk as "random" or one in which we leave the world a better place for our children.
-
Jenny 08/08/2009 12:23:00 PM
Lily's murder was random. She was abducted doing a routine errand in broad daylight. Everyone is trying to find a reason--she was in a dangerous area, she was too trusting of strangers, her parents' "philosophy"--but the truth is that it was just random, and she wasn't doing a single thing that any 17 year old doesn't do every single day. I know that's hard for people to hear, because it means it could happen to them. Finding a reason makes it seem less random, and makes us feel safer, but it's not the truth. My heart goes out to her family in this difficult time. I hope that people stop trying to blame them for this horrible tragedy.
-
Elle M 08/04/2009 2:11:00 AM
Post-scriptum.
I completely disagree with DF's categorizing the guard allowing Lily to walk to her car as an instance of "free will."
Legally, Lily Burk was a minor.
Under the law, minors are denied the ability to fully and freely contract.
Which means that Lily saying that she felt fine walking to her car should have been legally trumped by the guards legal obligation to protect her.
There is a reason that 17 year olds are not allowed to vote, smoke cigarettes, or even drink a beer.
Minors are to be protected by the State.
Even a brilliant National Scholar like Lily was a minor.
The reason that there are laws preventing minors from making decisions like the age of consent is because minors must even be protected from themselves.
Southwestern is lucky that it is not a State school, because it would probably otherwise face a massive lawsuit under the Failure to Protect Laws.
I am tired of reading articles where the authors call Lily's death "random."
Unfortunately, there were a sequence of variables leading to this tragedy. If only one of the variables had been changed, Lily Burk would be alive and smiling today.
The only thing RANDOM about Lily Burk was that she followed Thoreau's motto and filled our world with "Random Acts of Kindness and Beauty" every day.
Rest in Peace, beautiful Lily.
-
Elle M 08/04/2009 1:20:00 AM
DF makes some valid points. Afterall, the murderer is the one who took the life of Lily.
However, I would argue that if it takes a village to raise a child, it also takes a village to save a child. Citizens in the community must be on the alert to help out a victim of a crime.
The term "Bystander effect" was named after the outrage of the parents of young Kitty Genovese who was attacked and murdered, screaming out while 38 witnesses did NOTHING. Everyone assumed that someone ELSE would call the police. So no one did.
NBC tested out the " Bystander effect."
In this video a young 7 year old child is abducted, screams, "this man is not my daddy-- help me!!!" and the bystanders look, but don't want to get involved. They actually walk away while the man kidnaps the little girl.
It is appalling. Here is the link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIvGIwLcIuw
People are assuming that Lily did not cry out for help.
Why? To ease their own consciences?
But what if she did?
Just like the girl in the video.
It is likely that there were people, like the one in the NBC video of the abduction, that saw her struggle, but "minded their own business."
As for the security guard, he may not have the legal authority to walk Lily to her car, but he certainly had the moral obligation to do so. He could even have walked a few steps behind her, to "patrol the area." Once visiting a college as a 17 year old, like Lily, I got lost and separated from my group. I was carrying a map and stopped some British tourists to ask if they could make heads or tails of it. Not only did the group look at the tiny map, they insisted (the entire group) on accompanying me to the dorm where I was staying, so I wouldn't have to walk alone. They were on their way to a restaurant. They had no legal or persona obligation to me, a perfect stranger. They were going to be late for their party. But they did it for the simple fact that it was the RIGHT thing to do.
People need to stop looking at the simple confines of the law or their basic job description or even their comfort zone and stand up to do what is RIGHT. What is ethical. What is moral.
Lily went outside of her zone many many times to help the less fortunate, to cheer up the children in her school who were sad.
Lily did so much for her community, but what did her community do for her in her hour of need?
Nothing.
Lily, a bright Boticcelli angel, deserved a lot more from all of us.
From the security guards, to the people at the ATM, to anyone else who saw her during the hours of her abduction.
This abduction happened during rush hour on a Friday afternoon.
Many Many people were out in downtown LA.
Somebody saw something.
And now, they are quiet to ease their own guilt.
What is frightening is not only that Charlie Samuel was allowed to roam the streets. He was out of his mind.
What is frightening is that ordinary citizens, the guards, the people at the ATM, those who came into contact with Lily around her nearly 2 hour abduction, did nothing. Weren't these people the "sane" ones?
