Murder as Sport

[westwall]

Any rape should be a hate crime

I agree with you here. However, I think that has already been factored into the equation when it comes to punishment.

As I said before, technically, I think rape is a hate crime, because it is gender based. However, all rapes are gender based, so why go to the trouble of calling something that happens in every rape a hate crime? No point to it. Just set the punishment, taking that into account.

It would be kind of silly to say "Any rape committed in whole or in part on the basis of gender of the victim is a hate crime," since all rapes are based on gender. Not all assaults are based on race. See the difference?

What about homosexual rape?

 

[George Costanza]

Any rape should be a hate crime

I agree with you here. However, I think that has already been factored into the equation when it comes to punishment.

As I said before, technically, I think rape is a hate crime, because it is gender based. However, all rapes are gender based, so why go to the trouble of calling something that happens in every rape a hate crime? No point to it. Just set the punishment, taking that into account.

It would be kind of silly to say "Any rape committed in whole or in part on the basis of gender of the victim is a hate crime," since all rapes are based on gender. Not all assaults are based on race. See the difference?

What about homosexual rape?

One homosexual raping another? I don't think so - because the prosecution would have to be able to prove that the crime was motivated by sexual orientation hatred, and that would be very difficult, if not impossible, to do, largely because, in such a situation, the crime would probably NOT be motivated by sexual orientation hatred, since the perp was also homosexual.

A straight person raping a homosexual? Think about that . . .

 

[George Costanza]

The fact that you can't think of a single case is telling.

You can read, can't you? If you could, you would have read this:

The Hate Crimes You Don’t Hear About

I guess you didn't bother to click on this link, which I posted in response to your clam that there are not any hate crimes against whites. This link mentions two of them. There are many more.

I was writing while you were posting so I missed that post, and yes I am very well aquainted with those cases, did ANY of them get charged as hate crimes? The purpose of that site was to show all the "hate crimes" that were being committed that weren't being charged. The site goes into great detail to show how white on black crimes are trumpeted from every window in the castle, yet black on white crimes are swept under the rug.

Look to your own responses to this thread...you IMMEDIATELY ASSUMED it was a white on black crime. We know that the vast majority of interratial crime is black on white, yet your immediate response was to assume it was the other way around. Here is a clue for the future, whenever a heinous crime is committed and the race of the perp is not mentioned in the article, you can lay pretty good odds that the perp was black. If the perp was white, that fact will be well reported.

Hate Crime legislation is a PC law. As such it will almost never be charged against a minority. Even our very own DOJ is refusing to look at crimes in a race neutral manner.

New Black Panther Case Spurs Civil Rights Commission to Challenge DOJ - Crossroads - CBS News

Because it is nearly impossible for people to ignore race due to a whole host of factors in order to eliminate unequitable use of these laws they should be abolished. They do not
work in the way they were intended and instead make things worse. How about we really punish the violent jack asses in our world and really remove them from the streets. Of whatever race. Have the enhancements for weapon usage, torture etc. strengthened so that they can be used for actual cases, because face it GC, for someone to do violent attacks on people they're not doing them out of love...now are they?

Your point is well taken when you comment that I immediately assumed, in my original post on this thread, that the perps were white. That is correct - I did. That supports your point, but falls far short of proving it.

You can characterize hate crime legislation as "PC" if you desire. That is what conservatives do with most laws or social pressures against things they like to do or are in favor of.

I simply cannot fathom how you can be in opposition to a law that is designed to protect minorities from being the victims of vicious crimes. What's the big deal? Who are you fighting for here? Sure looks to me like you are fighting for the creeps who commit these kind of crimes. It's almost as if you (and those who share your views on this subject) are IN FAVOR OF minorities being attacked because they are minorities.

Surely that isn't the case, is it?

IS it?

Here, take a look at an earlier post of mine on this thread which, to my amazement, went largely un-commented upon:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/126436-murder-as-sport-5.html#post2938512

 

[Tank]

I simply cannot fathom how you can be in opposition to a law that is designed to protect minorities from being the victims of vicious crimes. What's the big deal? Who are you fighting for here? Sure looks to me like you are fighting for the creeps who commit these kind of crimes. It's almost as if you (and those who share your views on this subject) are IN FAVOR OF minorities being attacked because they are minorities.

Surely that isn't the case, is it?

IS it?

