Breaking: Charleston SC, white male shoots 8 people at Souths oldest black church

[Correll]

wow. you just proved that there is at least one racist anti-obama person on the internet.

good job.

you do not recall the use of "Food stamp" President in reference to Obama by mayor players in the conservative movement...short memory problems eh...

do you know why?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

so. Crime is lower, by far now than it was when Rudy (9/11) Giuliani was mayor. Thanks for pointing that out.

ROFLMNAO... No... Crime is decidedly NOT "down by far from when Giuliani was Mayor. Nor anywhere close to it.

The decline in the NYC "Assault" rate went from 44,122 from data in 2000, the year prior to Giuliani taking power, to 34,302 in 95, four years after Giuliani came to power; a cut of 1/3rd... 10,000 fewer Assaults PER YEAR.

Five years later, in 2000, Asaults fell ANOTHER 1/3rd to 25,924.

Bloomberg came to power in 2002 and by 2005 while Assualts came in fewer, the rate of decline in Assaults had slowed, falling to just under 17,750 with the serious spike in 04 and 05.

By 2010... The rate of the decline completely flattened out coming in at just under 17,000.

The reduction in the rate of decline was incredible as the decline had completely flattened by simply introducing a liberal Prog as Mayor

The same is true for Murder Rates: Just prior to Giuliani 1990 there were 2262 Murders in NYC.

In1995 four years after Giuliani, rhe murder rate was cut in half... with a thousand fewer murders, at 1162.

By 2000 that was nearly cut in half AGAIN to 670...

Giulian serves another two years, Bloomberg comes in in 02, by 05 Murder was again down, but as with the assaults the rate flattened considerably, spiking, as did the assaults, in 04 and 05 coming in at only a disappointing 539...

By 2010 the rate had remained roughly the same... at 536. New York City s 20 Years of Declining Crime - Scientific American

 

[dblack]

"The event that truly awakened me was the Trayvon Martin case," the suspected gunman wrote.
—Mother Jones

john hinkley was motived because he knew that he and jodie foster had something going.

sane people should not be held responsible for the delusions of the mad.

Except that the actions of Roof are rooted in a matrix of political beliefs that are shared by many such as conservative right wingers the backbone of the GOP...nobody shared any of the Hinkley beliefs about Jody Foster

think try to think

Exactly. How many times have we heard "they're raping our women" or something very much like it, on these very forums? You fling that bullshit around long enough and some idiots will believe it. And then you give 'em a gun? It's a wonder this isn't happening more often than it does.

 

[starviego]

The suspect's first target was apparently a local college, according to friends:

Man accused in church killings spoke of attacking college
... the suspect(Dylann Roof) told him a week earlier that he planned to shoot up a college campus in the city. ..."He just said he was going to hurt a bunch of people" at the College of Charleston(CoC), said Scriven, 22.


Four months earlier, on Feb 10, 2015, this was the scene at CoC:

On that day the college was the recipient of a phoned-in bomb- and shooting- threat. Listen to the 911 call at this link

http://www.postandcourier.com/assets/mp3/CofC Bomb Threat2.mp3

Charleston Regional Business Journal Charleston SC
A man who identified himself as “Zach” called police to say he put a bomb in the college’s Beatty Center and he was thinking about shooting people.

College of Charleston president says Cougar Alert system wasn t effective in real time - Post and Courier
...officers with rifles burst into some classrooms at the college to deal with the threat. ... Officers with rifles were also seen searching the grounds. .... Agencies called in to assist the college and its public safety officers include the FBI; Charleston police and fire; Ports Authority police and the Air Force Base bomb squad.

Oddly, even though the caller stayed on the phone for at least five minutes, they were unable to trace the call. Imagine that! Though the local PD got in plenty of good "crisis training." Of course it was all just coincidence! Isn't it always?

 

[sealybobo]

This guy is a nut jobber...but it is not a hate crime. No such thing. He is a common criminal. Black or White. An Arab launching an attack against a nation-state is a terrorist.

let's say a guy gets mad at another driver and shoots him. that's not a hate crime and that murder might get a 20 year sentence. but if the person is a known racist and goes out and kills a black person the circumstances are different. that person should get more years in jail because it's a hate crime.

in this situation it doesn't matter because hate crime or not this guy is going to get life in prison for the death penalty he will never see freedom again. Hate crimes are most important when determining whether the killer should get 20 years or more. do you understand this? Do you understand why we have hate crime laws? Because not all murders are equal

Not all murders are equal? That's just stupid on the face of it. What about assault's? Over 70 Whites were attacked during the "knockout game" and none of the Black perpetrators were prosecuted. Clearly these were racially motivated. But, when a White kid in Katy, Texas did the same to a Black man...Holder Justice Department pursued Civil Rights violation and possible hate crime offense. Therefore this makes "hate crime" laws racist and in my opinion %100 unconstitutional.

What makes hate crime law racist, is the laws attempt to set the interest of one race above the interests of others.

FYI: such is the nature of Relativism.

But this does prove the foolish nature of subjectivism ... And why it can never serve justice.

not true because if a group of white guys beat up a black guy that could be a hate crime just like if a bunch of black guys beat up a white guy because he's white that's a hate crime - also

Well, Crime is by its nature, hateful... That's why we call it crime and not "Rufus didn't pay for those shoes'.

It's a crime because Rufus stole property from Mr. Penney, who was selling those shoes to feed his family and the families of those he hired to sell his goods. When one steals the property of others they are disrespecting that persons humanity; he is showing that he has no regard for the rights of Mr.Penney; rights which were a gift to Mr. Penney, from God. Thus Rufus was demonstrating a disrespect for; or an offense against, or a sin against God; OKA: Hate.

So, there's no reason to reframe the issue as "Hateful", when the word Crime already does that.

Now, with that said; and as I pointed out above and as I have pointed out hundreds of times throughout this board, Hate Crimes are SUBJECTIVE... and it is a RARE day when a "Hate" crime is set against a black person for a crime against a white person, or where a Hate-crime is declared where a homosexual person murders a straight person. And where subjectivism enters the law, the law fails to serve justice.

Simple stuff... Law only works where it remains OBJECTIVE.

OK let the jury decide if it's a misdemeanor felony hate crime etc. Didn't the jury get to decide if the Boston bomber got death or life? Why? We're they being objective or subjective? Is it unconstitutional that one person gets life for murder and one does not? If not why not?

 

[sealybobo]

"The event that truly awakened me was the Trayvon Martin case," the suspected gunman wrote.
—Mother Jones

john hinkley was motived because he knew that he and jodie foster had something going.

sane people should not be held responsible for the delusions of the mad.

Except that the actions of Roof are rooted in a matrix of political beliefs that are shared by many such as conservative right wingers the backbone of the GOP...nobody shared any of the Hinkley beliefs about Jody Foster

think try to think

Exactly. How many times have we heard "they're raping our women" or something very much like it, on these very forums? You fling that bullshit around long enough and some idiots will believe it. And then you give 'em a gun? It's a wonder this isn't happening more often than it does.

And banging your white women isn't rape.

 

[sealybobo]

let's say a guy gets mad at another driver and shoots him. that's not a hate crime and that murder might get a 20 year sentence. but if the person is a known racist and goes out and kills a black person the circumstances are different. that person should get more years in jail because it's a hate crime.

in this situation it doesn't matter because hate crime or not this guy is going to get life in prison for the death penalty he will never see freedom again. Hate crimes are most important when determining whether the killer should get 20 years or more. do you understand this? Do you understand why we have hate crime laws? Because not all murders are equal

Not all murders are equal? That's just stupid on the face of it. What about assault's? Over 70 Whites were attacked during the "knockout game" and none of the Black perpetrators were prosecuted. Clearly these were racially motivated. But, when a White kid in Katy, Texas did the same to a Black man...Holder Justice Department pursued Civil Rights violation and possible hate crime offense. Therefore this makes "hate crime" laws racist and in my opinion %100 unconstitutional.

What makes hate crime law racist, is the laws attempt to set the interest of one race above the interests of others.

FYI: such is the nature of Relativism.

But this does prove the foolish nature of subjectivism ... And why it can never serve justice.

not true because if a group of white guys beat up a black guy that could be a hate crime just like if a bunch of black guys beat up a white guy because he's white that's a hate crime - also

Well, Crime is by its nature, hateful... That's why we call it crime and not "Rufus didn't pay for those shoes'.

It's a crime because Rufus stole property from Mr. Penney, who was selling those shoes to feed his family and the families of those he hired to sell his goods. When one steals the property of others they are disrespecting that persons humanity; he is showing that he has no regard for the rights of Mr.Penney; rights which were a gift to Mr. Penney, from God. Thus Rufus was demonstrating a disrespect for; or an offense against, or a sin against God; OKA: Hate.

So, there's no reason to reframe the issue as "Hateful", when the word Crime already does that.

Now, with that said; and as I pointed out above and as I have pointed out hundreds of times throughout this board, Hate Crimes are SUBJECTIVE... and it is a RARE day when a "Hate" crime is set against a black person for a crime against a white person, or where a Hate-crime is declared where a homosexual person murders a straight person. And where subjectivism enters the law, the law fails to serve justice.

Simple stuff... Law only works where it remains OBJECTIVE.

It is objective. If there is evidence that objectively proves that the crime was motivated by hatred of a particular race, it is a hate crime. For example, a man goes into a bkack church and announces that he going to shoot all the black folks there cause they be raping the white women and, later, when he us arrested, he says he did it to start a race war, that would be be objective proof of a hate crime. Get it?

I asked him why some murderers get the death penalty and some get life. Clearly some murders are worse than others. Why? I suspect the motivation.

If I kill my wife for cheating on me its not the same as Jeffrey Dahmer.

And Jeff didn't even get the death penalty.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Not all murders are equal? That's just stupid on the face of it. What about assault's? Over 70 Whites were attacked during the "knockout game" and none of the Black perpetrators were prosecuted. Clearly these were racially motivated. But, when a White kid in Katy, Texas did the same to a Black man...Holder Justice Department pursued Civil Rights violation and possible hate crime offense. Therefore this makes "hate crime" laws racist and in my opinion %100 unconstitutional.

What makes hate crime law racist, is the laws attempt to set the interest of one race above the interests of others.

FYI: such is the nature of Relativism.

But this does prove the foolish nature of subjectivism ... And why it can never serve justice.

not true because if a group of white guys beat up a black guy that could be a hate crime just like if a bunch of black guys beat up a white guy because he's white that's a hate crime - also

Well, Crime is by its nature, hateful... That's why we call it crime and not "Rufus didn't pay for those shoes'.

It's a crime because Rufus stole property from Mr. Penney, who was selling those shoes to feed his family and the families of those he hired to sell his goods. When one steals the property of others they are disrespecting that persons humanity; he is showing that he has no regard for the rights of Mr.Penney; rights which were a gift to Mr. Penney, from God. Thus Rufus was demonstrating a disrespect for; or an offense against, or a sin against God; OKA: Hate.

So, there's no reason to reframe the issue as "Hateful", when the word Crime already does that.

Now, with that said; and as I pointed out above and as I have pointed out hundreds of times throughout this board, Hate Crimes are SUBJECTIVE... and it is a RARE day when a "Hate" crime is set against a black person for a crime against a white person, or where a Hate-crime is declared where a homosexual person murders a straight person. And where subjectivism enters the law, the law fails to serve justice.

Simple stuff... Law only works where it remains OBJECTIVE.

It is objective. If there is evidence that objectively proves that the crime was motivated by hatred of a particular race, it is a hate crime. For example, a man goes into a bkack church and announces that he going to shoot all the black folks there cause they be raping the white women and, later, when he us arrested, he says he did it to start a race war, that would be be objective proof of a hate crime. Get it?

I asked him why some murderers get the death penalty and some get life. Clearly some murders are worse than others. Why? I suspect the motivation.

If I kill my wife for cheating on me its not the same as Jeffrey Dahmer.

And Jeff didn't even get the death penalty.

Are you being serious?

Crimes of passion such as you describe are not typically prep planned... Or premeditated. A rush of emotion crippling the means to reason, establishing an irrational state initiate a violent attack which results in death. Such an act is hardly equitable with an individual who plots to strip another of their life for the sake of satisfying a perverse sexual craving... Resulting in the slow; agonizing death of the victim, which ends in their evisceration and their organs consumed by the Leftist who simply Identifies as a homosexual homicidal cannibal.

That you can't understand the distinction in how the two starkly distinct circumstances deserve starkly distinct punishment, the former a regrettable circumstance where emotion over powers reason creating catastrophic destruction of the victim and the perpetrator and the latter the result of a perversely deluded mind of a merciless predator.

 

[ChrisL]

I'm glad they caught this guy before he had a chance to kill himself. I'm glad he'll have to face justice and the victims's families. No matter what his beliefs are, he is a sick fucker and not representative of any "party."

 

[Bush92]

Not all murders are equal? That's just stupid on the face of it. What about assault's? Over 70 Whites were attacked during the "knockout game" and none of the Black perpetrators were prosecuted. Clearly these were racially motivated. But, when a White kid in Katy, Texas did the same to a Black man...Holder Justice Department pursued Civil Rights violation and possible hate crime offense. Therefore this makes "hate crime" laws racist and in my opinion %100 unconstitutional.

What makes hate crime law racist, is the laws attempt to set the interest of one race above the interests of others.

FYI: such is the nature of Relativism.

But this does prove the foolish nature of subjectivism ... And why it can never serve justice.

not true because if a group of white guys beat up a black guy that could be a hate crime just like if a bunch of black guys beat up a white guy because he's white that's a hate crime - also

Well, Crime is by its nature, hateful... That's why we call it crime and not "Rufus didn't pay for those shoes'.

It's a crime because Rufus stole property from Mr. Penney, who was selling those shoes to feed his family and the families of those he hired to sell his goods. When one steals the property of others they are disrespecting that persons humanity; he is showing that he has no regard for the rights of Mr.Penney; rights which were a gift to Mr. Penney, from God. Thus Rufus was demonstrating a disrespect for; or an offense against, or a sin against God; OKA: Hate.

So, there's no reason to reframe the issue as "Hateful", when the word Crime already does that.

Now, with that said; and as I pointed out above and as I have pointed out hundreds of times throughout this board, Hate Crimes are SUBJECTIVE... and it is a RARE day when a "Hate" crime is set against a black person for a crime against a white person, or where a Hate-crime is declared where a homosexual person murders a straight person. And where subjectivism enters the law, the law fails to serve justice.

Simple stuff... Law only works where it remains OBJECTIVE.

It is objective. If there is evidence that objectively proves that the crime was motivated by hatred of a particular race, it is a hate crime. For example, a man goes into a bkack church and announces that he going to shoot all the black folks there cause they be raping the white women and, later, when he us arrested, he says he did it to start a race war, that would be be objective proof of a hate crime. Get it?

I asked him why some murderers get the death penalty and some get life. Clearly some murders are worse than others. Why? I suspect the motivation.

If I kill my wife for cheating on me its not the same as Jeffrey Dahmer.

And Jeff didn't even get the death penalty.

This guy deserves the death penalty for multiple homicides. But not a so called "hate crime."

 

[dblack]

What makes hate crime law racist, is the laws attempt to set the interest of one race above the interests of others.

FYI: such is the nature of Relativism.

But this does prove the foolish nature of subjectivism ... And why it can never serve justice.

not true because if a group of white guys beat up a black guy that could be a hate crime just like if a bunch of black guys beat up a white guy because he's white that's a hate crime - also

Well, Crime is by its nature, hateful... That's why we call it crime and not "Rufus didn't pay for those shoes'.

It's a crime because Rufus stole property from Mr. Penney, who was selling those shoes to feed his family and the families of those he hired to sell his goods. When one steals the property of others they are disrespecting that persons humanity; he is showing that he has no regard for the rights of Mr.Penney; rights which were a gift to Mr. Penney, from God. Thus Rufus was demonstrating a disrespect for; or an offense against, or a sin against God; OKA: Hate.

So, there's no reason to reframe the issue as "Hateful", when the word Crime already does that.

Now, with that said; and as I pointed out above and as I have pointed out hundreds of times throughout this board, Hate Crimes are SUBJECTIVE... and it is a RARE day when a "Hate" crime is set against a black person for a crime against a white person, or where a Hate-crime is declared where a homosexual person murders a straight person. And where subjectivism enters the law, the law fails to serve justice.

Simple stuff... Law only works where it remains OBJECTIVE.

It is objective. If there is evidence that objectively proves that the crime was motivated by hatred of a particular race, it is a hate crime. For example, a man goes into a bkack church and announces that he going to shoot all the black folks there cause they be raping the white women and, later, when he us arrested, he says he did it to start a race war, that would be be objective proof of a hate crime. Get it?

I asked him why some murderers get the death penalty and some get life. Clearly some murders are worse than others. Why? I suspect the motivation.

If I kill my wife for cheating on me its not the same as Jeffrey Dahmer.

And Jeff didn't even get the death penalty.

This guy deserves the death penalty for multiple homicides. But not a so called "hate crime."

??

Only if you deny the concept of hate crime altogether. Otherwise, if anything fits the definition, this does.

 

[Bush92]

All crime is hateful and anti-social if you believe in Rousseau and Locke. Law's based on emotions or assumptions open our nation and its liberty up to Orwellian abuses by the federal government.

 

[dblack]

All crime is hateful and anti-social if you believe in Rousseau and Locke. Law's based on emotions or assumptions open our nation and its liberty up to Orwellian abuses by the federal government.

I agree. But if you take 'hate crime' to mean politically motivated crime with the intent of sparking public hatred and violence toward specific groups, I'd say this qualified. He was clearly intending to start a race war.

 

[Bush92]

All crime is hateful and anti-social if you believe in Rousseau and Locke. Law's based on emotions or assumptions open our nation and its liberty up to Orwellian abuses by the federal government.

I agree. But if you take 'hate crime' to mean politically motivated crime with the intent of sparking public hatred and violence toward specific groups, I'd say this qualified. He was clearly intending to start a race war.

the Supreme Court clarified free-speech cases in Brandenburg v. Ohio 1967 (?) that the case turned upon whether or not people were going to follow the word's of the defendant. Brandenburg was a White supremacist that advocated that White's must overthrow the U.S. government. He was arrested under an Ohio state law against subversion of the government. The High Court ruled that there must be evidence that people would actually follow through on the defendants avocations. The Court ruled that Brandenburg was a nut case and no right minded individual would pay attention to anything he said. Same with kook in Charleston. He can advocate all he wants...but no one is going to follow.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Wait...the Dukes of Hazzard were taken seriously in your home? In mine, that whole Southern thing was a laughingstock...the car was as serious as Boss Hogg.

seriously?

of course not. it was harmless fluff.

boss hog was indeed a joke.

the confederate flag? just a harmless prop showing that the duke boys were "good ole boys".


the car? a 1969 dodge charger? that was fine.

daisy duke? i took her very seriously.

of course, i was very young.

my point, as i have clearly stated over and over again, the fact that the nation wide american community accepted the portrayal of the flag as harmless, disproves the current lib claim that it is, and has always been a symbol of treason and slavery and racism and hatred.

in the 1980s it was harmless.

what has changed since the 1980s?

The rise of people like David Duke.

The story of the Klu Klux Klan in pictures racism civil rights and murder - Flashbak

The sharp rise in hate groups in the last 25 years.

Hate and Extremism Southern Poverty Law Center

Where have you been watching reruns of the Duke boys?

david duke didn't rise. he was a flash in the pan based on hiding his past. once it came out he was disgraced.

do you know what his support was in that presidential election he ran? look it up, it will make you feel better.


sharp rise in hate groups?

a big increase is a trivial number is nothing to be impressed with.

what has really changed is that libs have grown increasingly intolerant of viewpoints that don't agree with theirs.

thus, you no longer just disagree with them, you have to be a bad person, and be marginalized.

you have become bigots.

Why do you work so hard to argue a losing point? It seems to be your thing. Consensus if forming to remove the flag. It would be political suicide to oppose it given the circumstances.

you continually put up these reasons for your position.

when i destroy them, instead of responding, you revert to fallacy of argument by assertion.

with some fallacy of ad populum thrown in for good measure.

the flag is a harmless symbol of regional pride. it has been seen that way for generations.

Do you not see the consensus forming against you? That is not a fallacy. The flag is all but gone.

 

[dblack]

All crime is hateful and anti-social if you believe in Rousseau and Locke. Law's based on emotions or assumptions open our nation and its liberty up to Orwellian abuses by the federal government.

I agree. But if you take 'hate crime' to mean politically motivated crime with the intent of sparking public hatred and violence toward specific groups, I'd say this qualified. He was clearly intending to start a race war.

the Supreme Court clarified free-speech cases in Brandenburg v. Ohio 1967 (?) that the case turned upon whether or not people were going to follow the word's of the defendant. Brandenburg was a White supremacist that advocated that White's must overthrow the U.S. government. He was arrested under an Ohio state law against subversion of the government. The High Court ruled that there must be evidence that people would actually follow through on the defendants avocations. The Court ruled that Brandenburg was a nut case and no right minded individual would pay attention to anything he said. Same with kook in Charleston. He can advocate all he wants...but no one is going to follow.

Uh huh... and you think there's zero chance that this will spark more riots? And inspire more racists nuts to flip out? He might not get his 'race war', but there's a very real risk his act will prompt other violence.

I'm not big on the idea of 'hate crimes' myself. I think the concept is a stretch, and often dumbed to the simplistic idea of being any crime inspired by hatred.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Yours thankfully, is a minority opinion.

why? what would happen if modern 2015 america had the same view of the flag as 1979 america?

They don't. That's the point.

you said "thankfully" that mine is a minority opinion.

so, i asked you why, what would happen if modern 2015 america had the same view of the flag as 1979 america?

you seem to be thankful about something, so what it is that you are thankful that we are avoiding?

you know what i think the difference would be?

i think it would deprive you libs of a tool to bash the south with.

and that that would be the only difference.

you would still bash them based on other excuses, of coures

Hypothetical ramblings from your own imagination.

and yet you won't tell me what you are thankful for...

you deny that my reason is right, but will not offer one of your own.

It's self explanatory.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

American conservatives are right wing racist bigots and frightened little ninnies....

sorry, you libs have demonstrated that you are the bigots here.


this one shooter is not representative of the American south and only a bigot would claim otherwise.

I believe he represents the history of the south pretty well.
What world do you live on?

 

[ChrisL]

All crime is hateful and anti-social if you believe in Rousseau and Locke. Law's based on emotions or assumptions open our nation and its liberty up to Orwellian abuses by the federal government.

I agree. This is like "thought crimes," being punished for hate. Some will say that it's because it puts fear into the community, but so doesn't a rapist on the loose, or a serial killer. I really don't see how this type of law can be justified. Murder is murder, and I don't see one mass murder "just because" being any worse than one done because the nut doesn't like a specific group of people.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Only a week ago, that picture would make him a rightwing hero

He still is a teaper hero....they are just pussies and wont admit it

The most they will say is that Blacks are killing whites ...as a defense for the 9 homicides...

link, who is defending his homicides?

This morning the killing of whites by Blacks was being used to deflect....its all over these threads

this thread has wondered all over the place.

no one is defending this guy or his actions.

if you think they are, link to show it.

otherwise, you are the one who is reading in stuff that is not there.

it is part of your closed mind.

these people disagree with you, they must be evul.

WTF is wrong with you?!?! As time goes on your posts become more cryptic and repetetive.
It's all over this and other threads.