Hate crime?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The whole "reverse racism" argument is meritless. Anyone with even sub-par intelligence can realize that racism revolves around oppression, and you cannot be the victim of racism as minorities do not have the power to oppress you.
Click to expand...

That's crap. It does not have to be systemic, society-wide racism for it to be true racism. What if I went into Riviera Beach here (very high crime, very black area) and just walked around like nothin' doin'? I'd get my ass beat, or shot, or killed, that's what. And why? Because I'm white, and they have the power to "oppress" me.

When you have truly been a victim of racism (and you will never be) you may have some standing to speak on the issue.
Click to expand...

I will also never be raped by a woman. Does that mean I am not allowed to have an opinion on rape of women? Pretty please? Come on, I'm begging you, George -- allow me to have an opinion. :rolleyes:


Some of the most sickening bu!!s#it I see is when people in a racial minority claim that they cannot be racists/bigots, because, well, for no other reason than there are more whites in political power than blacks. That's crap. Anyone can hate another person, and make decisions based on that hate, based on a person's race. That's all you need to be a racist. You don't need political or social power. What if I were at the DMV, and the black woman behind the counter gave favored treatment to a black person in line but then acted like there was nothing she could do to help me with my particular problem, just because she saw me as "privileged white boy." She can't exert power over me?


-Jeffrey
 
Hate crime laws were established for one reason - for the supposed "oppressors" to show the supposed "oppressed" that they are doing "something" about the problem.
Click to expand...

No, that is wholly incorrect. The Federal Government established "hate crimes" aka civil rights violations because the states were refusing to enforce their own laws. It had nothing to do with pleasing the public, because if TPTB decided to leave things alone, I don't think that there was anything people of color could do about it. In this context, the "hate crime" rider is simply based on motive. Would you like to be charged with same crime while brandishing a handgun in self defense as someone who did it with the purpose of robbing, raping, or injuring somebody (firearm in commission of a felony?)
 
That's crap. It does not have to be systemic, society-wide racism for it to be true racism. What if I went into Riviera Beach here (very high crime, very black area) and just walked around like nothin' doin'? I'd get my ass beat, or shot, or killed, that's what. And why? Because I'm white, and they have the power to "oppress" me.
Click to expand...

No, you had it coming. You're not allowed to be oppressed after being raised in an assumed life of wealth and privilage.

Sarcasm aside, I agree with you. ANYONE certainy CAN be oppressed. Considering yourself oppressed does not give you the right to guard the door at "Club Oppression" and regulate who gets to come in. That in itself could be considered oppression.

I can and will decide if I feel oppressed. Regardless of what race or gender I am.
 
No, that is wholly incorrect. The Federal Government established "hate crimes" aka civil rights violations because the states were refusing to enforce their own laws. It had nothing to do with pleasing the public, because if TPTB decided to leave things alone, I don't think that there was anything people of color could do about it. In this context, the "hate crime" rider is simply based on motive. Would you like to be charged with same crime while brandishing a handgun in self defense as someone who did it with the purpose of robbing, raping, or injuring somebody (firearm in commission of a felony?)
Click to expand...

Hey, anyone who commits a violent crime needs to goto the slammer. However I do not feel that if a guy beats a little old black lady and steals her purse vs. a guy who beats a little old white lady and steals her purse should have a different sentence.

We had some crimes locally here in Charlottesville involving some black students who beat a white student. Some folks thought that it should be considered a "hate crime" - however the authorities said that was simply ridiculous. Would not even look into it.

Is that fair? Nope.
 
Sportcat: I don't feel that's neccesary, we're simply having a spirited discussion.

That's crap. It does not have to be systemic, society-wide racism for it to be true racism. What if I went into Riviera Beach here (very high crime, very black area) and just walked around like nothin' doin'? I'd get my ass beat, or shot, or killed, that's what. And why? Because I'm white, and they have the power to "oppress" me.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a hate crime to me. That is if there was evidence of the motive.
 
Hey, anyone who commits a violent crime needs to goto the slammer. However I do not feel that if a guy beats a little old black lady and steals her purse vs. a guy who beats a little old white lady and steals her purse should have a different sentence.
Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly agree with you. But I don't think you're example is fair. It seems that the intent in both cases is robbery, and not racially motivated.
 
I wholeheartedly agree with you. But I don't think you're example is fair. It seems that the intent in both cases is robbery, and not racially motivated.
Click to expand...

YES! But the problem is that when a white person commits a crime against a black person, it seems like people are TRYING to prove it a hate crime.

Just as you stated - in my example race was likely not relevant to the assualt at all (the old ladies). But in the local case here (stedents), they would not even CONSIDER that fact that the assualts against the white students were racially motivated. I believe that had it been the other way around, then a hate crime would have been considered.

Sure, motive has always been a factory in punishment in this country. But the rules need to be equally applied. "Hate crime" is seen by many as something only typically applied to white people, straight people, etc. The "minority" is seldom perceived as potential committer of a hate crime.
 
