Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hopefully people will protest about the absurdity of black teenagers not being charged with hate crimes when knocking out white people while this idiot gets that charge.
Give me one example of a black on white knockout case in which there was evidence that the black person attacked his victim because the victim was white, yet the criminal was not charged with a hate crime enhancement. If you can do that, I'll gladly protest with you. I'll even write an angry letter.
Last edited by hammertime33; 12-27-2013 at 12:50 PM..
They don't need to. They can charge them with a hate crime all by themselves. The locals most likely didn't act quick enough for Holder so he had to come rushing in to save the day.
Who the hell cares about who charged them? I have not seen or read proof that the black guy was "charged locally" as well. Before I posted it and proved you all wrong, all you people were in here crying how "blacks who do the same thing understand the same circumstances would never be charged." Hell on this very same page, people who ddn't read all of the earlier post are still repeating the same ignorant lie.
Now you all are pulling hairs and switching main arguments over to who actually charged the white guy? What does it matter when in either cases or races, the perp is getting charged? I think that in both races, a minority have race hang ups, so they're always searching and waiting to creatively make a racial issue out of any little incident. Each side wants to prove to the others that they are victims. It's repulsive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by D-Towner
Hopefully people will protest about the absurdity of black teenagers not being charged with hate crimes when knocking out white people while this idiot gets that charge.
Watch and see how many more uneducated, unresearched, and complete inaccurate comments for cry babies we get on this subject. They make assertions without even taking the time to research or use common sense to see the difference between why some are charged with hate crimes while others are not.
Last edited by DoniDanko; 12-27-2013 at 12:31 PM..
Reason: typos
The attention is about the FEDS swooping in to charge him with a hate crime. They haven't done that for any black attackers, only LOCAL authorities did and many had to be coerced to do so.
Now you're resorting to out right lies lol. Post your source please. Who had to "coerce" police to charge the black guy? Are you really this desperate to prove your already debunked arrangement that you have to knowingly state things that are untrue?
You first stated:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD
That's because blacks aren't being charged.
That was your first beef before you were proved wrong. I believe that at the time of that comment, you actually believed that even though you didn't lift a finger to corroborate it. Now you're purposely spreading misinformation.
They don't need to. They can charge them with a hate crime all by themselves. The locals most likely didn't act quick enough for Holder so he had to come rushing in to save the day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justice.gov
Although State, local, and tribal governments will continue to take the lead in anti-hate crime enforcement efforts, there are occasions when the Federal government may be in a better position to investigate and prosecute a particular hate crime. For example, Federal resources may be better suited to investigate interstate hate crimes, in which the same defendant or group of defendants commit related hate crimes in multiple jurisdictions. There may also be times when a State, local, or tribal jurisdiction expressly requests that the Federal government assume jurisdiction. Finally, there may be rare circumstances in which State, local, or tribal officials are unable or unwilling to bring appropriate criminal charges, or when their prosecutions fail to adequately serve the interests of justice.
So the FBI could have very well have been asked to take over OR Texas could have be unwilling to bring the charges themselves. We can spin this 2 ways, either the FBI was bias against whites or the FBI had to step in becauseTexas is bias. We can ask why did it take the FBI stepping in to get the white guy charged when the black guy was easily with out the FBI having to push the issue... The facts are we don't know what the reason behind the FBI taking over. We can make assumptions about this just like you made (invalid) assumptions about "blacks aren't being charged." In either case, they are unsubstantiated guesses and spin based on your bias. You were wrong before about the bias in blacks not being charged, and either you didn't learn from that mistake or you're just trying to save face now...
Yes it is. I said:"black people are more likely to be charged with a hate crime than white people." To that statement, the makeup of the population at large is very much relevant (in fact necessary).
Had I said "when arrested for a crime in which the victim was racially different than the perpetrator, black people are more likely to be charged with a hate crime than white people" then you're be correct. But I didn't say that.
It is assumed when you are talking about crime A as opposed to crime B that a crime has been committed. It's like saying which race is more likely the be charged with 1st degree murder. When you specify 1st degree, it is assumed that it means "1st degree as opposed to a lesser charge", not "1st degree as opposed to nothing". Being charged with a hate crime is on top of a regular crime. The assumption is that when comparing which race is more likely to be charged with a hate crime, you are comparing them to other people who committed a similar offense but were hit with assault or some other charge instead, not comparing them to the population at large.
After all, the fundamental issue is if you assault someone of another race are you more likely to have it be assumed to have been motivated by racism if you are black or if you are white.
So that's why I said the overall population percentages weren't relevant.
Quote:
I have no way of knowing that. I doubt data detailed enough to make that determination even exists. You'd first have to look at the racial makeup of all arrests in which the crime would be subject to a hate-crime enhancement. You'd then have to see which ones were charged as hate crimes. You'd have to look into what type of bias the victim was targeted for - race, religion, sexuality, ethnicity, handicap, etc. Then you'd have to somehow weed out white-on-white hate crimes and black-on-black hate crimes. And a bunch of other stuff.
Are you aware of this kind of analysis? I'd love to read it if you have it.
I'm sure someone somewhere has done this kind of research in all the thousands upon thousands of theses and journal articles that are done, but I haven't actually seen any comparison of this sort myself.
Criticizing the homosexual life style isn't a hate crime, but if you attack a gay person because you do not like their lifestyle is. This guy should have been charged with a hate crime, assault, and what ever else they could think of...
laws that are considered hate crimes should just be gotten rid of. just charge the person with the crime and let them do time if convicted.
Really? No poop, Sherlock. When someone shoots and kills someone, they get charged with a crime. Even George Zimmerman, who got away with murder.
Maybe you'd get lucky like he did.
You don't believe in self defense? Not talking about the Zman case. I am talking in general. I shoot someone who is trying to harm me or break into my home that's self defense. I feel sorry for the old man only a punk and a worthless one would attack a 79 year old man no matter his race etc. This guy is a punk and deserves prison for a long time but hate crime is idiotic.
You don't believe in self defense? Not talking about the Zman case. I am talking in general. I shoot someone who is trying to harm me or break into my home that's self defense. I feel sorry for the old man only a punk and a worthless one would attack a 79 year old man no matter his race etc. This guy is a punk and deserves prison for a long time but hate crime is idiotic.
Whats the difference if they used a hate crime law (it was a hate crime) to give him a longer sentence compared to using other trumped up charges such as attempted murder?
Are you F'ing kidding me? Anyone still want to argue that Holder isn't a full blown racist? There is nothing that can convince me otherwise.
Why because he got caught the same way that the others did or do you believe that he should not have been convicted in the first place? Oh btw, this was a local arrest and Holder has nothing to do with it
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
