The Hate Crime/Racism double standard has to stop

[CRGreathouse]

I can't even understand the basis of racism, other than perhaps fear that one's own status is at risk.

"I can't even understand music, other than perhaps euphonic sound."

 

[Huckleberry]

What's the X color here?

In that original post, it was pointed or as it appears that whites have 90% of the wealth. Also that the wealth is controlled through corruption or other means (which I think is more likely to fuel race related crimes than where people themselves choose not to make money).

Wish I could find information on the racial mix of people in that top 10%, but I haven't been able to. Unless you honestly believe there is an equal distribution of wealth by race at that level than I don't think it matters much. Anyway, I concede the argument for lack of being able to provide evidence for it. Also, it's relevence to this thread is minimal at best. These aren't the people that are using violence in the streets.

I disagree with you about people choosing not to make money. A poor person's choices do have much to do with their poverty, but they do not choose to be poor. They often begin life at a disadvantage because they don't have the same opportunities for investment. With an initial state of unequal wealth distribution those who have less wealth are at a socioeconomic disadvantage. The class difference motivates racial resentment.

Here is an interesting study based on a mathematical model that shows how an initial socioeconomic disadvantage affects the eventual outcome of distributed wealth and racial relations. I wonder how well it reflects reality?
http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/2/3/1/0/pages23105/p23105-1.php

 

[Huckleberry]

Alberta, where I live, has something of a 'redneck' reputation, and is probably the most racist province in Canada. We actually have a KKK chapter. One of the members is black, so they aren't taken too seriously.

You must have Equal Opportunity laws up there in Canada too, huh?

 

[Danger]

You must have Equal Opportunity laws up there in Canada too, huh?

Actually, no. We don't need them.

 

[antonyhire]

Laws are made for all of us...

we have to live it... and should have to put efforts against racism.

 

[Kronos5253]

They have gangs in TX don't they? Its fairly common for gang initiations and general gang 'antics' to choose targets for violence at random. This is probably partly why they have involved their gang unit.

Good point.. But:

Out of nowhere, the six were attacked by dozens of teenage boys, who shouted ''This is our world'' and ''This is a black world'' as they confronted Marshall and his family.

The Marshalls, who are white, say the crowd of teens who attacked them and two friends June 27 on Girard Street numbered close to 50. The teens were all black.

''This was almost like being a terrorist act,'' Marshall said. ''And we allow this to go on in our neighborhoods?''

They said it started when one teen, without any words or warning, blindsided and assaulted Marshall's friend as he stood outside with the others.

When Marshall, 39, jumped in, he found himself being attacked by the growing group of teens.

^^ That leads me to think that it wasn't a gang initiation. Why would there be more people randomly joining in if it was a gang initiation? Usually there's a set number of people that do this (the people being initiated and those watching over), there aren't usually more people that keep joining in. So I think a gang initiation is plausible, but not probable.

I'm with Evo.. Something had to have been done to provoke this. So I believe there's something that Mr. Marshall or his friend isn't telling.

 

[Cyrus]

Good point.. But:^^ That leads me to think that it wasn't a gang initiation. Why would there be more people randomly joining in if it was a gang initiation? Usually there's a set number of people that do this (the people being initiated and those watching over), there aren't usually more people that keep joining in. So I think a gang initiation is plausible, but not probable.

I'm with Evo.. Something had to have been done to provoke this. So I believe there's something that Mr. Marshall or his friend isn't telling.

Ah, yet more speculation. We are getting closer to the truth of what happened. This thread is starting to read like tabloid gossip.

Might I suggest waiting for the police to come to a conclusion after gathering all the facts of the case instead of us making up facts as we post. You can then discuss the outcome of the case till the cows come home if you so choose.

 

[Kronos5253]

Ah, yet more speculation. We are getting closer to the truth of what happened. This thread is starting to read like tabloid gossip.

Might I suggest waiting for the police to come to a conclusion after gathering all the facts of the case instead of us making up facts as we post. You can then discuss the outcome of the case till the cows come home if you so choose.

I'm sorry, are opinions not allowed anymore? :P lol

 

[Cyrus]

I'm sorry, are opinions not allowed anymore? :P lol

You are not stating an opinion, you are speculating on facts.

 

[Kronos5253]

You are not stating an opinion, you are speculating on facts.

