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.
What kind of question is that? Will I DENY..? Deny WHAT? That there are certain crimes commited where race figures into it? Of course there are. There always has been, and always will be. What does that have to do with THIS case?
Quote:
The "race card" will always be played. And so will the "denial card". Nothing new. Sometimes the play is legitimate, other times it isn't.
Yeah it will. And you are playing it. As in the same manner as Al Sharpton, etc. And who amongst us had "denied" the existence of racially motived crimes?
Quote:
My only assertion is that it may, and it is an assertion that should at least be considered in the context of a wide-ranging rational discussion about the situation.
WHY should it be considered anymore than say, the black guys MIGHT have broken into the house in question because they knew it was occupied by whites? There are an INFINITE number of "considerations" that might be considered. But point is, NONE of them, seem to have any bearing on this case other than slinging out the race card. If pigs had wings, they'd be eagles...
Quote:
Problem is, people's private attitudes too often create the very conditions that dictate their likelihood to break the law under certain circumstances.
We agree here. Sure does. I imagine the burglers wanted to commit the crime because they would rather steal from law-abiding citizens than work for a living.
Quote:
So long as there are those who actually commit crimes out of "hate" for another based upon the other's immutable characteristics (motivated by their "private" attitudes), hate crime legislation will continue to be necessarily enforced.
Why? To my way of thinking (although admittedly, I am likely one of those "hicks" you mentioned earlier YeeeHawww ), it makes no difference what privately held opinions "motivates" a crime. The important thing is DID they commit the crime and, if so, they should be punished appropriately. If a high on crack kid comes into a 7-11 store and shoots the clerk over the $50 he gets out of the cash register, does it really make any difference if the shooter happened to have racist attitudes, or if they just don't like the price of pickles? OR...just wanted to kill someone.
And by the way. Can we agree on that rape is a crime of violence and hate, not sex? As it turns out, the VAST majority of inter-racial rape is black on white. Can we make THAT a "hate crime"?
Yeah it will. And you are playing it. As in the same manner as Al Sharpton, etc. And who amongst us had "denied" the existence of racially motived crimes?
I just wanted to add that the comparisson with Al Sharpton was uncalled for. I do believe you are trying to interject race into the topic without justification, but I did not mean to imply your motivations are in that class. While I stand by the rest of my post, I do apologize that that mention.
On whether or not TexasReb denies that racial injustice still exists:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
What kind of question is that? Will I DENY..? Deny WHAT? That there are certain crimes commited where race figures into it? Of course there are. There always has been, and always will be. What does that have to do with THIS case?
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.
On the tendency to play the race card/denial card:
Quote:
Yeah it will. And you are playing it. As in the same manner as Al Sharpton, etc. And who amongst us had "denied" the existence of racially motived crimes?
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.
Quote:
WHY should it be considered anymore than say, the black guys MIGHT have broken into the house in question because they knew it was occupied by whites?
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. 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. 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. I would even venture to argue that he (unlike Mr. Horn) would probably have already been arrested and charged for the shooting by now.
On people's private attitudes and bad decision-making:
Quote:
We agree here. Sure does. I imagine the burglers wanted to commit the crime because they would rather steal from law-abiding citizens than work for a living.
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.
On hate crime enforcement:
Quote:
Why? To my way of thinking (although admittedly, I am likely one of those "hicks" you mentioned earlier YeeeHawww ), it makes no difference what privately held opinions "motivates" a crime. The important thing is DID they commit the crime and, if so, they should be punished appropriately.
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?
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.
Quote:
If a high on crack kid comes into a 7-11 store and shoots the clerk over the $50 he gets out of the cash register, does it really make any difference if the shooter happened to have racist attitudes, or if they just don't like the price of pickles? OR...just wanted to kill someone.
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.
On rape:
Quote:
And by the way. Can we agree on that rape is a crime of violence and hate, not sex?
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.
Quote:
As it turns out, the VAST majority of inter-racial rape is black on white. Can we make THAT a "hate crime"?
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.
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...
This has been a very sobering discussion for me, a Brit thinking about relocating to Houston! In my outer London suburb, we have virtually no crime - if a purse is stolen it makes the headlines in the local paper, and I never have to think of the possibility of being robbed in a supermarket car park; in fact I would happily leave my car unlocked in our local one!
In our area, most houses have burglar alarms tho I don't know anyone who has been burgled in the 11 years I have lived in our street. When our neighbour's alarm went off and I called the police, they showed up in just over 2 minutes.
Maybe we should stay put - and we have free (wonderful, in my family's experience) health care, too - and no guns. Not to mention the fact that we use our one car about once a week, to drive the few miles into central London for a concert or play - everything here is in walking distance, including schools, library, church, every kind of shop including wonderful bakers' and coffee shops, and restaurants galore...maybe London has more going for it than I thought!