Remember, Edmund Burk's quote:
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
-
Linda 08/03/2009 11:59:00 AM
This is such a tragedy. A beautiful young lady has been taken away from her family and friends. My daughter attends Southwestern and does park in that same vicinity and, of course, this is a real eye opener, that such a violent crime can occur during broad daylight and around dozens of people. My daughter also attends night classes and I am now very concerned for her safety walking to her car. I certainly hope Southwestern will KEEP the extra security in place. As a parent I can only reiterate to my daughter, to stay alert and constantly watch her surroundings. My thoughts and prayers go out this family as so many people feel their grief.
-
DF 08/03/2009 8:15:00 AM
Brucw Wilson: "Yet, who in their right mind goes anywhere in L.A. completely defenseless and vulnerable, much less into a known high-crime area?"
As the above comments make clear, this area is not a "known high-crime area". I recently spoke with LAPD officers (Olympic Division) and they cited statistics proving that violent crime is low and _declining_ in the area around Southwestern Law School. Suggestions to the contrary are emotional reactions to a tragic event, not the kind of rational, cool-headed response we need at this time.
@Elle M., in response to your questions, it's true that we don't have all the facts and likely never will. The reason that the abduction itself is not on camera is that it took place on a public street that is not covered by Southwestern's video surveillance system, which focuses on the law school campus. The reason that no one recognized Samuels is that he was not a wanted criminal and was dressed normally, having left a halfway house that morning (despite descriptions of Samuels as a "vagrant", he was resident in a drug treatment program, not a stereotypical homeless person pushing a shopping cart). As for why the security personnel did not insist on accompanying Lily Burk to her car, the answer lies in free will: private security personnel may strenuously offer assistance, but they are not police and do not have authority to coerce citizens into compliance.
This is a terrible tragedy, and looking for answers is understandable. But the more evidence that emerges, the more it becomes clear that this was a random event, not something that resulted from a conspicuous institutional or police failure. This should not prevent us from working to make our city as safe as possible, but it should deter us from making unfounded assertions about fault.
-
Lynn 08/03/2009 3:21:00 AM
The actions of the victim in this murder reminds me of the Sari Ribicoff case. Sari was killed in what was termed a "botched" robbery. Do people remember that the killer's defense was that Ms. Ribicoff brought upon her own death because she didn't give up a heirloom necklace. It was classic blame the victim--and, it almost swayed the jury.
My gut tells me the PD for Samuels will use this similiar defense to get him off a first degree murder charge. I hope the prosecutor is prepared for this defense.
-
Elle M 08/02/2009 10:57:00 AM
First of all I want to say that I have been so saddened by the death of Lily Burk- a beautiful young woman inside and out.
I couldn't sleep when I read this story.
Silviana, Commenter #8 brought up some new points that I had not read before. Silviana suggests that a security guards saw Lily with her mother's papers and offered to walk her to her car.
What is confusing, and what I can not understand is if the security guard saw Lily walking to her car- did he not see Charlie Samuel in the area?! By all accounts, Samuel is a large man, almost 200 pounds!! The news reports that Lily was kidnapped when she got back to her car at Southwestern and video shows them driving away from the school. Is it possible that the security guard is lying to try and save his job? I just don't see how the security guard could see Lily and her box of papers, but not see the 5'9 200 pound Charlie Samuel lurking around. Charlie must have been scoping the Southwestern area waiting for a victim.
The part that does not make sense is that poor Lily was kidnapped at Southwestern. Obviously there is a surveillance video of Lily leaving the area. Was anyone on security monitoring the video as it was happening? Could they not have alerted the police?
Shouldn't the security guard have INSISTED on walking this underage minor to her car?
I was once walking in a dangerous part of Harlem and a police officer INSISTED that I take a security vehicle back to my dorm. "I'll be fine," I said, as I was young, very trusting, and unaware of the risk of the surroundings. "Sorry, miss," the officer insisted, "We can't have you walking here. It's too dangerous." They put me in the back of the police car and drove me to my dorm. I pray for those officers. They were my guardian angels. They may have saved my life that night.
There is a big gap in this story. From the people at the ATM, standing behind Lily and Samuels to the people at Southwestern-- somebody MUST have seen something!! If the security guard saw her walking with the papers somebody else must have seen it. Maybe someone even saw Lily getting carjacked?
It was a bright, sunny, Friday afternoon at a law school.
It was not 3 am in a dark alley.
It doesn't make sense.
I pray for Lily's family and that this case be solved so that no one else ever has to go through this again.
-
Brucw Wilson 08/01/2009 4:51:00 AM
My heart is breaking for the family and friends of Lily! It is a true tragedy!
Yet, who in their right mind goes anywhere in L.A. completely defenseless and vulnerable, much less into a known high-crime area?
