Is this 1955? Sad that every damn thing has to boil down to "sides." That's what's f-ing wrong with this country. People don't look past their "own" teams. Partisan politics, sexuality, religion, race, immigration ... politicians spoon feed us a binary oversimplification and abuse it all as us-vs-them BS. And we all fall for it... and don't even realize it.
Yeah it really sucks that the law is now trying to add extra protection to a group that has been beaten, raped, killed, etc. throughout roughly 98% of American history. Don't kid yourself - it is resentment toward black people and them having "more people on their side". Ridiculous. As is the comment about black on white crime not being reported. I guess that is why, since Birth of a Nation, American media has portrayed the black man as a predator - kills white men, rapes white women. Savage.
When was the last time you heard a news report about a black guy who killed a white guy because he was white? The reasoning is always along the lines of the assailant wanted money, a car, etc.
Nobody is saying they have it easy. However, I know plenty of white people in situations just as bad if not worse. All I'm saying is that there shouldn't be a double standard. You guys are the first to cry foul when a white guy is accused beating a black guy (and rightfully so). However, you're painfully silent when it's the opposite way and that I don't understand.
You guys could at least dig up an example or two of a crime where it was labeled a hate crime by the Jesse Jackson types, yet the evidence proved otherwise.
What double standard, you think these guys aren't going to jail for a long time? That blacks don't go to jail? Are you on crazy pills? Look at the prison populace. You've provided no evidence that it's a hate crime - but if guilty these guys will be in jail for quite a while. But if it was then it should be subject to the hate crime statute if Missouri has one. Wooohooo, are you feeling better now that my painful silence has been alleviated?
ugh i am just saying that there are black activist groups that are much more active in the media than white activist groups. thats all.
The media itself is a white group. It is run and largely operated by whites. So I am grateful that other groups have organizations which help keep them in the media. That isn't to say there aren't cases where it goes overboard, and some activists like being the spotlight and abuse causes to feed their own egos. But other activists do the same thing even if the issue they exploit isn't one of race.
Yes, the media never covers it when white people are the victims of crimes, especially not young white females. You practically never hear about them.
It'd be easier to ask if the black assaulters were shouting racial slurs while beating him. Without knowing the motivation, isn't it too premature for you to wonder about that?
If the races were reversed, what else would be different? Or are you just reversing the races for the purposes of this little exercise on justice for whites in American society?
No, it should be treated as arson. It is no worse to get beat up because you are a certain skin color or sexual orientation than to get beat up for your wallet or your shoes or because you made an innocent comment to which your assailent took offense. We already look at the motivation in determining how to classify the crime, adding hate crimes to it just muddles things. It also further puts the government into the business of treating people differently based on the color of their skin or some other factor in which the government has no business being involved.
Hate crimes don't treat people differently based on color of skin. They treat people differently based on motive, which is already a part of the legal system. The penalties that juries give are generally based on the motive of the crime; this just sets in stone more definitive sentencing guidelines for a certain motive. I'm not a fan of sentencing guidelines in general, so I'm not a fan of the legal idea of hate crimes, but I don't think they are discriminatory at all.
Major, What should that matter, if a guy is beat up for his wallet or his skin color, he is still beat up? Why is one crime worse than the other? Too many variations on laws, they should just prosecute the existing laws, there is absolutely no way you can determine what is and isn't a hate crime, you can think you know, but can never know beyond a shadow of a doubt, it just leaves too much room for error, IMHO. DD
If a person is killed in a random shooting or a premeditated murder, we treat it differently. If a person is killed in a crime of passion, or simply by accident, we treat all these things differently. Why is the hate crime version a problem, but none of these others?
Fair point, but it is the "hate" portion that I have an issue with, IMHO, it would be impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt about hatred. Unless the guy gets up and says " I hate so and so" I would simply prosecute based upon the crimes on the books, no need for "hate crimes" we have enough variations already. DD