Ah, but what if I was just giving my opinion on the situation?

Edit:
o⋅pin⋅ion  /əˈpɪnyən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uh-pin-yuhn] Show IPA
Use opinion in a Sentence
–noun 1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
3. the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion.
4. Law. the formal statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case.
5. a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.: to forfeit someone's good opinion.
6. a favorable estimate; esteem: I haven't much of an opinion of him.



But you're right, let's just wait for the police.. They're always right, 100%, batting 1000, right?

 

[Cyrus]

...sigh.

 

[rootX]

Good point.. But:^^ That leads me to think that it wasn't a gang initiation. Why would there be more people randomly joining in if it was a gang initiation? Usually there's a set number of people that do this (the people being initiated and those watching over), there aren't usually more people that keep joining in. So I think a gang initiation is plausible, but not probable.

When Marshall, 39, jumped in, he found himself being attacked by the growing group of teens.

is what the Marshall family said not police or any bystander. I completely ignored what they had to say; only looked for police or any bystander statements who are not closely associated with the victim family.

 

[turbo]

Let's allow the Akron PD to investigate the facts of the incident, and let the FBI (at the request of the mayor) investigate the nature of the incident to determine if the guidelines of the Federal hate crimes statutes are met. Right now, we have the claims of the guy who was most seriously injured and his family. Those claims may be true, false, or missing some critical details that might mitigate the offense. We just don't know at this point.

 

[mgb_phys]

let the FBI (at the request of the mayor) investigate the nature of the incident

Isn't that the whole problem, letting the politician decide if this is a more serious attack depending on the relative melanin content of the attackers/victims/voters.

 

[Evo]

Isn't that the whole problem, letting the politician decide if this is a more serious attack depending on the relative melanin content of the attackers/victims/voters.

The problem is that we don't know the facts. Until the facts of what started the fight are released, we really don't know what provoked the fight. There was mention that the white family home schooled their children to keep them away from blacks in the public schools. There might just be more to this story...

Still, even if the whites verbally provoked the blacks, violence is not the answer. But it changes it from a premeditated racial attack. The purported circumstances right now aren't making sense.

 

[rootX]

Isn't that the whole problem, letting the politician decide if this is a more serious attack depending on the relative melanin content of the attackers/victims/voters.

Could there be a better way (realistically)? Politicians serve voters and so its all relative to what voters think.

 

[turbo]

Isn't that the whole problem, letting the politician decide if this is a more serious attack depending on the relative melanin content of the attackers/victims/voters.

I think that the over-arching problem is that if people are attacked because someone simply hates their race, religion, sexual orientation, etc, then the attack can be characterized as a hate crime. 25 years ago, an inoffensive young man who was openly gay was accosted on the streets of Bangor, Maine, severely beaten, and thrown off a bridge into the river, where he drowned. I think that murder could be easily be called a hate crime because the teens attacked him because he was gay. If he had threatened those teens with a weapon and they had no idea he was gay, that would change the complexion of the crime. If a white man and a black man get into a bar-brawl, and one kills the other, is it a hate crime? I'd be hard-pressed to make that call. That's why the mayor called in the FBI. It's not as simple as making the call based on the skin-color of the people involved. He was taking the assessment out of the hands of local officials and politicians (himself included) and putting it in the hands of the FBI. You are aware that many federal agents are black, right?

 

[mgb_phys]

I25 years ago, an inoffensive young man who was openly gay was accosted on the streets of Bangor, Maine, severely beaten, and thrown off a bridge into the river, where he drowned.

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.

 

[Huckleberry]

The problem is that we don't know the facts. Until the facts of what started the fight are released, we really don't know what provoked the fight. There was mention that the white family home schooled their children to keep them away from blacks in the public schools. There might just be more to this story...

I don't remember any mention of this family home schooling their children to keep them away from blacks. I remember the mother stating that she home schools their children to keep them away from violence in the school.

edit - Youth violence has been a problem in Akron for some time, since big business began to leave the area in the 90's according to this article.
http://usmayors.org/bestpractices/bp_volume_3/akron_3.htm

 

[Cyrus]

Good god people. Get a source for your statementsJeeeeeeeeezusssssssss...

I think he said this. No, I think she said that. No, no. I think this happened instead. This is really pathetic in an academic forum.

 

[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?