Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSykes
On whether or not TexasReb denies that racial injustice still exists:
|
I never denied it, if that is the rhetorical ploy here. It always has, and always will. While acknowleging this simple fact of history, lets be "fair" and say that, like slavery, every race and ethnic group has been both victim and victimizer. But anyway...
Quote:
|
Well it is fairly obvious you don't deny that racially-motivated injustices still take place. Good. We agree. It is likewise obvious that our point of departure commences on the question of whether this case can be deemed an example of a racially-motivated injustice.
|
True. And thus far, there is absolutely NO empirical evidence it is.
Quote:
|
On the tendency to play the race card/denial card: Call it what you will. I just happen to be socially cognizant of the function of race in the interaction between different groups of people in various situations, whereas Al's method constitutes the fundamental basis for his overall sociopolitical worldview.
|
This and a dollar will get you a draw beer (or at least it will in the joints I used to hang out in!
). But seriously, ok...let's all agree that you are "socially cogizant" of the "function" of race in social interactions. Is this some blinding revelation you are sharing with the rest of us "hicks" (great word choice by the way! A truly tolerant spirt.
), in that we are not capable of understanding it?
Welllll, let me back up a bit. Maybe you have a point there. Because I am not exactly sure what you mean by the "function" of race in this context. So please explain how "function" (which I define as having a specific and proven, necessary use/application) applies to social interactions, which are always going to be subjective and relative by nature.
Bottom line? I don't have time to fan away a fog with a whisk broom.
Quote:
|
Considering both possibilities as equally viable still doesn't change the fact that the two men were met with death unnecessarily, and that their being black just might have contributed to it in these circumstances.
|
We don't know all the circumstances yet, do we? You are the one playing judge here. One version is that the two burglers (the criminals) turned on the man when he ordered them to stop. So if they met death unnecesarrily, it could have been THEIR actions...and prior to that, the actions they took when they decided to break into somebody else's house. If they hadn't decided to break into somebody else's house, they wouldn't have "met with death unnecessarily" would they?
Being black being a contributing factor? Nothing on the 911 tape nor anything else even remotely suggests such a thing. From all what has come out thus far, it would be just as rational/logical to suggest that the fact were men might have been a factor. This makes no sense at all.
Quote:
|
If a black man in a predominately black neighborhood were to gun down two unarmed white men he caught trying to burn a cross on his neighbor's lawn, it would be hard to contend that their being white AND in the process of committing a despicable act had absolutely nothing to do with the man's decision to shoot to kill.
|
The analogy is flawed. For one thing, two white guys burning a cross in a mostly black neighborhood would be an OBVIOUS case of racially motivated (more on that in a minute) criminal mischief, at the least. The case we are talking about is pure and simple burglery and there is not the slightest shred of evidence race was a factor. Wellll, that is not QUITE true! It surely seems to be among certain parties on this thread. As in, if the shoe fits, wear it!
Quote:
|
And while the man may end up garnering significant support (especially from the black community), in the eyes of the law, he would not be entirely justified in the killings.
|
As a matter of fact, he sure might be. Texas law provides that "criminal mischief in the nighttime" falls under the justifiable use of deadly force provisions. Want me to post that for you?
Quote:
|
I would even venture to argue that he (unlike Mr. Horn) would probably have already been arrested and charged for the shooting by now.
|
Maybe, maybe not. But I would personally bet the cotton crop that the black man who was subjected that potential outrage would find a very sympathetic jury, both black AND white. Same as happened in Jasper, Texas, over the dragging incident. Those white trash scum got the death penalty from an all white jury (oh yeah, by the way, how many know that, one year later, a white man was murdered under extremely similar circumstances, about a mile from the same location? But anyway...)
Back to the point, Mr. Sykes, you are obviously obscessed with race. I can't argue with such a mindset. It is like trying to prove to a paranoid person that maybe somebody really ISN'T out to get you...
I can only reply and hope that others who read this thread might see reason.
