Talk:Ronald Ebens

message: I think it was Robert Nitz who was a laid off autoworker. I think Ronald Ebens (the punk) was still employed at Chrysler Lynch Road Assembly as a Foreman. Ronald Ebens was fired after his conviction due to a clause where a felony conviction is not allowed. jbutera 09:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: there was no 5th amendment ruling.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.191.14 (talk) 09:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: It was stated during a 1980 interview with Ronald Ebens (Detroit Free Magazine) that the cut on Robert Nitz'z head was caused not by Vincent Chin but by Ronald Ebens swinging the chair and missing Vincent Chin belting his stepson instead. It should be truly noted that Ronald Ebens lacked street fighting skills and acted as a coward as a result of his lack of backbone!
JButera 21:38, 16 Sepetember 2007 (UTC)
:Just the facts-- the Freep interviewed him in 1980? That was before anything happened. 
So if we're talking opinion, anything can happen in a bar fight, and perhaps without the baseball bat, Chin could have been looking at assault charges. I interviewed a teacher who called Vincent a "wiseass", so a little logorrhea and there's two inebriated alpha-males squaring off....
And Ebens didn't miss Chin with the chair. Vincent caught or blocked the chair, meaning the recoil must've gotten Nitz. Perhaps Ebens thought he was going up against a black belt. The testimony at the sentencing was about worrying about Nitz. It doesn't excuse what happened, but calling him a coward is opinion. To truly note opinion would be to obfuscate the facts, presenting an emotional argument with no legal recourse.
I guess that's what happened. MMetro 08:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ebens: Coward Who Could Not Fight 

message: :I never said that anything in the case was justified self-defense, here or in the article. I know from experience that the winner of the fight gets prosecuted. Until the actual beating with the bat, that person was supposed to be Vincent, unless Ebens words constituted an assault.
:I'm just nitpicking on the name-calling. If picking up something to use as a weapon makes someone a coward, then Vincent and his friend Jimmy  [US. v. Ebens,   800 F.2d 1422 (U.S. App. 6th Cir. 1986)] were also cowards for picking up a bottle and piece of plywood.
:If somebody wants to conclude that Ronald Ebens was a foulmouthed coward after reading an objective account, that's fine by me. Why Ebens thought it was okay to go around calling strangers in a bar "motherfucker" is beyond me. And where was your friend in '80's? The FBI could have used him over the JoJo's incident. That guy did not want to be put on the stand.
:The two debatable factors (which would have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt) are premeditation (state) or racial motivation (fed).
:Really, Joe, I agree with you, and with evidence, I'm trying to dismiss this myth about them being laid-off autoworkers-- it's an insult to the real men (and women) who made the cars.
:I don't know if some preacher's ever told Ebens that Jesus died for his sins, even murder, but that requires contrition. He may have it, but as long as he doesn't make any further good on his 1990 promise to pay the settlement, he's still a liar, especially if he's refusing to make amends, rather than suffering from most people's inability to pay a million dollars. Mmetro 08:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thomas Bayles was district judge for the pretrial. Could that be who you're referring to? Nitz was laid off back in 1979-- three years before. I think some legacy on the Vincent Chin article should include the reduced amount of hate crime against Detroit's Middle Eastern community. Not sure if there's citations but people were much more aware of what could happen. MMetro 12:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Thomas Bayles was the judge. In my opinion, the Vincent Chin, Joanne Was firework's beating, and the Malice Green cases all inflicted damage to Detroit's reputation beyond repair. Personally, I think the Vincent Chin case was the most controversial of the three cases.      
JButera 21:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Send me your email, and we'll talk some more. MMetro 01:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Self-Defense Not Applicable

message: :Image:Ebensnitz.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 06:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Ebensnitz.jpg

message: Joe, if you're still watching this page, click on the email this user option from my link or user page and contact me. Got some more Detroit chat I need to ask you about. MMetro (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: JButera

message: I removed the deletion tag because when I began my editing on the Vincent Chin articles, they were already two separate biographies. Rather than duplicating the information, which would prove the point of merging/deletion. I separated what I could source to the murder and civil rights trials into the Vincent Chin article, and put the job consequences and the Chrysler unlawful firing suit into Ronald Ebens. As such, simple deletion would remove much unduplicated information, including details like the loss of his stepson and his real estate article (which however minor, is a non-Chin article, negating WP:ONEEVENT), while merger would cause the Vincent Chin article to lose its focus on how it sparked an Asian American movement. Unless someone can masterfully merge the articles together, I feel that the information should remain separated, unless we will look at every Wikipedia article and reach ridiculous conclusions like how US Vice President articles should be merged with US President articles because that person's presidency is the WP:ONEEVENT that the Vice President has become notable for. No, when we can demonstrate knowledge of a person beyond the event, the separate articles efficiently organize data and provide additional nodes for the expansion of Wikipedia. MMetro (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Ebens article has more notability within it than Nicole Brown Simpson. Its information is entirely within the scope of the murder and OJ trial articles. MMetro (talk) 02:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objection to deletion