• 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!

‘Knock That White Boy Out’: Arrests Made After Mob Of Teens Attack Disabled Vet

Status
Not open for further replies.
The first article says "possible hate crime", and the missing evidence (presumably being investigated) is membership in a hate group or possession of hate propaganda.

The second article mentions: "Prosecutors claim the four called it “papi slumping,”. I imagine this is a term used specifically for Hispanics and demonstrates their intention to target someone of a specific race just because they are a "papi". If propaganda can be found demonstrating this "papi slumping", then they are likely to be found guilty.


I think you could have noticed the "possible" in the first one and the implications of "papi slumping" in the second one. The third article notes that it is an on-going investigation. None of the articles are convictions.


What I have told you is true. I will not continue to explain individual articles.

Thank you. That was my point exactly. If it's white on black crime with racial slurs "possible hate crime" is part of the story. If you will notice no such comment was made in the black on white "knock that white boy out" story in the OP. Maybe you are finally getting it.
 
Most of the time, if a gang of white guys was to attack, say a black guy, then many, many people would be screaming "hate" crime, but if it's the other way around then they just wanted his watch.
 
The belief that all white-on any other ethnicity crimes are always called hate crimes is supported by nothing other than hysteria

Michael Dunn guilty on four counts, including attempted murder; mistrial declared on first-degree murder charge* - NY Daily News

That was more than offset, IMHO, by the massive media supported claims of a racial motive in the Zimmerman/Martin case. While it is not always claimed that racism is involved it is more prevalent in white on black crime.
 
Well, that would be the easiest place to find a citation for the bull**** you are spewing.

It's not bull****, buddy. I haven't seen you substantiate your claim, either, by the way. Where is all this white on black, present day, racially motivated violence that you speak of?
 
That was more than offset, IMHO, by the massive media supported claims of a racial motive in the Zimmerman/Martin case. While it is not always claimed that racism is involved it is more prevalent in white on black crime.

That's a common misperception. The fact is, I've seen no evidence that the shooting, when it first happened, was reported as a white on black crime

Race only became an issue when Martin's parents, and their supporters, claimed that the lack of prosecution was racially motivated. You're reasonable. Do you really think the media should report how a group of people are claiming the govt acted in a racially biased manner without saying anything about race?

IOW, the crime itself, which wasn't a racial issue, was not reported as a racial issue. The protests about the lack of prosecution, which was a racial issue, was reported as a racial issue. What's the problem with that?
 
Since you seem to have forgotten your own point, I repeat it for you

I didn't forget my point, I assure you.

You argued that the media routinely does not report the race of those involved when the perp is black or the victim is white, but does so when the opposite is true. I responded by pointing out that not reporting the race of either perps or victims was SOP for the media.

In the case of Martin/Zimmerman shooting, the media ignored reporting about the crime.

Ignored what reporting?

However, what they did report about was the claims of protestors who complained about the lack of prosecution which they claimed was racially motivated

No, what they did was purposefully accentuate the racial aspect of the crime through purposeful editing of 911 calls.

Do you really think the media should not say anything about race when people are claiming that the police and prosecutors acted in a racially biased manner?

Not in the least, and this is nothing even remotely related to my point. Are you going to continue to be dishonest here?
 
Tell the truth, you only attempted this lame retort because you wanted to use the word 'nigger'.
Tell the truth, you are dodging my question. Where in the OP do I call for violence? I don't and that is why you are running from the question. See this is what happens when you get caught in a lie.
 
It's not bull****, buddy. I haven't seen you substantiate your claim, either, by the way. Where is all this white on black, present day, racially motivated violence that you speak of?

I think accepting that racist crimes take place every day, in schools, prisons and the streets, is common knowledge.

You, however, are claiming a vast conspiracy theory to cover up the black revolution.
 
I think accepting that racist crimes take place every day, in schools, prisons and the streets, is common knowledge.

Yes, you think. You can't substantiate it though.

You, however, are claiming a vast conspiracy theory to cover up the black revolution.

I am claiming nothing such, other than a disparity in media reporting.
 
Tell the truth, you are dodging my question. Where in the OP do I call for violence? I don't and that is why you are running from the question. See this is what happens when you get caught in a lie.

Anyone with half a brain can see what you were doing.

1. Present emotionally charged story of blacks attacking a white.
2. Claim that whites never attack blacks, we "know" because it would be national news.
3. Claim that blacks attacking whites is being suppressed in the media.

That is the standard-form call to violence found in every racist organization in America.

If you actually gave a crap about the story, you would not have used the standard form rhetoric of inciting racial violence.
 
Last edited:
That's a common misperception. The fact is, I've seen no evidence that the shooting, when it first happened, was reported as a white on black crime

Race only became an issue when Martin's parents, and their supporters, claimed that the lack of prosecution was racially motivated. You're reasonable. Do you really think the media should report how a group of people are claiming the govt acted in a racially biased manner without saying anything about race?

IOW, the crime itself, which wasn't a racial issue, was not reported as a racial issue. The protests about the lack of prosecution, which was a racial issue, was reported as a racial issue. What's the problem with that?