Quote:
|
On people's private attitudes and bad decision-making: Totally agree. And I imagine Mr. Horn being quite satisfied with his decision to send another pair of no-good black lowlives to an early grave.
|
See above.
Quote:
|
On hate crime enforcement: To be sure, criminal motive is the basis for all criminal investigation. We can infer, at the very least, that the motive of the robbers (as you stated above) was formed by the intent to steal from law-abiding citizens. They committed a crime (robbery) under the influence of this motive. But, obviously, having been shot dead, they weren't punished appropriately. No trial. No jury. Instant execution. Why? Because of another criminal (qua vigilante hero), Mr. Horn. But what was his motive? What personal convictions and behavioral inclinations might he have held that account for his motive? What reason would he have to go through all of the trouble to venture outside of his house and expose himself to a threat just for the sake of neutralizing it? Why was he so eager to kill in this case?
|
It is not obvious at all that they were not "punished approriately." As has been said many times, we DON'T yet know all the circumstances. Backing up though, by your logic, a person using deadly force to prevent the imminent commision of rape, deadly assault, etc, would be guilty of depriving the criminal of their right to a fair trial. So be a little more clear (and sensible) on this.
Quote:
|
But let's be clear. I'm not arguing that Mr. Horn committed a hate crime, just that his actions may have been influenced and exacerbated by a predisposition to view blacks unfavorably, a disposition that automatically renders those who happen to be invlovled in a criminal act (however nonviolent) in his presence candidates for lethal force.
|
Yes, it MAY have been. BUT...WHAT, other than the simple fact the burglers were black and Mr. Horn was white, prompts you to bring race into the question from the aspect of anything more than your own vision?
Quote:
|
The motive here is quite clear - crack. Under certain circumstances (e.g., the kid was a skinhead and the clerk was Pakistani), the investigative mind might want to consider the possibility of a racial motivation as well.
|
The use of crack has no bearing on the counter-example I used. I just plucked that out of the air as a typical stupid armed robbery that ends up in a killing for enough money to buy a case of beer. The POINT is that the so-called "hate crimes" enhancements are nothing more than "feel good" additions which are extremely selectively applied, to boot. And everybody knows it.
To repeat what I said in the earlier post, it makes no difference to me if the motive for a senseless murder stems from the fact they shooter hates people of another race, or just because they felt like killing someone. This is dangerously close to thought control (the whole notion of hate crimes). The MAIN thing is, ARE they guilty of murder?? And, if so? Then punish appropriately.
Quote:
|
On rape: No, because rape, by definition, is a sex crime. It may be violent, it may even be hateful, but it is still a sex crime.
|
Under the Texas Penal Code, rape and aggravated rape are considered "Sexual Offences" which in turn fall under the broader definition of "Crimes Against the Person."
Be that as it may, just about every criminologist, psychologist, law enforcement authority, etc, are in agreement that rape is motivated out of violent/hateful impulses. Not to have sex per se.
Quote:
|
Only if we also make white-on-black interracial rape a hate crime too. While we're at it, we might as well extend it to intra-racial rape as well, since by your logic it might be argued that the most common form of rape (man on woman) is a crime motivated by sexist tendencies in men.
|
Sure we can. I have no problem with that. In fact, read what I said earlier. I said why not make "interracial rape" a hate crime? I never once suggested it be selective. I just said (in so many words) let the chips fall where they may. White on black, black on white, brown on red. Ok, fine. Works for me. After all, it was you who spoke in support of hate crime laws to begin with. Hells Bells, if we are going to do it, then let's do it up right.
Yeah, why NOT make it man on woman?. Lets DO make rape a hate crime if we are going to make attitudes on race/gender a factor in punishment...
Welcome to City-Data.com forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with 370,000 other registered members. User profiles and some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your free account you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 13,000 posts/day about local topics and you will see fewer ads. Within the last few months our forum was cited in an article in 15 newspaper and in a story on AOL's homepage.
11-23-2007, 04:23 PM