I blame only that foul criminal, and none other. Still, we must understand that no amount of police, no number of "feel-good" laws, and no huge sums of money will stop criminals from preying on the weak.
In our society, there is no shepherd that can protect all sheep from wolves. In order to be safe from criminals we must stop being sheep, relying upon others for protection. Is it really so hard to take simple self-defense courses? A gun would be nice, if our Chief of Police would actually issue concealed weapons permits to anyone other than the rich and politically connected. But if you hate guns, would it hurt to carry pepper spray?
I mourn the loss of Lily, and the countless others who are not deemed important enough for the media to mention!
Isn't it time we wore the big-boy pants and started protecting ourselves?
-
Hanna 08/01/2009 3:38:00 AM
As soon I heard the news about Lily that she was missing, I felt sad and worry. I have a daughter of 17 years old. Later we heard the news, I was deeply sad and mad at the same time, my condolences to her parents.
I have thought so much about what happened, why she never asked for help? or was told to cooperate in a case like that?, is so difficult to understand why it happened.
But one thing I hope, this man should never come back to the street, never!
Now, I am planning to have a conversation with my daughter again, is too risky to cooperate is better to fight back.
-
Nick 08/01/2009 12:05:00 AM
By all means, let's add to the parents' anguish and turn the blame on Lily for not knowing how to act while being abducted.
Shame on you, Christine Pelisek, for grinding out a byline with this story.
-
Observer 07/31/2009 11:22:00 PM
Interment camps should be opened and the homeless placed there. Criteria would be a repeat criminal record or drug history. These people are a scourge on society.
-
Observer 07/31/2009 11:22:00 PM
Interment camps should be opened and the homeless placed there. Criteria would be a repeat criminal record or drug history. These people are a scourge on society.
-
Belinda 07/31/2009 8:49:00 PM
Could she have seen him before? Did she have some idealistic notion of "helping" this guy? I can't believe that a 17 year old, living in on of the largest cities in the world, had never been told not to trust strangers. Maybe public school might have been a better idea.
-
Silviana 07/31/2009 3:20:00 PM
I am a student at Southwestern Law School. And like the woman in the piece, I too did not buy a parking pass my first year in school because I thought it was "too expensive." However I have NEVER been turned away from parking in the lot by campus security for lack of a semester pass or even the $2.50 it costs to buy a day pass. (A semester pass is also not so overwhelmingly expensive compared to law school tuition - $70 per semester.)
Although I often parked on the street, campus security ALWAYS offered to walk me to my car whether inside or outside the lot-day or night. I understand this service was also offered to Lily on the day she was abducted.
After speaking with a senior guard at the school, I learned that he repeatedly offered to walk Lily to her car that afternoon. Moreover, he offered to carry the box of exams Lily had gone to the school to pick up for her mother. Unfortunately, Lily declined his numerous offers to escort her.
I know we all have different experience at the school, but I honestly do not believe campus police could have done anything to prevent what happened to Lily. Furthermore, the claim that campus security was turning people away because of construction is simply untrue.
Southwestern has a two-tier parking lot with ample space to accommodate for the summer students. Only half of the upper tier was under construction. Thus, half of the spacious upper tier and all of the lower tier were completely available for parking. On the few days this summer when the parking lot did get over-crowded (for incoming student receptions, etc), the school opened-up another lot adjacent to the school- no student was turned away.
If security did waive students away it was to the other lot, not to park on the street. As easy as it is to allude to a lack of security as the catalyst to the tragic events that led to her death, what happened to Lily was the RANDOM ACT committed by a convicted felon who should not have been on the streets that day. From what I have read, her killer had apparently violated the terms of his parole only weeks earlier.
What people are afraid to say is that this could have happened anywhere in this city- by Lily's private school or even across the street from her own home. I am not blind to the fact that some areas have more crime than others, but this was a crime of opportunity. I was not due to the crime in a certain "area."
I have lived in urban Los Angeles almost all of my life. I also happen to own a home a few blocks from Southwestern- across from the infamous La Fayette park. I can honestly say that I am not afraid to live or go to school where I do.
What happened to Lily cannot be blamed on security, or the neighborhood, or even the LAPD (although the parolee should not have been on the streets). And it is certainly not the fault of her parents' "philosophy."
Regarding the comment made above, I am shocked and appalled that a person would take this tragedy and turn it into an opportunity to promote right-wing ideals. What happened to Lily was horrible, but it was NOT the result of her upbringing. The fact that a person could even suggest such a thing is so extremely callous and ignorant that I am ashamed to even have to comment on it.