Thanks for an enlightening (and sometimes frightening) discusion.
Folks, if you would like to have in depth conversations that are off topic please take it to DM. This thread is swerving all over the map.
Back to the original topic or we'll have to close it down.
Quote:
I was wondering what people think of this story?! I honestly have mixed feelings about it. I am sure he thought he was doing the right thing but I am not sure if those burglars deserved to die. Anyways, when you are involved in some criminal activity, that is the kind of risk you are taking. It seems like under Texas law, this is absolutely legal. Comments?
I was wondering what people think of this story?! I honestly have mixed feelings about it. I am sure he thought he was doing the right thing but I am not sure if those burglars deserved to die. Anyways, when you are involved in some criminal activity, that is the kind of risk you are taking. It seems like under Texas law, this is absolutely legal. Comments?
[/b]
If its my neighbors property, not worth the trouble. If my family's life in danger, shoot first and ask questions later.
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...
No rhetorical play. Just a question. And yes, all groups have been victimized, albeit some more than others.
Quote:
True. And thus far, there is absolutely NO empirical evidence it is.
Doesn't have to be. It's not like I'm putting Mr. Horn on trial for being a bigot. I'm just bringing up the possibility that his bigotry probably made it much easier for him to make the (ill-advised) decision he made.
Quote:
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.
Race is by nature specific (or, perhaps more accurately, "specifically" constructed by people). So its social implications are likewise going to be specific.
Quote:
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?
Nope. But, to be sure, the question here is not whether the burgulars deserved to die for their actions. It is whether Mr. Horn was justified in killing them. And looking at the facts, he wasn't. Again I ask, why exacerbate a threat just for the sake of neutralizing it?
Quote:
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.
It is also reasonable to suggest that two white boys (or girls for that matter)in the same situation just might have been spared death by Mr. Horn. Needless speculation, you say? Call it what you wish. I stand by my conclusions.
Quote:
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
I see the object of the analogy was obviously lost on you. You're mounting a tangential argument that has nothing to do with the argument I was trying to present. The analogy was posited to demonstrate that, regardless of whether or not race was a factor in a) the commission of the crime and b) the shooter's decision to kill (the analogy granting the equal viability of both possibilities), the shooting in these circumstances was not justified.
Quote:
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?
Deadly force by whom? Anyone that just so happened to be walking the streets that night?
Quote:
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...)
Quick to call the old double-standard play I see. Nevermind the fact that the Tillery case was more a deadly fray over money and crack than a hate crime. But whatever. I'm sure there's another board for that. I tell you, some of the arguments people use to "prove" whatever this pervasive racial double-standard against whites may be hold about as much weight as a man who complains of being raped by a woman.
Quote:
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...
Not obsessed. Just aware. The fact that I live in a society where some people are likely to harbor negative judgements about me because of my race won't stop me from being who I have to be and doing what I have to do. People can be "out to get me" all they want. As long as they stay away from my family and my property.
Quote:
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.
Well, to BE clear, I have NEVER argued against the use of deadly force in those circumstances, knowing full well that "protection of person" is fully covered under the Castle provisions.
Quote:
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?
Because, unfortunately, race can never be totally out of the question. You can theoretically abstract it from the situation all you want, but you can in no way negate its reality.
Quote:
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.
There's nothing "feel good" about hate crimes, to be sure. It's about justice. And they should be selectively applied, meticulously measured against the details of the case at hand by responsible investigators.
Quote:
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.
Eschewing the implications of criminal motive in any case simply flies in the face of pure reason. Hate crimes are motivated by specific psychosocial factors that warrant specific treatment. Killing a man for what he owns is one thing, but killing a man because of who he happens to be speaks to a special criminal mindset that goes straight to the heart of the very destructive ways racial enmity and oppression have manifested themselves in this country. But this is clearly another topic.
Quote:
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.
Yeah, but they're still sex crimes, not hate crimes.
Quote:
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...
A slippery slope into absurdity indeed, which was my point to begin with. An interracial rape should no more be considered a hate crime (motivated by race) than an intersexual rape (motivated by gender). Failing any evidence at the scene of a rape to suggest that a hate crime indeed has taken place, the wise investigator would do good to simply treat the situation for what it is....a rape.
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.
), it makes no difference what privately held opinions "motivates" a crime. The important thing is DID they commit the crime and, if so, they should be punished appropriately. If a high on crack kid comes into a 7-11 store and shoots the clerk over the $50 he gets out of the cash register, does it really make any difference if the shooter happened to have racist attitudes, or if they just don't like the price of pickles? OR...just wanted to kill someone. 
). 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. 
