August Provost, Gay Sailor, Found Dead On Base In Suspected Homicide

San Diego Union-Tribune:

CAMP PENDLETON -- The body of a 29-year-old sailor was found in a Camp Pendleton guard shack Tuesday, and a "person of interest" was taken into custody in connection with the suspected homicide, Navy officials said yesterday.

Read the whole story: San Diego Union-Tribune

Comments

[MATTMERYK]

This may be a different kind of hate crime. The person or persons who killed this man may be homosexual and had a suspicion that their identities and sexual preferance would be exposed. I've always suspected that the Michael Shepard case was one where the two guys that killed him had previously had homosexual encounters with him.

[Hovinkos]

Matthew Shepard but point taken and agree.

[MMCQuarterback]

Here's a look at how messy this is, whether or not it was a hate crime:

http://schoolcrisisconsultant.blogspot.com/2009/07/all-men-are-created-equal.html

[edweird]

Yes there are some indications of this. The Sailor had complainted about harassment, and didn't or couldn't report it because of D.A.D.T. His family members have confirmed this. The congressman calling for an investigation says there is some evidence of this also. I agree that it is wise to avoid rushing to judgment. However, hate crimes are always initially denied.

[ragidandy]

Is everyone bleeping kidding me?!? We don't know why he was killed yet; we have here a mass case of jumping the gun.

And by the way, in case anyone is paying attention, he identified himself as bisexual, not gay.

[josephRoehl]

More blood on your hands BO

[jcwtts1]

Insanity masquerading as a cause.

[klandish]

Not really..

[Pema]

sad but not surprising. so many problems coming out of pendelton that never hit msm. so many trials. so many beatings etc. the military tries to keep a lid on these things. our local news in san diego is the only way that we hear of these things and its beatings shooting etc. always violent.

[Leftwingbloggin]

This is terrible. It's sad that someone (a human being and i use that term lightly ) could have so much hate consuming their heart that they would go out and kill someone because of their sexuality.

[truthartbeauty]

I still think that reasonable, mature, sophisticated adults can co exist peacefully even if some of the people are gay. I know this from my own life where I am lucky that I have great straight friends as well as gay friends. It seems odd to focus on this issue for the sake of the few who are NOT so sophisticated, so mature, so reasonable! Cant we just set policy assuming everyone has an equal chance to do right or not do right? The ones that make this a big issue are really the ones who dont understand it, have unresolved fears, misinformation etc....or a sad religious based bigotry to hide behind, but normal, regular mainstream guys can generally handle the fact that there are actually gay people in the world and that the world still seems to turn just fine!

[justaguy]

As a procedural note. There is something wrong when an organization the size of Huffpo can't tell the difference between a Sailor, Soldier, Marine or Airman. If any of you want to learn what the difference means just call someone who belongs to one branch of the military something he is not. The victim in this story is a sailor. He joined the navy. If he was in the Army then it would be OK to write "SOLDIER" in the headline on the home page.

This is High School Journalism stuff. Get it right.

[LintLass]

I think the real question we ought to be asking, sincean overwhelming majority of the country wants DADT repealed *now,* why is it that religious interests and Republicans are blocking the move when this is so clearly that 'will of the people' and pretty inevitable?

Just wanting a few more sweet, sweet tears of the innocent for the road?

[We-Are-The-Ones]

The real question we need to be asking for August Provost is how he died. For some, why a young Black man died is important for him and his family and not as some symbol for others.

Further, if 70% of the public believes DADT needs to be repealed, who says that religious interests and Republicans are blocking it? Some of those 70% will have religious beliefs and some might even be Republicans.

What is blocking a repeal of DADT is lack of Congressional will.

There is a bill in the House, filed by Ellen Tauscher in March, to repeal DADT. It has 120 sponsors or so and it is stalled in committee. http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=20548

There is no bill in the Senate, but Senator Gillibrand (NY) stated she would file one, but was almost two weeks ago.

The President has asked the Pentagon to study how a repeal of DADT can be implemented, but the military stands ready to do whatever is necessary when the law is changed. Rep. Tauscher believed that this type of review would help pull her bill out of Committee, but it has not done so.

But again, you assume that DADT is relevant to August Provost's murder. It may not. It might. The two issues may not be related and there is no need to make them so in order to push for DADT to be repealed. Contact your congress people.

[LintLass]

I think it's always relevant if a servicemember dies while being subjected to unnecessary harrassment and isolation by a policy that makes no sense.

There's *definitely* nothing that suggests it was *racially* motivated, as you imply, and if it was, there are protections, and no reason for anything to be hidden.

[LintLass]

And if the Congressional angle is stalled in committee, Presidential leadership here is called for, whatever color *anyone* involved may be.

[jcwtts1]

Well said.

[jcwtts1]

Here is a question that just struck me. If straight citizens have the option of military service as a means of economic advancement, meaning, with the new GI Bill that there are some really good benefits, doesn't the denial of military service to all preclude financial equality. What I mean is, when the benefits were poor or weak, the argument that the military provided options that no other avenue did were false and could be dealt with as such. But now, with the new GI Bill, there are opportunities available to servicemen and women that represent a departure upward financially that is pretty large. Only one group is denied the ability to participate in this upward departure, doesn't that de facto represent a 14th amendment violation. Straight Joe is able to rise socially and economically by service in the military. In many instances it is the only real way to pay for college etc. But LGBT Joe isn't afforded the same federal money, or the same opportunity to gain the benefits based solely on orientation. So straight people have an opportunity to make more money and go to better schools than LGBT people because of this law? How is that not unconstitutional? Is strict scrutiny that powerful a precedent that without it people can just pass insane laws against specific people? While people may not understand orientation politics everyone understands money.

