Black Mob Attacks White Family

[Tech_Esq]

Simply put, this is a hate crime, and they should be charged as such.

It doesn't matter if they were white, black, green, or orange.

I agree with you Tech when you say this is an indicator of serious problems in the community but would go further in saying it's an indicator of serious problems in the United States.

The single boiling point in Race relations at the moment is Barack Obama. If he were to be shot, and killed by a white guy in the "Birthers" movement then expect what happened when MLK Jr. died by one hundred fold.

Dude! Don't say that when I'm sitting in NorthEast DC!

I'm one of 3 white people in this building.

 

[Modbert]

You make a good point.

However, I think there's a difference between your example and hate crime laws. In your example we find a distinction between whether the suspect intended to kill a person or whether there was some kind of accident that resulted in a death. In a hate crime someone gets a harsher punishment because of who and why they attacked a person. If a white person attacks a white person they get less of a punishment than a white person that attacks a black person for racial reasons, or vise versa. It's a form of thought crime and racism.

In a hate crime, someone gets a harsher punishment because of why they attacked person. I don't see someone who is white getting charged with a hate crime for attacking a white person.

It's not thoughtcrime, go back, and read 1984.

Thoughtcrime is when the Government attempts to control not only the speech, and actions, but also the thoughts of its subjects.

The thought police in 1984 were used to find and eliminate members of society who are capable of the mere thought of challenging ruling authority.

It's not racism either. It would be racism if only Whites could get charged with hate crimes, but it's not just them. It's equal for both sides.

Besides, I'm pretty sure racial hate crimes are rare as I don't hear about them much. The last one before this I heard about was the Jena 6.

 

[xotoxi]

Right, right... it's crazy, it'll never work, blah blah blah. But would it really? Isn't it really this "togetherteid," as Fred Reed calls it, more absurd and difficult-to-administer? Shouldn't some form of racial separation be on the table? Who benefits from the forced togetherness, anyway?

When your plan comes to fruition, one of my employees who has mixed race children will be devastated when the state takes away her kids and sends them down to Alabama.

In other posts, I propose the idea of mixed-race areas where the inhabitants can be of any race. She, her other-race partner, and the little mongrels could all live together in multiracial peace.

Assuming, of course, that multiracial societies turn out to be more peaceful than homogenous ones...

And obviously, "hate crimes" will not be necessary in such places, because how could you have hate in a voluntarily multiracial area?

Hee hee!

Little mongrels...

 

[jillian]

Little mongrels...

you expect anything else from Haw Haw?

 

[Modbert]

Dude! Don't say that when I'm sitting in NorthEast DC!

I'm one of 3 white people in this building.

I'm also in the Northeast.

The fact remains though, their were massive riots across the country when MLK Jr. except in Indy (thanks to RFK's wonderful speech). If Barack Obama were to meet that same fate, all hell would break loose.

That's not saying I want it to happen because I don't. It's just a simple fact because of how tense race relations currently are in this country.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You make a good point.

However, I think there's a difference between your example and hate crime laws. In your example we find a distinction between whether the suspect intended to kill a person or whether there was some kind of accident that resulted in a death. In a hate crime someone gets a harsher punishment because of who and why they attacked a person. If a white person attacks a white person they get less of a punishment than a white person that attacks a black person for racial reasons, or vise versa. It's a form of thought crime and racism.

In a hate crime, someone gets a harsher punishment because of why they attacked person. I don't see someone who is white getting charged with a hate crime for attacking a white person.

It's not thoughtcrime, go back, and read 1984.

Thoughtcrime is when the Government attempts to control not only the speech, and actions, but also the thoughts of its subjects.

The thought police in 1984 were used to find and eliminate members of society who are capable of the mere thought of challenging ruling authority.

It's not racism either. It would be racism if only Whites could get charged with hate crimes, but it's not just them. It's equal for both sides.

Besides, I'm pretty sure racial hate crimes are rare as I don't hear about them much. The last one before this I heard about was the Jena 6.

Exactly. White-on-white crime would not be a hate crime and would therefore get a less severe punishment than white-on-black crime, or vise versa.

It would be a form of thoughtcrime. It's adding a more severe punishment because of the beliefs of the suspect.

It's racist because it once again makes a distinction between different races rather than having everyone equal before the law.

 

[mal]

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.

