• 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.

All three of those links describe crimes which were charged as hate crimes so of course they report the race of the victims and the perps. The media reports the race for all hate crimes whether it is black on white or white on black.

However, the complaint seems to be that the media does not report the race of any (or most) crimes when it's black on white, but does so (at least more often) when it's white on black. Your links have nothing to do with this complaint.
 
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?

Yes. If a group of whites beat and rob a black victim while using racial slurs one can rightly infer that they indeed "hate" blacks and chose a black victim for more than merely getting their wallet, watch or cellphone. Why is the inclusion of other crimes, in this case robbery, of a beaten victim then make that not a "hate crime"?
 
Two things about this strike me. First off if it was a group of white kids saying knock that nigger out" it would be wall to wall coverage on network news. Second thing is even in this local report the word "hate crime" never comes up. Go figure.

CLEVELAND, Ohio (CBS Cleveland) - Cleveland authorities have made several arrests following the mob beating of a disabled Army veteran by a group of teenagers.
Last Friday, the victim, Matthew Robinson, was surrounded by between six and eight teenagers while riding the RTA Healthline. Robinson told WOIO that he was attacked by the teens, then robbed of his possessions.
During the attack, the teens made several derogatory remarks about Robinson.
“What they were saying was, ‘Knock that boy out!’ ‘White boy.’ ‘Cracker,’” he was quoted as saying about the incident. “They were saying, ‘Knock that white boy out.’”


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

That is terrible story.
 
All three of those links describe crimes which were charged as hate crimes so of course they report the race of the victims and the perps. The media reports the race for all hate crimes whether it is black on white or white on black.

However, the complaint seems to be that the media does not report the race of any (or most) crimes when it's black on white, but does so (at least more often) when it's white on black. Your links have nothing to do with this complaint.


Mac is the member claiming conspiracy theory, not ttwtt.
 
Yes. If a group of whites beat and rob a black victim while using racial slurs one can rightly infer that they indeed "hate" blacks and chose a black victim for more than merely getting their wallet, watch or cellphone. Why is the inclusion of other crimes, in this case robbery, of a beaten victim then make that not a "hate crime"?

None of the articles you presented is a conviction. The first specifically says "possible hate crime" and the third notes "on-going investigation". Only the second presents direct evidence of hate crime ("papi slumping").
 
All three of those links describe crimes which were charged as hate crimes so of course they report the race of the victims and the perps. The media reports the race for all hate crimes whether it is black on white or white on black.

However, the complaint seems to be that the media does not report the race of any (or most) crimes when it's black on white, but does so (at least more often) when it's white on black. Your links have nothing to do with this complaint.

My links specifically refute the post to which I replied which stated that the only motive for a "hate crime" must be racial, ethnic, religious or gender preference based. These cases show that coupling a "hate crime" with another crime (e.g. robbery) does not make the "hate" portion disappear.
 
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?

Not that it's the only case that flies in the face of your assumption, but do you not remember that great stink made about race in the Trayvon case? Even editing of the tapes to make Race even more significant a factor than it actually was?
 
My opinion .... black racism is rearing its ugly head and its no coincidence that Barak Obama & Eric Holder are in charge during a period of time when hundreds of incidents all over the country have blacks abusing whites, fact is they support it and see it as social justice for past crimes by whites many years ago. You can see the bias from this authoritarian regime in the white cop & black professor incident where Obama backed the black skinned person as well as Zimmerman case where he backed the black person as well. Dont forget Obama went to Reverand Wrights racist black church as well. It is also my opinion that this tanning tax has racism written all over it as well as we all know that it is only white people who tan. I would be willing to bet that Obama thought long & hard about some kind of tax where he could just tax whitey & this is what he came up with. Why else would you tax tanning beds? ridiculous

Black racists feel emboldened by this presidents behavior and thats at least one of the reasons why you see so much Black on white crime during this regimes rule.
 
Yes. If a group of whites beat and rob a black victim while using racial slurs one can rightly infer that they indeed "hate" blacks and chose a black victim for more than merely getting their wallet, watch or cellphone.

One can?

What if the same group of blacks had attacked a black person while shouting racial slurs at the black victim?


Why is the inclusion of other crimes, in this case robbery, of a beaten victim then make that not a "hate crime"?

See the above question
 
My opinion .... black racism

There is no such thing as black racism. Racism is a social construct, an ism, and requires institutional backing. Without a majority of power, there is only racial prejudice.

One cannot compare unjust discrimination WITH power and WITHOUT. To claim it's the same is to be a moron.