No matter how hard you try to hide it, you are a racist.

I bet your for affirmative action too.

You see "minorities" as people who should be treated differently then you, just like a white supremist.

 

[Tank]

Ah, but you are dodging the question.

Once again: Most people who commit hate crimes for racially motivated reasons are racists? Do agree or disagree with this statement? And, if you disagree, why?

I would say ALL people who commit hate crimes for racially motivated reasons are racists.

Just like all people who molest children are pedifiles.

 

[Tank]

Is not a pedifile to children

as a KKK member is to blacks?

No, because KKK members commit crimes against blacks because of racial hatred. Pedophiles commit crimes against children because children are the natural prey of pedophiles.

Do you really believe that what pedifiles do is "natural"?

 

[westwall]

I agree with you here. However, I think that has already been factored into the equation when it comes to punishment.

As I said before, technically, I think rape is a hate crime, because it is gender based. However, all rapes are gender based, so why go to the trouble of calling something that happens in every rape a hate crime? No point to it. Just set the punishment, taking that into account.

It would be kind of silly to say "Any rape committed in whole or in part on the basis of gender of the victim is a hate crime," since all rapes are based on gender. Not all assaults are based on race. See the difference?

What about homosexual rape?

One homosexual raping another? I don't think so - because the prosecution would have to be able to prove that the crime was motivated by sexual orientation hatred, and that would be very difficult, if not impossible, to do, largely because, in such a situation, the crime would probably NOT be motivated by sexual orientation hatred, since the perp was also homosexual.

A straight person raping a homosexual? Think about that . . .

No,

A homosexual raping a straight person. Geez, does it all have to be spelled ou for you.

 

[westwall]

You can read, can't you? If you could, you would have read this:

The Hate Crimes You Don’t Hear About

I guess you didn't bother to click on this link, which I posted in response to your clam that there are not any hate crimes against whites. This link mentions two of them. There are many more.

I was writing while you were posting so I missed that post, and yes I am very well aquainted with those cases, did ANY of them get charged as hate crimes? The purpose of that site was to show all the "hate crimes" that were being committed that weren't being charged. The site goes into great detail to show how white on black crimes are trumpeted from every window in the castle, yet black on white crimes are swept under the rug.

Look to your own responses to this thread...you IMMEDIATELY ASSUMED it was a white on black crime. We know that the vast majority of interratial crime is black on white, yet your immediate response was to assume it was the other way around. Here is a clue for the future, whenever a heinous crime is committed and the race of the perp is not mentioned in the article, you can lay pretty good odds that the perp was black. If the perp was white, that fact will be well reported.

Hate Crime legislation is a PC law. As such it will almost never be charged against a minority. Even our very own DOJ is refusing to look at crimes in a race neutral manner.

New Black Panther Case Spurs Civil Rights Commission to Challenge DOJ - Crossroads - CBS News

Because it is nearly impossible for people to ignore race due to a whole host of factors in order to eliminate unequitable use of these laws they should be abolished. They do not
work in the way they were intended and instead make things worse. How about we really punish the violent jack asses in our world and really remove them from the streets. Of whatever race. Have the enhancements for weapon usage, torture etc. strengthened so that they can be used for actual cases, because face it GC, for someone to do violent attacks on people they're not doing them out of love...now are they?

Your point is well taken when you comment that I immediately assumed, in my original post on this thread, that the perps were white. That is correct - I did. That supports your point, but falls far short of proving it.

You can characterize hate crime legislation as "PC" if you desire. That is what conservatives do with most laws or social pressures against things they like to do or are in favor of.

I simply cannot fathom how you can be in opposition to a law that is designed to protect minorities from being the victims of vicious crimes. What's the big deal? Who are you fighting for here? Sure looks to me like you are fighting for the creeps who commit these kind of crimes. It's almost as if you (and those who share your views on this subject) are IN FAVOR OF minorities being attacked because they are minorities.

Surely that isn't the case, is it?

IS it?

Here, take a look at an earlier post of mine on this thread which, to my amazement, went largely un-commented upon:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/126436-murder-as-sport-5.html#post2938512

Back in 1998 a 22 year old gang banger shot up the Alameda County Fair. His name was Jamai Desmond Johnson and among his 10 victims was an 8 year old boy and his mom plus two other children. The DA, filed attempted murder charges for the 5 gang bangers who were wounded (black) but only assault with a deadly weapon charges on the 5 people who weren't gangsters (white).

What do you think his reasoning was?

 

[Father Time]

I was writing while you were posting so I missed that post, and yes I am very well aquainted with those cases, did ANY of them get charged as hate crimes? The purpose of that site was to show all the "hate crimes" that were being committed that weren't being charged. The site goes into great detail to show how white on black crimes are trumpeted from every window in the castle, yet black on white crimes are swept under the rug.

Look to your own responses to this thread...you IMMEDIATELY ASSUMED it was a white on black crime. We know that the vast majority of interratial crime is black on white, yet your immediate response was to assume it was the other way around. Here is a clue for the future, whenever a heinous crime is committed and the race of the perp is not mentioned in the article, you can lay pretty good odds that the perp was black. If the perp was white, that fact will be well reported.

Hate Crime legislation is a PC law. As such it will almost never be charged against a minority. Even our very own DOJ is refusing to look at crimes in a race neutral manner.

New Black Panther Case Spurs Civil Rights Commission to Challenge DOJ - Crossroads - CBS News

Because it is nearly impossible for people to ignore race due to a whole host of factors in order to eliminate unequitable use of these laws they should be abolished. They do not
work in the way they were intended and instead make things worse. How about we really punish the violent jack asses in our world and really remove them from the streets. Of whatever race. Have the enhancements for weapon usage, torture etc. strengthened so that they can be used for actual cases, because face it GC, for someone to do violent attacks on people they're not doing them out of love...now are they?

Your point is well taken when you comment that I immediately assumed, in my original post on this thread, that the perps were white. That is correct - I did. That supports your point, but falls far short of proving it.

You can characterize hate crime legislation as "PC" if you desire. That is what conservatives do with most laws or social pressures against things they like to do or are in favor of.

I simply cannot fathom how you can be in opposition to a law that is designed to protect minorities from being the victims of vicious crimes. What's the big deal? Who are you fighting for here? Sure looks to me like you are fighting for the creeps who commit these kind of crimes. It's almost as if you (and those who share your views on this subject) are IN FAVOR OF minorities being attacked because they are minorities.

Surely that isn't the case, is it?

IS it?

Here, take a look at an earlier post of mine on this thread which, to my amazement, went largely un-commented upon:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/126436-murder-as-sport-5.html#post2938512

Back in 1998 a 22 year old gang banger shot up the Alameda County Fair. His name was Jamai Desmond Johnson and among his 10 victims was an 8 year old boy and his mom plus two other children. The DA, filed attempted murder charges for the 5 gang bangers who were wounded (black) but only assault with a deadly weapon charges on the 5 people who weren't gangsters (white).

What do you think his reasoning was?

That he wasn't aiming for the children so a charge of murder probably wouldn't stick.

 

[westwall]

Your point is well taken when you comment that I immediately assumed, in my original post on this thread, that the perps were white. That is correct - I did. That supports your point, but falls far short of proving it.

You can characterize hate crime legislation as "PC" if you desire. That is what conservatives do with most laws or social pressures against things they like to do or are in favor of.

I simply cannot fathom how you can be in opposition to a law that is designed to protect minorities from being the victims of vicious crimes. What's the big deal? Who are you fighting for here? Sure looks to me like you are fighting for the creeps who commit these kind of crimes. It's almost as if you (and those who share your views on this subject) are IN FAVOR OF minorities being attacked because they are minorities.

Surely that isn't the case, is it?

IS it?

Here, take a look at an earlier post of mine on this thread which, to my amazement, went largely un-commented upon:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/126436-murder-as-sport-5.html#post2938512

Back in 1998 a 22 year old gang banger shot up the Alameda County Fair. His name was Jamai Desmond Johnson and among his 10 victims was an 8 year old boy and his mom plus two other children. The DA, filed attempted murder charges for the 5 gang bangers who were wounded (black) but only assault with a deadly weapon charges on the 5 people who weren't gangsters (white).

What do you think his reasoning was?

That he wasn't aiming for the children so a charge of murder probably wouldn't stick.

Nope, that was not it. In fact the DA could have used the same reasoning they use when they charge drunk drivers with 2nd degree murder when they kill someone.

 

[marksinvirginia]

Hate Crimes Laws are a contrivance by white liberals to placate the blacks. You never hear of a black being charged with a hate crime... no matter what the circumstances.

~Mark

 

[Toome]

I wonder why the author would leave out their race.

Because there not white.

Did I miss something in the article? How do you know that? Or are you just assuming they were white and it was left out of the article because it might detract from the sensationalism of the article if they were of the same race as the victim?

It was Bullfighter.

 

[chanel]

It's because they were juveniles.

 

[FA_Q2]

It is a corrupt mind that can accept a white person killing a black person is a grater crime that a white killing a white or any other combination of race in crime. We need to move AWAY from race playing ANY factor in law whatsoever. Law is supposed to be colorblind and legislation like this simply moves the focus BACK on color where it should have never been in the first place. A prime example is your own post. The FIRST thing you were interested in was what race they were! That should never play a role in the courtroom.

A white killing a black is no greater crime than a white killing a white, PROVIDED, the killing is not racially motivated. Once the crime becomes racially motivated, however, the race of the killer and the race of the victim are irrelevant - it is a hate crime and should be punished more harshly than a non-racially motivated crime.

I guess you don't see racially motivated crimes as worse than non-racially motivated crimes. Seems to me THAT is evidence of the "corrupt mind" you are referencing in your opening remark.

That begs the question WHY a racially motivated crime is worse than, say, killing someone for a life insurance check? I cannot rationalize the former being worse than the latter. A planned and executed murder that has no real driving reason is the same and should be treated the same. Here you are making some sort of qualifier that RACE needs greater attention that any other qualifier in a crime. THAT is BS and is NOT working toward a better, more racially tolerant society but rather working in the OPPOSITE direction. Your own statements prove this. In the beginning, you ASSUMED this was a white hate crime with ZERO evidence. It turns out that was not the case. YOU thought of race first and these laws are helping that distinction along. That is not a racially blind society.

If you really want to know what this business of opposing hate crime legislation is all about, you might want to take a look at the concept of covert racism. It is an acknowledged phenominom - Google it, and you will find any number of Web sites that discuss it. Basically, it works this way:

Overt racism is out. It is no longer stylish or accepted to engage in the racist pracitics of the pre-1960's period. Blacks are no longer relegated to the back of the bus or a "special section" of the restaurant or any of the other outrages that were visited upon them for so many years in our society.

Does that mean that racism no longer exists? Of course not. It simply means that it has gone underground - covert (as opposed to overt) racism is utilized in today's society.

What is covert racism?

Covert racism is a much less public and obvious form of racism than overt racism. It is hidden in the fabric of society, covertly suppressing the individuals being discriminated against. Covert racially biased decisions are often disguised or rationalized with an explanation that society is more willing to accept. These racial biases cause a variety of problems that work to empower the suppressors while diminishing the rights and powers of the oppressed. Covert racism often works subliminally, and often much of the discrimination is being done subconsciously.

Covert racisim can involve being in favor of programs, regulations and laws that tend to suppress minorities or being opposed to programs, regulations and laws that tend to help minorities.

There are many examples of covert racisim in today's society. A few of them are listed here:

Examples of Subtle Racism - Definition of Subtle Racism

Hate crime legislation benefits minorities because it tends to prevent the commission of hate crimes by increasing the punishment for the commission of such crimes. It is not too difficult to see where that leaves those who oppose such legislation.

Being opposed to programs and laws that help a SPECIFIC GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS is not being a racists. As a matter of fact, THAT IS RACISM ITSELF. I oppose programs that single out or benefit any particular race over another because I am not a racist and believe that many of these programs are continuing racial warfare and INCREASING racism.

This is not to say that opposition to hate crime legislation means that a person is a racist in the traditional sense. The quoted definition and the linked article both point out that covert racisim is subliminal and often subconscous. That means that folks who really believe they are not racists in the traditional sense, may still engage in any number of acts of covert racisim.

I am ******* tired of you labeling anyone that opposes your view as a racist. I gave you the courtesy and made no such claim that you were a racist along with many others here. I decried those that jumped to that conclusion as well and then you go to the great length to let us know were actually subliminal racists, we just dot realize it!

 

[FA_Q2]

What's your point? Google up the stats on what percentage of rapes are committed by men against women. Would you propose to do away with the rape laws because the vast majority of rapes are committed by men?

And while I'm at it - 1,916,380 hate crimes in ONE YEAR in this country, and you want to do away with hate crime legislation? Who are you trying to protect?