[LintLass]

Yep. That's a big deal. In fact, practices in the Gulf under Bush gave the lie to the whole 'unit cohesion' nonsense: if you were outed as gay, you'd still have to fill out your combat tour, and *then* not get paid.

If LBGT people were supposed to be such a danger, I thought the point was to get them out of where we could do that undefined 'damage to cohesion' ASAP, not just to shaft veterans for not being Baptist or whatever?

[oafishcad]

I just want to say this to those who say gays know when they sign up that they have to pretend to be straight in order to stay in the service. If the military said only minorities who can pass as white can serve their country. And they must always pass for white and never reveal that they have any other race in their makeup. Would that be a just law? Are you as a human being bound to unjust rules and laws just because you know they exist? I realize people think military rules are different, and every law and every rule must always be obeyed. But it is also the duty of every service member to NOT obey illegal orders, Should they also NOT obey unjust rules?

[jcwtts1]

Unjust rules... it isn't a rule it is the law. Federal law isn't a rule. Further, there have been constitutional challenges to DADT and the supreme has upheld it, correct? Or rather, refused to hear the cases. I disagree with the law, I disagree with the supreme but it is an actual law. There are illegal orders given, but this isn't one of them. An officer or chain of command seeking information about someones orientation is a violation of that law. No soldier has to answer questions about their orientation, and all such questions are illegal. But just disobeying the law, that isn't legal and there are consequences. Now being willing to accept those consequences is part of civil disobedience and should be applauded. But the orders aren't illegal.

J

[LintLass]

And exactly what level of subterfuge about your personal life is 'following that law' supposed to entail?

Under DADT, you can be punished for someone *else* telling.

[Mr. Cobb]

It's clearly a sinister heterosexual mafia.

[LintLass]

Yayaya. Poor straight people.

[jalowe1957]

Something else to consider:

In San Diego county, you have a very strong, very pervasive military influence throughout the county. You have quite a few retired military men who established roots out there and also happen to be closeted homosexuals. So given they were products of the military culture, and they had to repress themselves sexually, does it come as no surprise that they too, live in fear of possible exposure?

Let's face it, folks. The military might be perceived as an avenue of upward mobility for those of limited economic means, but the social and psychic costs are incalculable in so many ways.

[LintLass]

No one said it was easy. That doesn't make anything *right* about making it *harder.* Or off-the-rails intolerable. We're paying the government to provide for the common defense, not to bash people like us.

[wyldthings]

Again it's amazing. A man is killed right away you assume it because he's gay. Many then condemn the military way of life. The other day we learned a gay man from Duke University was molesting his 5 year old adopted son. Most were outraged and spoke out but at the same time you were quick to say this should have no bearing on gay adoptions. Which I agree with but now at the same time you want to condemn the military for one act. It might have been a killing nothing to do with lifestyle. That's what I love you keep things even!!

[CigarGod]

I think you are forgetting one thing.

There are no laws putting the 5 year old at any more disadvantage with a Gay than a straight.

There are institutionalized laws in the military that put a Gay at a disadvantage...over a straight member.

I do get your general thrust and do appreciate your attempt at fairness, but do you see there is a difference?

[wyldthings]

CigarGod, I agree with you that adopting is different then DADT. But there is no disadvantage of gays in the Military. Now I realize that is a very crazy statement, but you must realize that when you join you sign a piece of paper that says if you are gay you must keep that life style closed. And of course I see the inequity but you did sign up knowing this and while it is the job of all of us to change the policy it is not the duty of active military persons.

[LintLass]

Child molestation has no correlation to sexual orientation, ...people assume that same-sex pedophilia victims are victims of 'homosexual pedophilia.' Pedophilia: sexual abuse of pre-pubescents, is about them being pre-pubescent: ie, not developed in either sex.

This is also irrelevant to this case. And to this policy. Just people trying to say 'Gays are pedophiles and deserve it.' (Based on one act, in your case? Hrm?)

And it's not 'condemning the military' to condemn DADT when there's *another* death and case of ongoing harassment that can be directly associated with the policy that if you're gay, you can't get help with anything. That makes gay servicemembers vulnerable to *anything,* even if someone just wants their boots or something.

It's not just one incident. This keeps happening. And no one notices till someone dies. And *when* someone dies, they try to bury the connection.

[deeppeace]

Very well said. Thank you.

[wyldthings]

LintLass, You did not read what I said. In no way was I equating gays to Pedophiles to the gay life style in any way. When someone opens a discussion you think I.m comparing gay's and pedophiles.

This is also irrelevant to this case. And to this policy. Just people trying to say 'Gays are pedophiles and deserve it.' (Based on one act, in your case? Hrm?)

I'm saying you are no better by jumping to the conclusion that he was killed for being gay and the military is responsible. That's like me saying gay's should not adopt because of 1 instance of abuse.

[wijg]

I thought Lombard was a pedophile.