When a black person says they hate whites, it means nothing to me. It will never keep me from getting a job, a house or anything else. It's nothing more than pissing in the wind. But when a white person says they hate blacks, blacks WILL and DO lose out on jobs and such as a result. That's an important difference. That power, to have an actual impact on the target race, is what differentiates between common bigotry and actual racism.
 
Last edited:
My links specifically refute the post to which I replied which stated that the only motive for a "hate crime" must be racial, ethnic, religious or gender preference based. These cases show that coupling a "hate crime" with another crime (e.g. robbery) does not make the "hate" portion disappear.

Yes, I misunderstood the intent behind that post of yours. My bad
 
Yes. If a group of whites beat and rob a black victim while using racial slurs one can rightly infer that they indeed "hate" blacks and chose a black victim for more than merely getting their wallet, watch or cellphone. Why is the inclusion of other crimes, in this case robbery, of a beaten victim then make that not a "hate crime"?

Why is it that when it's a white-on-any other ethnicity crime, everyone calls for hate crime legislation, but when it's the other way around . . . couldn't be? :roll: By reading the article, it is obvious to me that these people were using racial slurs while attacking this poor man, and if the roles had been reversed people would most certainly be calling it a "hate" crime and saying that the "white" man was racist.
 
Not that it's the only case that flies in the face of your assumption, but do you not remember that great stink made about race in the Trayvon case? Even editing of the tapes to make Race even more significant a factor than it actually was?

So you think the fact that when the media reported how the Martin family and it's supporters argued that the lack of prosecution of Zimmerman was based on race, the media should not have mentioned race?
 
Not that it's the only case that flies in the face of your assumption, but do you not remember that great stink made about race in the Trayvon case? Even editing of the tapes to make Race even more significant a factor than it actually was?


The Trayvon case proves that the media is suppressing information about blacks attacking whites?

haha, good one


Yeah, I'm sure blacks are slaughtering whites by the hundreds and the media is hiding it from us. Blacks are running rampant and killing left and right. In contrast, whites never do anything to blacks. We know this because if a white person does anything to a black person, then it is headline national news for two weeks every single time. So, what do we know... blacks are in full-on revolution, it is being suppressed by the media and whites are doing nothing about it. So... what can we do?! Oh... I know... let's take the fight to them!!! In the name of freedom and justice!! To the streets!!
 
Last edited:
So you think the fact that when the media reported how the Martin family and it's supporters argued that the lack of prosecution of Zimmerman was based on race, the media should not have mentioned race?

There ya go again, trying to twist the argument to suit you. The media initially reported the races of Trayvon and Zimmerman as black and white, respectively. When it came to light that Zimmerman's mother was Peruvian, the media took to calling him "white hispanic". The true point of this example is that they did indeed mention race in that case while had it been Trayvon that shot Zimmerman, the likely reporting would have omitted race, if we are to use other such reporting on similar scenarios for example.

Here's a good article on the topic:
Media went after best story, not truth
 
The Trayvon case proves that the media is suppressing information about blacks attacking whites?

haha, good one

"Downplaying" would be a better description.
 
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!

This "call for violence" you keep accusing me of exist nowhere except in your head. My OP simply points out the way the national media is ignoring this story and points out the fact that if it was white kids beating and robbing a disabled black vet while calling him a nigger the story would be on today's Sunday news shows. Where is my call for violence here?
 
"Downplaying" would be a better description.

You've claimed this like 10 times. I'm still waiting for the Stormfront citation.
 
This "call for violence" you keep accusing me of exist nowhere except in your head. My OP simply points out the way the national media is ignoring this story and points out the fact that if it was white kids beating and robbing a disabled black vet while calling him a nigger the story would be on today's Sunday news shows. Where is my call for violence here?

Tell the truth, you only attempted this lame retort because you wanted to use the word 'nigger'.
 
Keep waiting, I don't read stormfront.

Well, that would be the easiest place to find a citation for the bull**** you are spewing.
 
There ya go again, trying to twist the argument to suit you. The media initially reported the races of Trayvon and Zimmerman as black and white, respectively. When it came to light that Zimmerman's mother was Peruvian, the media took to calling him "white hispanic". The true point of this example is that they did indeed mention race in that case while had it been Trayvon that shot Zimmerman, the likely reporting would have omitted race, if we are to use other such reporting on similar scenarios for example.

Here's a good article on the topic:
Media went after best story, not truth

Since you seem to have forgotten your own point, I repeat it for 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. However, what they did report about was the claims of protestors who complained about the lack of prosecution which they claimed was racially motivated

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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom