News The Hate Crime/Racism double standard has to stop

[Huckleberry]

The source is from one I already posted in this thread. If you are going to complain about people not posting sources you should at least bother to look at the ones that are.

Here it is again for your reference. The statement of the mother is at about 1:10 into the interview. She clearly states they homeschool their children because of violence, not racial prejudice.
http://www.breitbart.tv/this-is-a-black-world-teen-mob-attacks-akron-family/

 

[Cyrus]

No, I'm not going on fishing expeditions to find out what sources people are using without clearly stating in their post. I have no idea where you are getting the statements you are making when you don't source them, and it comes off as speculation from my point of view. I cannot stand speculation, it is not a reasonable way to make an argument and its why we have page after page of tautological arguments.

 

[Huckleberry]

Then you are wasting everyone's time with your comments. It is a video. The mother states it for herself on camera.

 

[Cyrus]

So again, we don't have enough facts to make any statements about what happened. What exactly are we all discussing here then, and for what reason?

 

[danda22]

a question if i may. what colour is the mayor? maybe he fears he will be commiting a minor hate crime if he sentences a bunch of black kids? this seems to be the world i have grown up in.

black man beats white man. its a beating. white man calls it a hate crime your a racist.
obviously if there's a random bunch of 50 black teenagers this town has a high majority of "black" people in it. If the mayor happens to look even a little bit racist you can be assured he will not be mayor for much longer.'

I don't know much about how the politics in America work.. That is just my estimation of what is going on. Just seems like an interesting thread to post a comment on.

I live in Australia. I am somewhat racist. Not because i hate other races in general. i just hate some qualities that certain races seem to have adapted.

 

[Cyrus]

a question if i may. what colour is the mayor? maybe he fears he will be commiting a minor hate crime if he sentences a bunch of black kids? this seems to be the world i have grown up in.

How would the mayor be committing a hate crime, and why is his race relevant?

 

[Huckleberry]

The statement of the mother was misrepresented. I was trying to clarify the issue. The issue in question was about the mother's statement, not about what actually happened in the incident. Facts were provided as you requested. That is what we were discussing and why.

 

[Cyrus]

To me, it seems like the details are being digged deeply as always but no actual single hand is laid on the matter (too good to be true)

Edit: I realize what you mean by this after rereading it. Can you please show me what facts you have to back this statement? I see no justification for this statement what-so-ever.

 

[turbo]

And should the murder have been investigated, prosecuted, sentenced any differently if he had been straight, black, Jewish, Welsh or an Apple user?

The question is wether crimes should depend on the status of the victim/perpetrator.

When a person is attacked, beaten, killed at random (through no action of their own) because of the prejudices of the attacker(s) the rule of law is violated. The cause and effect that investigators normally look for is absent. That makes such an offense a hate crime. If I pummel you and throw you off a bridge because I know you like Apple computers, and for no other reason, that makes my crime much more of a perversion than if you and I got into a dispute over money, women, etc. Hate-crime laws are designed to protect citizens that are targeted for reasons that are unrelated to their behavior. Do you know that black men in the South were lynched for looking at white women? Hate crimes can go both ways across racial/religious/sexual orientation divides, though I have yet to hear of gay men ganging up to beat the crap out of straight men.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

And should the murder have been investigated, prosecuted, sentenced any differently if he had been straight, black, Jewish, Welsh or an Apple user?

The question is wether crimes should depend on the status of the victim/perpetrator.

Not status. Intent and motivation. These are important factors that are generally taken into account when a crime is being judged and punished. What ever classification (social, racial, ect) that the victim or perpetrator belonged to are irrelevant. It is the intention and motivation for the crime which is at issue.

Here in California if a person takes a minor across the state line they are guilty of kidnapping. If it can be proved that this person took a minor across the state line with the intent of having sex with the minor they are now both a kidnapper and a sex offender. Its more or less the same crime right? Except that there is a particular difference in motivation and intent for the latter example and the person will be tried and punished diffferently based on that. Would you disagree with the courts making this distinction?

 

[mgb_phys]

WIf I pummel you and throw you off a bridge because I know you like Apple computers, and for no other reason, that makes my crime much more of a perversion than if you and I got into a dispute over money, women, etc.

But if you got into a fight over the obvious superiority of Linux over Apple - should it be assumed that the Apple user is the victim because of the historical dominance of Linux.

...though I have yet to hear of gay men ganging up to beat the crap out of straight men.

Isn't that the alleged point of the article - that when reflectivity<0.5 attack reflectivity>0.5 it isn't regarded as a hate crime. Whereas as reflectivty>0.5 attacking reflectivity<0.5 automatically is?

 

[jreelawg]

I think it would have been more effective if you simply said he has no evidence to back his claim and left it at that.

Which leads me to ask, where is your evidence, jreelawg. I hope you have at least one source which confirms your claim, otherwise please refrain from making unsupported statements.

You don't think people at storm front use articles like these to help fuel racism?

 

[russ_watters]

My understanding of hate crimes is thus:

Hate crimes are punished differently than other crimes because it is judged that an entire class of people has been targeted/victimized. Ie, if a hate crime is committed against a black person, then other black people in the area will feel victimized and less safe (see: Rodney King riots). This justification doesn't make sense to me, as a completely random crime occurring near someone will tend to make them feel less safe as well. Indeed, it seems to me that the exact opposite is true. Consider:

My next-door neighbor is white and my neighbor two doors down is black. My neighborhood is about 10% black.
1. If my white next door neighbor is murdered at home in a random killing, everyone in my neighborhood will feel at risk for such a crime. Thus my entire neighborhood has been victimized.
2. If my black neighbor two doors down is murdered due to his race, only the black residents have been victimized.

 

[j93]

Not status. Intent and motivation. These are important factors that are generally taken into account when a crime is being judged and punished. What ever classification (social, racial, ect) that the victim or perpetrator belonged to are irrelevant. It is the intention and motivation for the crime which is at issue.

Here in California if a person takes a minor across the state line they are guilty of kidnapping. If it can be proved that this person took a minor across the state line with the intent of having sex with the minor they are now both a kidnapper and a sex offender. Its more or less the same crime right? Except that there is a particular difference in motivation and intent for the latter example and the person will be tried and punished diffferently based on that. Would you disagree with the courts making this distinction?

The difference between Manslaughter, First Degree, and Second degree murder are all related to intent and motivation (This is not a new concept invented for hate crimes). RICO statues also involve such distinctions . There is a huge difference in the societal impact of a random violent crime and one that is part of a systematic problem whether it be racism or gangs or the mob this should be obvious that two drunks guys fighting in a bar should be punished differently than a mobster beating a business owner because he has not paid his extortion money or a gang beating up a random teen because he wore the wrong colors.

 

[j93]

My understanding of hate crimes is thus:

Hate crimes are punished differently than other crimes because it is judged that an entire class of people has been targeted/victimized. Ie, if a hate crime is committed against a black person, then other black people in the area will feel victimized and less safe (see: Rodney King riots). This justification doesn't make sense to me, as a completely random crime occurring near someone will tend to make them feel less safe as well. Indeed, it seems to me that the exact opposite is true. Consider:

INTENT is the difference. Hate crimes are used against hate groups. Hate groups preach hate then eventually act on it ie members of hate groups clearly show that the violence is not random but is targeted and premeditated (Premeditated like in the difference between degrees of murder charges). Imagine a killer broadcasting the intent of killing an individual for years and then going out and killing that person there is no way in the world that crime would not be prosecuted as a more grievous charge (In that case First-Degree Murder).