Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by glocke12, May 14, 2013.
how is this not a hate crime??
It probably is, but if the defendant didn't make it clear that skin colour was the issue, it would be very hard to prove.
Sounds like a hate crime.
I've been to that gas station before, actually just a couple months ago when visiting Baton Rouge. It's definitely a bit of a sketch area.
Had it been in a white neighborhood and the story reversed, the defendant would have to prove that it was not a case of hate-crime.
All that clip shows that there are scum on both sides of the colour line, and that any body defending such behaviour is just as bad.
What I'm really surprised about is given the state of paranoia in US politics today, that someone hasn't suggested that this was orchestrated direct from the White House.
Actually it shows hypocrisy of "hate" crime prosecution. Had the perp been white and heterosexual, and the victim been black, gay, etc...the prosecutor would more than likely be bending over backward to file hate crime charges against the perpetrator.
On the contrary, Im sure that this is in all likelihood Bush's fault.
You see, the problem is, is that the attacker didn't make it directly clear that it was a racially motivated crime. Typically when a white person attacks a black person and is charged with hate crime, it's very obvious, because they'll throw in a couple of racial slurs or things like that.
Give it some time, and he'll soon be revealed by Fox News as one of Obama's henchmen.
First you'd have to actually prove there is "hypocrisy" in hate crime prosecutions.
We have one anecdote.
It doesn't prove anything beyond that.
In libspeak, there's no such thing as "hate-crime against whites". Such a notion contradicts itself. Instead they call it "resisting gentrification".
You seem to know so much about how "liberals" think.
Who the hell are "they"?
I've never once even seen that term, let alone heard anyone use it. Do you have a source?
By the way, I do love how a completely unified right (in terms of voting records and agenda) constantly bring up the mess that the left is as if it is even remotely cohesive.
Being aware they're not a homogenous group of people, I have heard the way many of them speak. It may or may not reflect the way they think.
The liberals I'm referring to ("they") are semi-intellectual quasi-academics at my university, who may or may not be representative for liberals in general w.r.t the matter at hand.
All three should have been charged with second degree battery, two at the very least since there were two people unconscious due to the attack.
Seems a bit of sexism on the part of the police added to the mix as well as racist motives for the attacks.
If a group of whites had told a black family "You are in the wrong neighborhood and won't make it out" it would be racism without a doubt.
What is Reverse Racism
What is Reverse Racism?
Actively ignoring racism because of the race of the person.
Article title reverse racism is weird.
I'm not a fan of the whole 'hate crime' approach anyway. Most crimes aren't crimes of love. Pretty much malice and/or indifference to the victim's life is at play in a crime like this. A spade is a spade. Treat it as such.
Except when it truly is a "hate" crime...
Your argument is one I've seen on Fox, basically to lower the penalty for committing a crime against someone because of their gender, race, and/or sexual orientation.
I don't watch MSNBC, CNN or FOX..... I consider this argument my own. I'm not some mindless drum-beater for a political party.
When your ideas coincide with that of Fox, you're still basically supporting their agenda and opinion.
LOL.... I smell an ideologue.
Nothing worthy to contribute? Not surprised.
Look at it this way. A crime is a crime is a crime. The end result is the same. Thus justice is blind.
So then stealing five cents is just as bad as murdering someone? Hmm...
All crime is not the same. The motives are not the same. The defendants are not the same. The victims are not the same.
No... you're describing two different crimes. Stealing 5¢ from person A is the same as stealing 5¢ from person B... regardless of the motive. In the end, they both were deprived of 5¢.
Murdering person A is the same as murdering person B. Regardless of the motive. In the end, they are both dead.
Same end result.
This is what I mean that crimes are equal and justice is blind.