I hear you Mike, and that is certainly a problem. Certainly race can be a factor in a black on white case, and I'm sure it has been in the past. But this problem is not with the law per se, but with the application. In my experience I haven't really seen the situation you describe, but I'm sure it's out there. I mean, out here at least, I see white people walking through the 'hood' and although I might find it strange, I haven't heard of any violence associated with it. I often see white kids and asian kids shopping on 125th in Harlem, and there's no problem, but I imagine if some kids from Harlem showed up in Benson Hurst for an espresso, things may be a little different.
 
I often see white kids and asian kids shopping on 125th in Harlem, and there's no problem, but I imagine if some kids from Harlem showed up in Benson Hurst for an espresso, things may be a little different.
Click to expand...
The Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that in 1999, there were about 657,008 blackonwhite crimes of violence, as compared to some 91,051 of the whiteonblack variety. The population of whites is approximately 6 times the population of blacks. Doing the math to figure out how much more likely a black person is to commit interracial violence is left as an exercise for the reader.
 
The Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that in 1999, there were about 657,008 blackonwhite crimes of violence, as compared to some 91,051 of the whiteonblack variety. The population of whites is approximately 6 times the population of blacks. Doing the math to figure out how much more likely a black person is to commit interracial violence is left as an exercise for the reader.
Click to expand...

The statistic you state is of no consequence to the discussion at hand. We are talking about racially motivated attacks, not interracial violence.
 
In 1999, lawenforcement agencies nationwide reported a total of 7,876 hate crimes to the FBI, of which 4,295 (or 55 percent) were motivated by racial bias. Because some of those victimizations involved more than one offense (e.g., assault and robbery), the 4,295 incidents actually encompassed 5,240 separate offenses. If we exclude all racially motivated offenses whose perpetrators are categorized as being of "unknown race," and focus specifically on those offenses definitely involving both blacks and whites, we find that blacks were victims of 2,030 racially motivated offenses committed by whites, while whites were victims of 524 racially motivated offenses committed by blacks. Thus whites were responsible for 79.5 percent of these interracial hate crimes, and blacks 20.5 percent.
Click to expand...

I'm sure this is the statistic you meant to quote, right? :rolleyes: :uhoh:
 
I read it. I am not a statistician, nor do I play one on TV. I cannot confirm nor deny the author's conclusions. I never refuted and stats other than the fact that the ones you provided initially were not applicable.
 
Flyboy

Don’t see any thing to refute, other than you don’t like the “modern” definition of racism. Me the only thing I hate more than P.C. speak is semantics. But we are allowing thread drift here, the question is should I be punished more severely for hitting an asianblackhispanicetc. Than I would for hitting an Irishman or an Englishman? And why?
 
Flyboy: I must have missed your post, and I never quoted the definition, I only gave my opinion on the practical application of racism.

One-shot: I don't think anyone here will support the harsher punishment based on race alone. The law only applies (or should apply) when the motive is one based on race.
 
2 cents...

Outside of reviewing the true results of jurisprudence on this issue, my 2 cents on the issue is that a "hate crime" needs to be applied to cases where an association of the crime is directed at that victims race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

So in this case of the thread, it would seem that the accused had to have maybe said slurs or acted on a racial bias to be proven in a court of law. Often I think DA's throw this one at it anyway in certain communities to see if it will stick or not. Anyway, it makes the DA look heroic.

Also on the stats going around, interracial violence does not denote a "hate crime" simply because multi-ethnic people are involved.
 
odyessus said-

"Also on the stats going around, interracial violence does not denote a "hate crime" simply because multi-ethnic people are involved."

I think the point of those stats was to point out that if the majority of crimes is commited black on white rather than white on black, how come you only hear hate crime when a white person commits a violent act against a black person. Is racial motivation what is behind every white on black crime and never or rarely the other way around? I don't think so!
 
Yeah - it's a point of value. Not sure where it can go.

I will mention having spent sometime around Oakland/Richmond California at one time, there is no doubt that I was profiled by my lighter skin tones, clothing, and demeanor. I have piles of stories about those times...

One must be creative when one can't have a CCW. :uhoh:
 
I am against hate crime laws. All they do is further the idea that people of different races, or sexual orrientations are different. Why should the penalty for killing a gay person be worse than a straight person? Or a black person worse than a white person? People are people, period.
 
BostonGeorge

my point is i do not care what the motive is unless it is a defense (like self protection) but if it is a crime i could care less the race or sexual orentation of the actors. you know something about equal protection (and punishment) under the law. oh wait that is a truly unbiased stand how foolish of me! :banghead:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

H
  • Locked
More Positive Press on CCW Use in SW Ohio (Dayton)
Replies
13
Views
520
eagle45
E
V
  • Locked
Two Police Officers Fired For Beating Suspect
Replies
6
Views
629
Vernal45
V
S
  • Locked
An old article from May 2005,but worth discussing the importance of self-defence
Replies
1
Views
694
sterling180
S
D
  • Locked
Police Stop Man Wearing Armored Helmet, Vest In SUV
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
137
Views
8K
cropcirclewalker
C
L
  • Locked
Driven to madness in Phoenix
2
Replies
34
Views
1K
Steel
S
Back
Top