You must be kidding. That case was racially charged from the get go! :roll:
 
That's a common misperception. The fact is, I've seen no evidence that the shooting, when it first happened, was reported as a white on black crime

Race only became an issue when Martin's parents, and their supporters, claimed that the lack of prosecution was racially motivated. You're reasonable. Do you really think the media should report how a group of people are claiming the govt acted in a racially biased manner without saying anything about race?

IOW, the crime itself, which wasn't a racial issue, was not reported as a racial issue. The protests about the lack of prosecution, which was a racial issue, was reported as a racial issue. What's the problem with that?

The initial lack of prosecution, and the eventual failure of that prosecution to yield a conviction, was evidenced based and not racially based. When a person that is witnessed being beaten, shows clear injuries from that beating and then shoots their attacker that is far different than a random shooting of a kid skipping home from the store with Skittles and tea. The only evidence of racial profiling in that case was Martin describing Zimmerman as a "creepy ass cracker" - Zimmerman only mentioned race in response to a direct question from the police dispatcher, although MSNBC desperately tried to imply otherwise.
 
The initial lack of prosecution, and the eventual failure of that prosecution to yield a conviction, was evidenced based and not racially based. When a person that is witnessed being beaten, shows clear injuries from that beating and then shoots their attacker that is far different than a random shooting of a kid skipping home from the store with Skittles and tea. The only evidence of racial profiling in that case was Martin describing Zimmerman as a "creepy ass cracker" - Zimmerman only mentioned race in response to a direct question from the police dispatcher, although MSNBC desperately tried to imply otherwise.

Exactly, the general perception that the crime itself was racially motivated was entirely manufactured by mainstream media outlets such as NBC.
 
Ok, the Trayvon/Zimmerman people have arrived. This thread is done.


I hope it was a learning experience for some. Be on the lookout for this call to violence and remember, it includes three main aspects:

1. A story to make one angry.
2. A claim of white innocence ("it would be national news if a white hurt a black person!!11!!").
3. A claim of secret, violent, black revolution.

Note that 2., above, asserts that someone will become famous if they do take action. It's a claim of innocence and an incentive for those who would take action.


And have a good day.
 
Ignored what reporting?

AFAIK, they did not report the race of either Martin or Zimmerman when the crime initially occurred. They only reported the race when they reported on how people were complaining about the lack of prosecution being racially motivated


No, what they did was purposefully accentuate the racial aspect of the crime through purposeful editing of 911 calls.



Not in the least, and this is nothing even remotely related to my point. Are you going to continue to be dishonest here?

So you agree that the media should report the race of those involved when a people are claiming that the govt acted in a racially biased manner, yet when the media reports the race of those involved in a racial issue, you think it's wrong :screwy
 
The initial lack of prosecution, and the eventual failure of that prosecution to yield a conviction, was evidenced based and not racially based. When a person that is witnessed being beaten, shows clear injuries from that beating and then shoots their attacker that is far different than a random shooting of a kid skipping home from the store with Skittles and tea. The only evidence of racial profiling in that case was Martin describing Zimmerman as a "creepy ass cracker" - Zimmerman only mentioned race in response to a direct question from the police dispatcher, although MSNBC desperately tried to imply otherwise.

We are not discussing the Martin shooting itself. We are discussing the media's coverage of crime and racial issues.

When the Martin shooting was initially reported, it was not reported in a racial manner because, for the reasons you mention, it was not a racial issue. IOW, the media did not demonstrate any racial bias in its initial reporting of the crime.

The media only began discussing race when people started protesting the lack of prosecution and claimed that it was a racial issue. Since you agree that the media should discuss race when reporting a racial issue, then how does the media discussing race while reporting on protests over a racial issue indicate that the media is biased on racial issues?
 
Exactly, the general perception that the crime itself was racially motivated was entirely manufactured by mainstream media outlets such as NBC.

No, the claim that the crime was racially motivated was started by the Martin family and their supporters, not the media
 
We are not discussing the Martin shooting itself. We are discussing the media's coverage of crime and racial issues.

When the Martin shooting was initially reported, it was not reported in a racial manner because, for the reasons you mention, it was not a racial issue. IOW, the media did not demonstrate any racial bias in its initial reporting of the crime.

The media only began discussing race when people started protesting the lack of prosecution and claimed that it was a racial issue. Since you agree that the media should discuss race when reporting a racial issue, then how does the media discussing race while reporting on protests over a racial issue indicate that the media is biased on racial issues?

Hmm... Maybe when that media is reporting "justice for Trayvon" rallies led by their paid staff, after manufacturing edited quotes implying that Zimmerman was a racist, that just might be construed as media bias. Enough about that case.
 
No, the claim that the crime was racially motivated was started by the Martin family and their supporters, not the media

Oh, because the media is completely innocent in making trials like this into a circus? :lamo That's a laugh.
 
Hmm... Maybe when that media is reporting "justice for Trayvon" rallies led by their paid staff, after manufacturing edited quotes implying that Zimmerman was a racist, that just might be construed as media bias. Enough about that case.

I don't know what you're referring to, but yeah, enough about that case

One case proves nothing except that there are exceptions. What I'm more interested in is the claim that there is some sort of significant racial bias in the way the media reports black on white crime vs white on black crime. The other issue, which you seemed to raise, is what is the basis for charging someone with a hate crime? You seemed to indicate that the use of racial slurs was enough to justify charging someone with a hate crime.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom