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

Fletch · Feb 16, 2014

ecofarm said:
I've explained things clearly and you either refuse to see it or are incapable. Your claim of being willing is either BS or simply beyond your capacity.

I see. Now Im just too stupid to grasp your brilliance or just too dishonest to admit that your brilliance exists. I don't suppose its ever occurred to you that you really haven't made your point in this thread at all and you just lack the ability to grasp that. Because I think that's where we are at.

ecofarm · Feb 16, 2014

Fletch said:
I see. Now Im just too stupid to grasp your brilliance or just too dishonest to admit that your brilliance exists.

:applaud

Gold star for Fletch!

ttwtt78640 · Feb 16, 2014

ecofarm said:
Go figure? It's called socioeconomics. One would think an adult would have at least heard of the term.

That makes very little sense as the basis (root cause?) for "hate crime". While poor blacks may view richer whites as "oppressors" that socioeconomic theory does not play very well when the races are reversed.

sangha · Feb 16, 2014

mac said:
What I took from the OP is America's (at least it's media) tendency to ignore reality when it comes to black on white racially motivated crime.

Are you saying that the fact that the media has reported on this black on white instance of crime is a demonstration of how the media ignores black on white crime?

ecofarm · Feb 16, 2014

ttwtt78640 said:
That makes very little sense as the basis (root cause?) for "hate crime". While poor blacks may view richer whites as "oppressors" that socioeconomic theory does not play very well when the races are reversed.

Poverty is the root cause of most ignorance. Ignorance is the root cause of hate.

ecofarm · Feb 16, 2014

sangha said:
Are you saying that the fact that the media has reported on this black on white instance of crime is a demonstration of how the media ignores black on white crime?

Hey now, I'm sure we can get some statistics from Stormfront that demonstrate this is just an anomaly.

mac · Feb 16, 2014

ecofarm said:
You are the one ignoring reality and substituting conspiracy theory that intends to support violence against blacks. You're ignorant of the context, the rhetoric and the obvious underlying claims.

Combining emotionally charged stories such as this, with claims that whites never do anything to blacks, is a standard-form call to violence employed in every racist group.

There's a reason why stories about elderly vets being abused are combined with this CT claim. It doesn't take a genius to figure it out... it incites violence.

Wrong. The evidence clearly supports that there is no "support for violence against blacks." The reality is most violence in American is intra-racial. Accurately reporting a crime, when it isn't the sensationalize-able white on black, does no harm and is no call to violence.

mac · Feb 16, 2014

sangha said:
Are you saying that the fact that the media has reported on this black on white instance of crime is a demonstration of how the media ignores black on white crime?

When the media omits key facts, it is evidence of such. The media falls all over itself pointing out the races of the involved when there is a white aggressor. When there is a black aggressor, the race of the perpetrator goes unmentioned. The media sensationalizes white on black crime and downplays the opposite.

ecofarm · Feb 16, 2014

mac said:
Wrong. The evidence clearly supports that there is no "support for violence against blacks." The reality is most violence in American is intra-racial. Accurately reporting a crime, when it isn't the sensationalize-able white on black, does no harm and is no call to violence.

Crimes are accurately reported. There is no conspiracy. There is not a massive wave of attacks by blacks against elderly vets being covered up by the media. There is no lack of white on black crimes, as demonstrated by racist groups across America every day in our schools, prisons and streets.

That's all a bunch of BS intended to give the impression that whites are being slaughtered without notice and, thus, we need to do something about this - quickly!

ecofarm · Feb 16, 2014

mac said:
When the media omits key facts, it is evidence of such. The media falls all over itself pointing out the races of the involved when there is a white aggressor. When there is a black aggressor, the race of the perpetrator goes unmentioned. The media sensationalizes white on black crime and downplays the opposite.

Bull****

sangha · Feb 16, 2014

mac said:
When the media omits key facts, it is evidence of such. The media falls all over itself pointing out the races of the involved when there is a white aggressor. When there is a black aggressor, the race of the perpetrator goes unmentioned. The media sensationalizes white on black crime and downplays the opposite.

In this case, did the media omit key facts?

I ask because it doesn't seem that way to me but maybe I missed something

ttwtt78640 · Feb 16, 2014

ecofarm said:
Poverty is the root cause of most ignorance. Ignorance is the root cause of hate.

What the statistics show is that for violent crime blacks are 7X to 8X more likely to commit violent crime than whites yet for "hate crime" that difference does not show up. The premise of the OP, supported by your socioeconomic theory as well, is that is not because it does not occur but simply because it is not (as often) charged as such. The OP link notes that while this crime (robbery and assault) was reported and racial slurs were made it was not (as yet) treated (charged) as a "hate crime".

Race and crime - Metapedia

ecofarm · Feb 16, 2014

sangha said:
In this case, did the media omit key facts?

I ask because it doesn't seem that way to me but maybe I missed something

No, no, this case is special. It's just included to get people (especially vets) pissed off. The important things to remember are:

1. Blacks are slaughter whites in massive numbers and this goes totally unreported in the news.
2. White never do anything to blacks. We know this because, if they did, it would be headline national news for weeks in every single case!
3. Therefore, WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING!

mac · Feb 16, 2014

ecofarm said:
Crimes are accurately reported. There is no conspiracy.

Not by the media. By law enforcement agencies, yes...not by the media.

There is not a massive wave of attacks by blacks against elderly vets being covered up by the media. There is no lack of white on black crimes, as demonstrated by racist groups across America every day in our schools, prisons and streets.

I didn't claim any of that. I pointed out that the majority of crimes against blacks are committed by blacks. To say that there is more black on white violence than white on black violence doesn't in any way imply that there is no white on black violence.

That's all a bunch of BS intended to give the impression that whites are being slaughtered without notice and, thus, we need to do something about this - quickly!

The quantifiable truth is that there are twice the number of black on white murders as there are white on black murders. :shrug: Considering the huge demographic disparity, this is far more significant than merely "double".

mac · Feb 16, 2014

sangha said:
In this case, did the media omit key facts?

I ask because it doesn't seem that way to me but maybe I missed something

The race of the attackers. Sure it's implied, but it's not stated. One could just as easily assume that it was a gang of vietnamese attacking the "white boy". In fact, one would have to be racist to assume they were black, if going solely on this article.

sangha · Feb 16, 2014

ttwtt78640 said:
What the statistics show is that for violent crime blacks are 7X to 8X more likely to commit violent crime than whites yet for "hate crime" that difference does not show up. The premise of the OP, supported by your socioeconomic theory as well, is that is not because it does not occur but simply because it is not (as often) charged as such. The OP link notes that while this crime (robbery and assault) was reported and racial slurs were made it was not (as yet) treated (charged) as a "hate crime".

Race and crime - Metapedia

Do you believe that if racial slurs are used, then that makes it a hate crime?

Or do you realize that there are a variety of factors used to make such a determination?

ecofarm · Feb 16, 2014

ttwtt78640 said:
What the statistics show is that for violent crime blacks are 7X to 8X more likely to commit violent crime than whites yet for "hate crime" that difference does not show up.

Since you are generally a well reasoned and respectful poster, I will attempt to explain what you've missed here.

Hate crimes require two things, in general:

1. That there be no other motivation for the crime than the race/gender of the victim. If the accused stole their wallet, hate crime is generally off the table.
2. The accused must be a member of a hate group that targets the victim's race/gender, or must possess propaganda from a hate group that targets the victim's race/gender.

As we can see by these standards, hate crimes are more than just interracial crimes. They are crimes committed for the purpose of terrorism and without any other purpose. Thus, when someone robs someone else, it is not a hate crime - even if they are different races - because the motive was not racial hate and the purpose was not to instill fear in the target's race/gender/etc.

If you're following to that point, then you will understand why the vast majority of black on white (and white on black) crimes are not hate crimes.

We should note that the use of racial slurs does not make a robbery or other crime a hate crime. The actual standards are outlined above.

sangha · Feb 16, 2014

mac said:
The race of the attackers. Sure it's implied, but it's not stated. One could just as easily assume that it was a gang of vietnamese attacking the "white boy". In fact, one would have to be racist to assume they were black, if going solely on this article.

It is my understanding that omitting the race of both victims and perps is pretty much SOP for the media. If you believe that the media is only omitting the race when the perps are black or the victim is white, do you have any credible evidence that this is so?

Iron Yank · Feb 16, 2014

sangha said:
Only in the delusional world of the right wing does a story of black against white crime being reported by the media demonstrate that the media ignores black against white crime

Hey genius nobody said it was completly ignored but what about the one instance of a white person doing it and Eric Holder charging him with a federal hate crime but ignoring the dozens of stories of black racists attacking whites simply for there skin color. Its your world thats delusional

ttwtt78640 · Feb 16, 2014

sangha said:
Do you believe that if racial slurs are used, then that makes it a hate crime?