His point was, and you darn well know it, that blacks are simply NOT CHARGED with hate crimes when they are committed. The statement that the vast majority of hate crimes are committed by white is a blatant lie. The vast majority of convictions are but the rate of commission is another story. The law is CLEARLY taking race into account in an unbalanced manner ant the laws are NOT being applied equally. The fact that you can support that is scary. Race should NEVER play a role in the legal system. INTENT is an integrated part and very important when determining a proper punishment for a criminal but the fact that the intent is tied to race is irrelevant. If you killed him because you disliked the color of his skin should be no different than killing someone because you do not like the group they are part of, religion, car they drive, hair color or thousands of other factors that you 'hate' about a person. They are ALL first degree murders that should be treated the same. One form of hate is not grater than another form of hate.

 

[Tony Skanda]

hate crimes by blacks are just as serious as those by whites. Violent crimes should always be severly punished. Some crimes require corperal punishment, in my opinion.

 

[chanel]

One of five Old Bridge teenagers awaiting trial for the fatal beating of a 49-year-old man now faces house arrest after being accused of drinking at a sweet 16 party.

Police determined through visual examination that Johnson was intoxicated and refused to let him drive, Kuberiet said. Johnson was allowed to call his home and his brother came for him after police gave Johnson a summons for underage drinking.

What you did could easily have cost your family $300,000," Ferencz told Johnson.

Ferencz ordered Johnson to surrender his driver's license and to be accompanied by another person whenever he leaves his home.

Old Bridge teen accused in fatal beating faces house arrest after allegedly drinking at party | NJ.com

Bail revoked? Nah. Not in NJ. He's just a "kid".

 

[FA_Q2]

The let those idiots out on bail!!! The court system is insanely fucked up. I cannot believe that this type of stuff is allowed to go on. The let those idiots out on bail!!! The court system is insanely fucked up. I cannot believe that this type of stuff is allowed to go on.

 

[chanel]

An Old Bridge teenager, one of five charged with the 2010 murder of a computer scientist in Old Bridge, was sent to the Middlesex County jail this afternoon after a judge raised his bail to $1 million for allegedly becoming involved in a fight at a township park last weekend.

Superior Court Judge Bradley Ferencz also instructed Julian Daley's attorney, Mitchell Ansell, that the $600,000 Daley's parents had posted for his previous bail could not be used toward the new amount. The judge set May 20 to decide whether or not to forfeit the $600,000, which could cost the Daleys their home.

"This altercation appears eerily similar to the incident that ended in the death of an individual," the judge said, as Daley put his head in his hands. "When the parents posted bail, they took some responsibility for his supervision. The bail conditions were not met. I believe a portion of the bail may have to be forfeited."

"It boggles the mind that a young man facing a life sentence in state prison goes out and offends again," Ferencz said.

Judge raises bail to $1M after Old Bridge teen charged in man's slaying is arrested again | NJ.com

This is the second time he's been arrested WHILE OUT ON BAIL!

Maybe they should speed up the trial before someone else gets killed for fun.

 

[westwall]

An Old Bridge teenager, one of five charged with the 2010 murder of a computer scientist in Old Bridge, was sent to the Middlesex County jail this afternoon after a judge raised his bail to $1 million for allegedly becoming involved in a fight at a township park last weekend.

Superior Court Judge Bradley Ferencz also instructed Julian Daley's attorney, Mitchell Ansell, that the $600,000 Daley's parents had posted for his previous bail could not be used toward the new amount. The judge set May 20 to decide whether or not to forfeit the $600,000, which could cost the Daleys their home.

"This altercation appears eerily similar to the incident that ended in the death of an individual," the judge said, as Daley put his head in his hands. "When the parents posted bail, they took some responsibility for his supervision. The bail conditions were not met. I believe a portion of the bail may have to be forfeited."

"It boggles the mind that a young man facing a life sentence in state prison goes out and offends again," Ferencz said.

Judge raises bail to $1M after Old Bridge teen charged in man's slaying is arrested again | NJ.com

This is the second time he's been arrested WHILE OUT ON BAIL!

Maybe they should speed up the trial before someone else gets killed for fun.

I hope the judge has the balls to forfeit the little bastards folks home....you know they were enablers of the first order. Get them out of the neighborhood for good!