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.
I think part of the problem is, if you drive around waving a Confederate flag in some parts of town, you're going to **** people off.
In one instance, they were at a gas-station and there was a car full of black men, and they ended up pulling a gun there as well. If I was to guess, they got into an argument, and it nearly escalated into violence.
And that partly explains the severity of the sentence: sensible people know that if they're going to be carrying guns, they can't go around deliberately doing things likely to p*ss other people off and provoke conflicts, because those conflicts have the potential to escalate to the point of deadly force. Having a gun means you're expected to go out of your way to avoid trouble, not cause it.
And I suspect the timing of this incident (only one month after Dylan Roof's massacre, when people in the black community would understandably be more on edge) may also have had something to do with the harshness of the sentence.
If it was a dozen armed, intoxicated black individuals roaring through town, swearing, threatening folks at the Walmart, busting up birthday parties...
Got to wonder if we would have had a 53 page thread on whether their sentence was the appropriate length or not.
To hear the la raza fans say it: only "certain Hispanics" count as Latinos, like as in those who look Indian or at least mixed race AND hate anglo culture. I'm guessing this "Jose" doesn't count.
Too; many people of Portuguese or Brazil family DON'T claim Hispanic. If their kind were counted; Giselle Bundchen WOULD be a Latina.
It was clear that they didn't set out with the intention of not harming people - if they didn't want to harm anyone they wouldn't have gone out with the Confederate flag, shouting racial insults and taking weapons with them.
They claim the party-goers were throwing objects at their vehicles.
Would it surprise you, if a group of probably a hundred black people, might have thrown something(including rocks) if they saw multiple pickup trucks with Confederate flags driving directly passed them?
I would be surprised if they didn't. I would also be surprised if they weren't both throwing insults at each other, and flipping each other off, among other things.
Look at it like this, when there is a "Confederate" or "Southern" heritage rally in a city, the police have to escort the people at the rally, for their own protection.
What do you think would happen to a bunch of White Nationalists, flying confederate or even Nazi flags, marching through Washington D.C., without a police escort? They would get jumped, and probably shot.
For that matter, think of the Westboro Baptist Church, how long do you think their protests outside a soldier's funeral would last without a police escort? The last time they came to my city(it was after the big Moore, Oklahoma tornado), they are lucky the bikers didn't stab them.
What I'm saying is, you are painting the scenario as if it was entirely one-sided. If you listen to the cell phone videos, you'll hear the black man say, "Ya'll was the one with the gun".
This is an admission that the affair wasn't one-sided. And while you claim that because they brought weapons, it is proof that they were looking to harm people.
On the contrary, they claim they brought the weapons to protect themselves. Because, as you know, in many areas of this country, it wouldn't have been safe for them to be flying the Confederate flag.
So, lets pretend that they hadn't had the gun, what do you think would have happened? Would you have been surprised if a large group of the party-goers, didn't rush over looking for a fight?
If the party-goers had jumped them, would you have felt any sympathy for them? If a bunch of skin-heads get jumped, does anyone ever feel sorry for them?
It reminds me of how these Antifa people have been running around assaulting people, and the police often do absolutely nothing.
I'm not saying these people were right in what they did. I think they went waaayy too far. But there is absolutely no proof that their original intention was to harm absolutely anyone. Nor did they even harm absolutely anyone in two full days of driving through two different counties.
Mr Roof needs to be put in general prison population. Doing like what you said made him a lot MORE enemies, I think even some other white supremacists are pissed at him shooting up that church. He's coward loser.
Dylann Roof got attacked in prison. He pretty much got his in prison. He's getting the death penalty. Dylann Roof is a coward beyond all comprehension.
And that partly explains the severity of the sentence: sensible people know that if they're going to be carrying guns, they can't go around deliberately doing things likely to p*ss other people off and provoke conflicts, because those conflicts have the potential to escalate to the point of deadly force. Having a gun means you're expected to go out of your way to avoid trouble, not cause it.
While I basically agree with this position, it still creates a dilemma.
It says, if you're going to say something that you know might anger someone else, you must disarm yourself beforehand.
This is seemingly counter-intuitive, since most people, if they feel like their words might be expected to evoke violence, wouldn't say it until they had the means to protect themselves.
So such a policy would have the effect of silencing anyone who's words might offend someone else.
If it was a dozen armed, intoxicated black individuals roaring through town, swearing, threatening folks at the Walmart, busting up birthday parties...
Got to wonder if we would have had a 53 page thread on whether their sentence was the appropriate length or not.
If that happened, there would be a 53 page threat complaining about Black people.
While I basically agree with this position, it still creates a dilemma.
It says, if you're going to say something that you know might anger someone else, you must disarm yourself beforehand.
This is seemingly counter-intuitive, since most people, if they feel like their words might be expected to evoke violence, wouldn't say it until they had the means to protect themselves.
So such a policy would have the effect of silencing anyone who's words might offend someone else.
Do you think, then, that maybe they shouldn't be driving around yelling and screaming in public words that they KNOW will incite violence?
Those people disgust me.
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.