This was a horrible tragedy that happened, which unfortunately happens in this city and big cities all around the country. Based on the facts of this case, this could have happened near Loyola, USC, UCLA- or anywhere. It unfortunately happened and it happened near Southwestern Law School. We must stop blaming the circumstances surrounding Lily's tragic death on anyone other than the man who killed her.
-
Ben 07/31/2009 2:21:00 AM
I've asked this before--why did her parents let her volunteer in a needle exchange place? This is sickening. I feel worse knowing this that I did, thinking he dragged her into the car.
-
Bobby 07/31/2009 2:21:00 AM
The uselessness of commenting on Lilys murder is something I definetly feel even as I'm sitting here writing this. I can't imagine how her parents must feel. Not in my wildest dreams. I cannot blame her parents like some have attempted to do because all of us "are what we are". In no way, did the Burks ever want their personal philosophy to result in the death of their daughter.
However, I believe that that philosophy did. As I said, I don't imagine the Burks to have wanted this outcome,due to their philosophy,ever. Being caring is fine, but do we not have a duty to care for ourselves and our loved ones first?
The philosophy that allows criminals to leave prison without the most stringent checks, is a wrong one in my view. To do so, for the purpose of the State to save money is bordering on criminally insane.
To allow millions of foreign nationals across the border of the U.S., unchecked, not knowing who these people are, what crimes they may have committed,is also part of the Democratic lefts philosophy, which is what I'm talking about here. Thousands of criminals from Mexico and elsewhere now roam the U.S. and California, because of this irresponsible leftist philosophy. In San Francisco, an criminal foreign national, illegally here due to leftists in Sacramento, murdered three members of a long time Frisco family, in cold blood.
I resign myself however, to knowing that no matter how many innocent people, young, middle aged, or old, are murdered by the criminality that the left allows, those with that faulty, life denying philosophy will never change their attitude and ways. Enough said, and I'm sorry that society didn't do a better job of caring for Lily. Life is back to normal and we will learn NOTHING, nor will we care for our fellow citizens any less than we did before. It's time for baseball, golf, swimming, and everthing else that sublimates our stupidity and pain.
-
Thomas 07/31/2009 12:54:00 AM
I go to Southwestern, and no one is saying we shouldn't blame the one responsible. We all do. Of course we do. We're law students. We are the ones who will be prosecuting those "human pieces of garbage." But, obviously, factors led to his presence and the ease with which the crime was committed. And, let's be honest, there will always be scum like him. We can't control that. But what we can control are those factors that enable their criminal activity. And that goes for the entire neighborhood. If businesses in the area can step up security so that more eyes are watching, and this prevents such criminal activity, who wouldn't want that? If individuals in the area had weekly neighborhood watch meetings and that prevented such criminal activity, why is it terrible to bring that up? Everyone is concerned. And they aren't saying, "Hey, it's YOUR fault." They're saying, "This guy is a jackass. What can we do to make sure people like him can never do this again?" This neighborhood desperately needs dialogue without finger-pointing. Businesses and individuals need to come together and discuss how we, as a community, can make this a safe place to be. The need for that is clearly demonstrated by how blatant this crime was. Broad daylight, in an area where people are all around. Not just near campus, but earlier when he was roaming the streets intoxicated, at a nearby bank, to and from the car, etc. Security cameras will secure his conviction, but the goal is to prevent the crime. Who knows, it may be that he came up to her in a very normal, friendly-looking fashion as though they were friends to the outsider. The facts haven't come to light yet, and it could be shown that all the security in the world couldn't have prevented this. Today, we still would like to see dialogue and change.
-
R Ayala 07/31/2009 12:08:00 AM
You should comply with criminals only so far as they take your stuff and leave you alone. I believe statistically if they kidnap you, your chances of coming out alive are very low. I actually heard in such cases, like kidnapping, you should resist to the fullest extent as it is likely your only chance to save yourself. How sad.
-
gio 07/30/2009 8:31:00 AM
This is everyone's worst nightmare. A small, innocent girl who did everything to cooperate with her abductor, ended up being killed anyway.
Oprah did a show about self-defense if you are attacked in the street. The people she had on said it's better to fight, scream & yell and take your chances than to cooperate, get into a car with them, or let them tie you up. They don't want to get caught. If Lily had yelled to people at the ATM, the man most likely would have run, and she'd be alive today.
Please tell your children to scream, fight & yell bloody murder if anyone tries to hurt them or coerce them. It could save their lives.
-
bob 07/30/2009 8:08:00 AM
Yes. You are right. We shouldn't blame her murder on the piece of human garbage that did it . Let's Blame on the packing lot.