Or do you realize that there are a variety of factors used to make such a determination?

That seems very inconsistent - does it not? That is precisely the point of the OP; that the victim of this robbery and assault was indeed subjected to (selected for?) his race. To be considered as a "hate crime" the motive for victim selection has to include race (as this one did) but you seem to assert that it must be the primary (or only?) motive in selecting the victim. Simply adding robbery to the crime should not somehow override the racial (or other) "hate" factor in selecting the victim.

sangha · Feb 16, 2014

Iron Yank said:
Hey genius nobody said it was completly ignored but what about the one instance of a white person doing it and Eric Holder charging him with a federal hate crime but ignoring the dozens of stories of black racists attacking whites simply for there skin color. Its your world thats delusional

I pretty sure that the crimes referred to in the OP was not a rape

Iron Yank · Feb 16, 2014

ecofarm said:
Since you are generally a well reasoned and respectful poster, I will attempt to explain what you've missed here.

Hate crimes require two things, in general:

1. That there be no other motivation for the crime than the race/gender of the victim. If the accused stole their wallet, hate crime is generally off the table.
2. The accused must be a member of a hate group that targets the victim's race/gender, or must possess propaganda from a hate group that targets the victim's race/gender.

As we can see by these standards, hate crimes are more than just interracial crimes. They are crimes committed for the purpose of terrorism and without any other purpose. Thus, when someone robs someone else, it is not a hate crime - even if they are different races - because the motive was not racial hate and the purpose was not to instill fear in the target's race/gender/etc.

If you're following to that point, then you will understand why the vast majority of black on white (and white on black) crimes are not hate crimes.

We should note that the use of racial slurs does not make a robbery or other crime a hate crime. The actual standards are outlined above.

.
This is total BS, so if the black offender instead of just bashing his head in calling him honky, cracker ect. in the process decides to lift his wallet then its not a hate crime? This is just a stupid argument

ttwtt78640 · Feb 16, 2014

ecofarm said:
Since you are generally a well reasoned and respectful poster, I will attempt to explain what you've missed here.

Hate crimes require two things, in general:

1. That there be no other motivation for the crime than the race/gender of the victim. If the accused stole their wallet, hate crime is generally off the table.
2. The accused must be a member of a hate group that targets the victim's race/gender, or must possess propaganda from a hate group that targets the victim's race/gender.

As we can see by these standards, hate crimes are more than just interracial crimes. They are crimes committed for the purpose of terrorism and without any other purpose. Thus, when someone robs someone else, it is not a hate crime - even if they are different races - because the motive was not racial hate and the purpose was not to instill fear in the target's race/gender/etc.

If you're following to that point, then you will understand why the vast majority of black on white (and white on black) crimes are not hate crimes.

We should note that the use of racial slurs does not make a robbery or other crime a hate crime. The actual standards are outlined above.

That is not what these stories show:

4 teens charged with hate crime in attacks on Hispanic men in Huntington Station - News 12 Long Island

http://www.navytimes.com/article/20...nection-attempted-robbery-possible-hate-crime

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/loca...-With-Hate-Crimes-and-Robbery--141271813.html

sangha · Feb 16, 2014

ttwtt78640 said:
That seems very inconsistent - does it not? That is precisely the point of the OP; that the victim of this robbery and assault was indeed subjected to (selected for?) his race. To be considered as a "hate crime" the motive for victim selection has to include race (as this one did) but you seem to assert that it must be the primary (or only?) motive in selecting the victim. Simply adding robbery to the crime should not somehow override the racial (or other) "hate" factor in selecting the victim.

I don't see any evidence that the victim was selected for his race. Am I correct in inferring that you believe that the use of racial slurs indicates that the victim was selected for his race?

ecofarm · Feb 16, 2014

ttwtt78640 said:
That is not what these stories show:

4 teens charged with hate crime in attacks on Hispanic men in Huntington Station - News 12 Long Island

3 Va. sailors charged in connection with attempted robbery, possible hate crime | Navy Times | navytimes.com

Occupy Oakland Protesters Charged with Hate Crimes and Robbery | NBC Bay Area

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.

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

Fletch

ecofarm

global liberation

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

sangha

ecofarm

global liberation

ecofarm

global liberation

mac

mac

ecofarm

global liberation

ecofarm

global liberation

sangha

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

ecofarm

global liberation

mac

mac

sangha

ecofarm

global liberation

sangha

Iron Yank

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

sangha

Iron Yank

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

sangha

ecofarm

global liberation