• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Union Square ‘I hate white people’ beating victim dies; suspect in court.

Transparence is not your virtue. Look at the man and tell me he's white. Check mate.

I don't need to. I don't base "race" on what a person looks like but how they fit into the US Census. :shrug:
 
I don't need to. I don't base "race" on what a person looks like but how they fit into the US Census. :shrug:

So you base "race" on what a how a person looks to a governmental bureaucratic group. Good to know. :cool:
 
No, it's a recognition that SYG laws have resulted in a lot of people not facing any criminal legal scrutiny, based on telling the police it was an act of self-defense.

Actually there has to be evidence, as there was in the Zimmerman case.
If you're going to shoot someone, even in self-defense, your actions ought to be scrutinized by a legal process.

Of course.



The jury said nothing of the kind.
You're right. A juror said it should never have gone to trial and was a 'publicity stunt', as indeed it was.
The outrage was pretty much immediate, and would have happened if Sharpton et al had said nothing.
No one would ever have heard of it.
So wait, it doesn't matter that you accuse the President of inappropriately getting involved, when he did no such thing? How curious.

My' accusation' was quite appropriate. He has opened his mouth too often without putting any thought into his words or what the consequences might be..
The President is a "loose canon," when he refrained from commenting on the case for a year and a half?

Right.
He was "stirring up animosities, suspicions and protests" by commenting only when the verdict was passed? Seriously?
Right. The idiot should have stayed silent.
 
I don't think there is a spike in the crime. I think there is a spike in the reporting on the crime. The media loves to create conflict and is doing its best to enhance that conflict.

Maybe the Media is trying to make up for its retarded over reporting of the Zimmerman incident because 80% of the country knows it was due to the races of the people involved and not the motivation behind the incident.
 
Maybe the Media is trying to make up for its retarded over reporting of the Zimmerman incident because 80% of the country knows it was due to the races of the people involved and not the motivation behind the incident.

The other 20% couldn't have been paying attention.
 
The other 20% couldn't have been paying attention.

Exactly..

I added that in there for the benefit of those, or the ones who are just too stupid to have noticed.
 
It's a bigger deal that he decided to take a swing at a guy twice his age. Black or white - dude's a coward.

I'd rather see him try this against a white guy his own age and proceed to get a down-home beatin'.
 
I don't need to. I don't base "race" on what a person looks like but how they fit into the US Census. :shrug:

So you've made this thread about YOU. How very liberal of you.
 
I hope they lock this guy up and throw away the key...The larger question I have is why the spike in black on white racial crime lately? What factors do y'all see as causing this to, if not be happening as portrayed as far as news reporting, then why the increased reporting of this type of thing....And if it is as prevalent as the reports on the news would suggest, why isn't there more of a public plea to the black community to knock it off?

He should be charged with a hate crime.
 
I agree, if we're going to have the insipid hate crime laws in the first place, might as well evenly apply them.

You want to try a minority with a hate crime? Got one thing to say about that:

 
So you've made this thread about YOU. How very liberal of you.

Aww, somebody's mad that the facts don't agree with them. How conservative of you. ;)
 
You want to try a minority with a hate crime? Got one thing to say about that:

Yeah, and the fact that you are right in your comment shows the absolute racist stupidity of hate crime law.
 
Yeah, and the fact that you are right in your comment shows the absolute racist stupidity of hate crime law.

The origin of hate crime legislation is cemented in media sensationalism. It's the same reason why black-on-black or black-on-white crime is mundane and not noteworthy, but white-on-black is "man bites dog".

I'd be against this man tried for a hate crime because I don't believe in hate crimes. However, since the abolition of that has a snowball's chance, I'm with you in that it should be applied equally. That one's not quite as improbable.
 
Just FYI, the defense didn't use stand your ground. It wasn't demonstrated to be a "straightforward case of Stand Your Ground," in any way. No one even tried to demonstrate that. As for the OP, they should prosecute this as a hate crime.

There should be no such thing as a "hate crime". We have warped our justice system into something far different than what is suggested by the 14th amendment's equal treatment clause. How is it any "worse" to be attacked for your "status" than to be attacked for your wallet? The entire idea of having aggravating and mitigating factors, not only now used in the sentencing process but now in the application of initial charges is crazy. Justice is becoming far too targetted (tailored?), the blindfold has been removed competely. The scoring of a crime based on the "special" status of the perp and/or victim is insane.
 
There should be no such thing as a "hate crime". We have warped our justice system into something far different than what is suggested by the 14th amendment's equal treatment clause. How is it any "worse" to be attacked for your "status" than to be attacked for your wallet? The entire idea of having aggravating and mitigating factors, not only now used in the sentencing process but now in the application of initial charges is crazy. Justice is becoming far too targetted (tailored?), the blindfold has been removed competely. The scoring of a crime based on the "special" status of the perp and/or victim is insane.

That's what happens when politicians cater to the lowest common denominator of constituents.
 
That's what happens when politicians cater to the lowest common denominator of constituents.

Yep. We seem to invent crimes based on the victim/perp "class" now. Carjacking was invented largely because the typical victim was a suburban housewife at the mall; it was already (at least) two serious felonies - grand theft auto, possibly kidnapping and armed robbery. Hate crime was invented because then you could still give "wrist slap" sentences for "simple" assault and battery (or vandalism) and yet give bigots extreme sentences for committing the same basic crime.
 
There should be no such thing as a "hate crime". We have warped our justice system into something far different than what is suggested by the 14th amendment's equal treatment clause. How is it any "worse" to be attacked for your "status" than to be attacked for your wallet? The entire idea of having aggravating and mitigating factors, not only now used in the sentencing process but now in the application of initial charges is crazy. Justice is becoming far too targetted (tailored?), the blindfold has been removed competely. The scoring of a crime based on the "special" status of the perp and/or victim is insane.

The point isn't the status of the attacker, it's the purpose of the attack. Should terrorism be treated the same as simple assault? Was 9/11 more than 3,000 murders? Was the whole greater than the sum of it's parts? What about the beltway snipers. Is what they did simple murder, or is the culminated effect of it a crime in and of itself? If so, then why are hate crimes any different?

If the motive and effect of a crime are greater than the crime itself, why shouldn't that be an additional charge? For example, if a new synagogue is built in a neighborhood that previously had none, and on Saturday morning when the Rabbi gets there to open the doors, there are swastika’s and Nazi propaganda spray painted on the church with stuff like "Jews get out" all over the building, would that be no different than a graffiti charge for some kid spray painting "Timmy + Janice 4ever" or something on the side of the church?

If you see that as being the same thing as a graffiti charge, then you're not taking a very good look at the nature of the crime. A hate crime is an attack on a whole population.
 
The origin of hate crime legislation is cemented in media sensationalism. It's the same reason why black-on-black or black-on-white crime is mundane and not noteworthy, but white-on-black is "man bites dog".

I'd be against this man tried for a hate crime because I don't believe in hate crimes. However, since the abolition of that has a snowball's chance, I'm with you in that it should be applied equally. That one's not quite as improbable.

I'm all for it. As ridiculous as I think hate crime laws are it's still the law and the prosecutor should pursue that aspect of it because we all know that if their races were reversed and it was a white man saying that he hated black people and then killed a black man then the words "hate crime" "bigotry" and "racism" would be all over the news.
 
I'm all for it. As ridiculous as I think hate crime laws are it's still the law and the prosecutor should pursue that aspect of it because we all know that if their races were reversed and it was a white man saying that he hated black people and then killed a black man then the words "hate crime" "bigotry" and "racism" would be all over the news.

You're right, and of course it would. The difference is that white people tend not to care about such things (outside of a few minor fringe groups), but the reverse would cause the likes of Sharpton and Jackson to exit their black caves, rally the morons that follow their cults of personality, and make outrageous, vocal claims.

Pretty much the only (and easiest) way to level out the playing field would be to make huge deals about cases like this and push for extended jail sentences for this man. Maybe the black activist community and other minorities of double-digit IQs can see how stupid they look.

Hell, just look at this board. You hardly see any white race-baiters around, but you see plenty of black ones (or white race apologists making asses of themselves). It's just accepted. Therein lies the problem.
 
The point isn't the status of the attacker, it's the purpose of the attack. Should terrorism be treated the same as simple assault? Was 9/11 more than 3,000 murders? Was the whole greater than the sum of it's parts? What about the beltway snipers. Is what they did simple murder, or is the culminated effect of it a crime in and of itself? If so, then why are hate crimes any different?

If the motive and effect of a crime are greater than the crime itself, why shouldn't that be an additional charge? For example, if a new synagogue is built in a neighborhood that previously had none, and on Saturday morning when the Rabbi gets there to open the doors, there are swastika’s and Nazi propaganda spray painted on the church with stuff like "Jews get out" all over the building, would that be no different than a graffiti charge for some kid spray painting "Timmy + Janice 4ever" or something on the side of the church?

If you see that as being the same thing as a graffiti charge, then you're not taking a very good look at the nature of the crime. A hate crime is an attack on a whole population.

Wrong. You cannot be charged with robbing (or with intent to rob) all rich folks simply because you acted upon one member of that potential victim class. To presume that a serial crime spree was to occur based on one act is insane, if you can prove that a conspiracy existed to commit further crimes then make that charge in addition.

The same applies to any other crime. Lets say you were ordered to pay restitution for your "tagging" of a church, would that be payable to all Jews, all churches or only to cover repair/repainting of the damaged building? Why should that be based on the content of the graffiti? What if the graffiti said I hate Obama or property of the bloods?

Your analysis of the beltway sniper(s) is also wrong, some of the shootings (those with the handgun) were done in the process of a robbery, others were done to make the real purpose, the planned killing of his estranged wife, seem to lack any motive. Does it matter to you why the perp decided to break your nose? Is it somehow worse if they hated the color of your skin, your wearing of an opposing team's sports jersey, wanted to take your wallet or simply wanted to impress their girl/boyfriend?
 
FYI, they are considering classifying this as a hate crime.

In terms of the validity of hate crimes: There should be no question that intent is a major component in how we determine the nature and punishment of a crime. E.g. we offer harsher punishments for premeditated murder, than for a murder committed in the heat of the moment. We also apply stiffer punishments for crimes that we find more heinous.

If the statute specifically says "assaulting a black person, for any reason at all, adds 2 years to the sentence," that would violate the Equal Protection Clause. A statute that punishes a crime because racism is a motive -- and does not exempt specific races from prosecution -- is Constitutional.
 
The point isn't the status of the attacker, it's the purpose of the attack. Should terrorism be treated the same as simple assault? Was 9/11 more than 3,000 murders? Was the whole greater than the sum of it's parts? What about the beltway snipers. Is what they did simple murder, or is the culminated effect of it a crime in and of itself? If so, then why are hate crimes any different?

If the motive and effect of a crime are greater than the crime itself, why shouldn't that be an additional charge? For example, if a new synagogue is built in a neighborhood that previously had none, and on Saturday morning when the Rabbi gets there to open the doors, there are swastika’s and Nazi propaganda spray painted on the church with stuff like "Jews get out" all over the building, would that be no different than a graffiti charge for some kid spray painting "Timmy + Janice 4ever" or something on the side of the church?

If you see that as being the same thing as a graffiti charge, then you're not taking a very good look at the nature of the crime. A hate crime is an attack on a whole population.

All I'm seeing is a desire to revoke the First Amendment and a whole bunch of thoughtcrime.
 
FYI, they are considering classifying this as a hate crime.o

In terms of the validity of hate crimes: There should be no question that intent is a major component in how we determine the nature and punishment of a crime. E.g. we offer harsher punishments for premeditated murder, than for a murder committed in the heat of the moment. We also apply stiffer punishments for crimes that we find more heinous.

If the statute specifically says "assaulting a black person, for any reason at all, adds 2 years to the sentence," that would violate the Equal Protection Clause. A statute that punishes a crime because racism is a motive -- and does not exempt specific races from prosecution -- is Constitutional.

Classifying any crime above and beyond the existing classifications is a perversion of justice.

We can already re-claisfy a crime based on intent, adding " hate " as a qualification only empowers the state to tack on more punishment

It's wrong whether its being applied to the sub-human that attacked and killed that man or if its applied to some Skinhead who kills a black person.
 
Back
Top Bottom