I will go ahead and Assume that those who are for Hate Crimes Laws are Demanding that these "People" be Charged with Hate Crimes Against Whites, Correct?...

Let me Read and find out.



peace...

 

[mal]

Exactly. White-on-white crime would not be a hate crime and would therefore get a less severe punishment than white-on-black crime, or vise versa.

It would be a form of thoughtcrime. It's adding a more severe punishment because of the beliefs of the suspect.

It's racist because it once again makes a distinction between different races rather than having everyone equal before the law.

Some People are MORE Equal, don't you Know...



peace...

 

[Tech_Esq]

A crime is a crime, I see no reason for "hate crimes." While we may look at the motivation for a crime to help us understand why it occurred I think it sets a dangerous precedent to punish the motivation along with the actual crime.

Incidentally, Akron is only about 10 - 15 minutes north of where I live.

I'm pretty sure they are "punishing the motivation" every time they give someone a murder charge instead of accidental manslaughter.

Of course motivation is a factor in deciding what the person should be charged with.

You make a good point.

However, I think there's a difference between your example and hate crime laws. In your example we find a distinction between whether the suspect intended to kill a person or whether there was some kind of accident that resulted in a death. In a hate crime someone gets a harsher punishment because of who and why they attacked a person. If a white person attacks a white person they get less of a punishment than a white person that attacks a black person for racial reasons, or vise versa. It's a form of thought crime and racism.

The distinction that you are trying to draw is the distinction between motive, which is not typically an element of the proving a criminal act and mens rea or guilty thought which is an element of crimes involving an element of intent. That is the defendant intended to do the act that he did.

Not to get too technical, but this covers instances with A intends to shoot B, but instead shoots C. While he did not intend to shoot C he did intend to do the crime of shooting someone (let's call the crime malicious wounding). So, A is guilty of the crime of malicious wounding for shooting C even thought he intended to shoot B. His intent was to do the act of shooting someone, he successfully did shoot someone, therefore the element of mens rea is satisfied. (So is actus reus for that matter, since the person was shot).

Notice however that motivation is not an element of this crime. The law cares not why A was shooting B. The mere fact of A shooting at a person intentionally is enough.

 

[jillian]

The distinction that you are trying to draw is the distinction between motive, which is not typically an element of the proving a criminal act

Is that really true? If you kill someone for money isn't the penalty greater than if you kill them out of anger?

 

[Aristophanes]

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.

Gimme a break. You should know that hate crimes only exist for white, straight people. If you're something other than white or straight, you can't possibly commit a hate crime.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'm pretty sure they are "punishing the motivation" every time they give someone a murder charge instead of accidental manslaughter.

Of course motivation is a factor in deciding what the person should be charged with.

You make a good point.

However, I think there's a difference between your example and hate crime laws. In your example we find a distinction between whether the suspect intended to kill a person or whether there was some kind of accident that resulted in a death. In a hate crime someone gets a harsher punishment because of who and why they attacked a person. If a white person attacks a white person they get less of a punishment than a white person that attacks a black person for racial reasons, or vise versa. It's a form of thought crime and racism.

The distinction that you are trying to draw is the distinction between motive, which is not typically an element of the proving a criminal act and mens rea or guilty thought which is an element of crimes involving an element of intent. That is the defendant intended to do the act that he did.

Not to get too technical, but this covers instances with A intends to shoot B, but instead shoots C. While he did not intend to shoot C he did intend to do the crime of shooting someone (let's call the crime malicious wounding). So, A is guilty of the crime of malicious wounding for shooting C even thought he intended to shoot B. His intent was to do the act of shooting someone, he successfully did shoot someone, therefore the element of mens rea is satisfied. (So is actus reus for that matter, since the person was shot).

Notice however that motivation is not an element of this crime. The law cares not why A was shooting B. The mere fact of A shooting at a person intentionally is enough.

So you're basically making the distinction between motive and intent? Meaning that in Robert's example they were looking at the intent, whereas in a hate crime they look at motivation?

 

[Tech_Esq]

Dude! Don't say that when I'm sitting in NorthEast DC!

I'm one of 3 white people in this building.

I'm also in the Northeast.

The fact remains though, their were massive riots across the country when MLK Jr. except in Indy (thanks to RFK's wonderful speech). If Barack Obama were to meet that same fate, all hell would break loose.

That's not saying I want it to happen because I don't. It's just a simple fact because of how tense race relations currently are in this country.

Oh, I agree with you. I think you missed it, I'm in NorthEast Washington, DC not "in the northeast" folks kill folks pretty regular here without an excuse. I was a few miles away from here when MLK was killed, this city erupted. There are parts that still haven't recovered.

All I was saying is I would be dead. 100% chance.

 

[Aristophanes]

I'm pretty sure they are "punishing the motivation" every time they give someone a murder charge instead of accidental manslaughter.

Incorrect. They are punishing INTENT, not MOTIVE. The difference between manslaughter and murder is the intent to kill.

Of course motivation is a factor in deciding what the person should be charged with.

Sure, if you think that otherwise legal hate speech should be made illegal.

 

[Tech_Esq]

You make a good point.

However, I think there's a difference between your example and hate crime laws. In your example we find a distinction between whether the suspect intended to kill a person or whether there was some kind of accident that resulted in a death. In a hate crime someone gets a harsher punishment because of who and why they attacked a person. If a white person attacks a white person they get less of a punishment than a white person that attacks a black person for racial reasons, or vise versa. It's a form of thought crime and racism.

The distinction that you are trying to draw is the distinction between motive, which is not typically an element of the proving a criminal act and mens rea or guilty thought which is an element of crimes involving an element of intent. That is the defendant intended to do the act that he did.

Not to get too technical, but this covers instances with A intends to shoot B, but instead shoots C. While he did not intend to shoot C he did intend to do the crime of shooting someone (let's call the crime malicious wounding). So, A is guilty of the crime of malicious wounding for shooting C even thought he intended to shoot B. His intent was to do the act of shooting someone, he successfully did shoot someone, therefore the element of mens rea is satisfied. (So is actus reus for that matter, since the person was shot).

Notice however that motivation is not an element of this crime. The law cares not why A was shooting B. The mere fact of A shooting at a person intentionally is enough.

So you're basically making the distinction between motive and intent? Meaning that in Robert's example they were looking at the intent, whereas in a hate crime they look at motivation?

Right. If you are answering the "why" question, that's motive.

 

[Aristophanes]

So you're basically making the distinction between motive and intent? Meaning that in Robert's example they were looking at the intent, whereas in a hate crime they look at motivation?

Correct.

Hate crimes make illegal what should otherwise be legal.

It is LEGAL to have a motive to kill someone. It is LEGAL to hate someone because of the color if their skin. It is LEGAL to harbor a belief that your race is superior to others.

Unless you're charged with a hate crime, in which case the motive exacerbates the penality, which is unconstitutional.

 

[Anguille]

I understand. But my problem is with the practical not the normative. I might agree that people that commit violent crime against other people because they are trying to foment division between factions of this country should be punished to a greater extent, but look at the practical side. Here you have prosecutor in Akron, OH with a large African-American community. Do you really think he has the stones to place the Hate Crime card on a group of Black teens?

If he does that and he's a Democrat, he can kiss his career in the prosecutor's office goodbye and any political aspirations he might have as well. The blacks in the state party with ensure he gets no further support.

While you make some interesting points, this says more about your assumptions concerning blacks than anything else.

 

[Tech_Esq]

The distinction that you are trying to draw is the distinction between motive, which is not typically an element of the proving a criminal act

Is that really true? If you kill someone for money isn't the penalty greater than if you kill them out of anger?

The answer is, it depends, of course

If you killed them out of anger and there was no malice aforethought, therefore rendering it 2nd Degree murder (in many states), then that would be a lesser crime than premeditated murder (murder for hire which I think is what you are talking about). But, that's not really motive that makes the distinction. It is a recognition in the law that people do, in fact, get angry or have fights and the consequences are greater then the participants intend or suspect. In some cases they are not reckless but are intentional, but not premeditated.

If I'm armed and get in a fight and at some point pull out my pistol and shoot the guy, that would be second degree. If I get in a fight and then go back to my house and get the a gun return and kill the other party, that's premeditated murder. The penalty is higher for obvious reasons.

 

[Anguille]

And obviously, "hate crimes" will not be necessary in such places,

Are they necessary anywhere?

 

[Anguille]

Exactly. White-on-white crime would not be a hate crime and would therefore get a less severe punishment than white-on-black crime, or vise versa.

It's not inconceivable that a white person could hate whites or a black could hate blacks and then commit a crime to demonstrate that hate.