Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
A question was put to Eric Holder by a congressman in committee about a turn-about situation like this only a couple of days back, and Holder said the hate crime legislation, would not apply as the Justice Dept. (now) interpreted it.Akron Beacon Report
Akron police say they aren't ready to call it a hate crime or a gang initiation.
...
Out of nowhere, the six were attacked by dozens of teenage boys, who shouted ''This is our world'' and ''This is a black world'' as they confronted Marshall and his family.
The Marshalls, who are white, say the crowd of teens who attacked them and two friends June 27 on Girard Street numbered close to 50. The teens were all black.
So, if the situation were reversed and 50 whites attacked a black family yelling, "This is a White World. This Our World," exactly how many seconds would it take the police to decide it was a hate crime?
This is EXACTLY why there shouldn't be hate crime laws, they will never be enforced equally. Jillian, if you're out there, this is precisely what I was talking about in the hate crime thread.
Violence is the answer sometimes. It's sad it has to be that way. But it is.
I find it interesting that despite the fact that this story makes no sense you folks are still willing to comment on it with such enthusiasm.
Let's review shall we?
A family claims that they were attacked by 50 BLACK teensagers.
But no evidence that this rampaging group of teens attacked anyone else?
And you believe this story, do you?
You must WANT TO BELIEVE IT, folks.
It defies everything we know about that sort of mob violence.
A question was put to Eric Holder by a congressman in committee about a turn-about situation like this only a couple of days back, and Holder said the hate crime legislation, would not apply as the Justice Dept. (now) interpreted it.
I find it interesting that despite the fact that this story makes no sense you folks are still willing to comment on it with such enthusiasm.
Let's review shall we?
A family claims that they were attacked by 50 BLACK teensagers.
But no evidence that this rampaging group of teens attacked anyone else?
And you believe this story, do you?
You must WANT TO BELIEVE IT, folks.
It defies everything we know about that sort of mob violence.
I find it interesting that despite the fact that this story makes no sense you folks are still willing to comment on it with such enthusiasm.
Let's review shall we?
A family claims that they were attacked by 50 BLACK teensagers.
But no evidence that this rampaging group of teens attacked anyone else?
And you believe this story, do you?
You must WANT TO BELIEVE IT, folks.
It defies everything we know about that sort of mob violence.
I didn't think we were talking about the legitimacy of the charges...my understanding, and i didn't go beyond the main assertion, was IF it was as said, THEN should there be a hate charge?
I find it interesting that despite the fact that this story makes no sense you folks are still willing to comment on it with such enthusiasm.
And you believe this story, do you?
You must WANT TO BELIEVE IT, folks.
It defies everything we know about that sort of mob violence.
I didn't think we were talking about the legitimacy of the charges...my understanding, and i didn't go beyond the main assertion, was IF it was as said, THEN should there be a hate charge?
That's pretty much how I read it to.
Personally I think 'hate crime' is a misnomer as every violent crime is hateful. Judges have always had the prerogative to consider motivation and circumstances when rendering punishment for conviction. Criminal punishments have nearly always had minimums and maximums and with multiple convictions whether sentences are served concurrently or consecutively. Special 'hate crime' status seems unequal justice to me.
That's pretty much how I read it to.
OK... cool. I was actually surprised by the other view ... my assumption is that if the prosecutor doesn't find the charges credible, he won't charge anything... except false report... but IF he finds the charges credible, then my feeling is it should be charged as a hate crime.
Personally I think 'hate crime' is a misnomer as every violent crime is hateful. Judges have always had the prerogative to consider motivation and circumstances when rendering punishment for conviction. Criminal punishments have nearly always had minimums and maximums and with multiple convictions whether sentences are served concurrently or consecutively. Special 'hate crime' status seems unequal justice to me.
I understand a lot of people agree with you about hate crime legislation. As I've said, it's something I'm personally comfortable with.
so let others do your fighting....how many coats can you hold?
So you're typing this from Iraq or Afghanistan right ?
No, if you're going to target anybody you target the guilty blacks. But I wouldn't expect you to understand why. Maybe the blacks can attack you because you're innocent, right? Then you can really understand what I mean. Who cares about what happened in Appalachia? Has nothing to do with now, right. Go get you some blacks and kick their asses or murder a few. That'll show 'em who's boss. Maybe then, they'll calm down and act civilized...ignorant fucker
Like those people were guilty who were attacked while spending time with their family ? Ignorant fucker
You really don't understand do you? That's so sad....
You don't understand do you ? Sometimes violence is the only answer, and sometimes violence has to be met by the exact same violence. A lot of people are sick of the hate crimes commited by blacks against innocents white, Hispanics and Asians. So I think it's high time to do the same to them.
Violence is the answer sometimes. It's sad it has to be that way. But it is.
Attack June 27. Today July 9. Wonder how long it's gonna take them to decide?