Gang attacks only Whites - charges dismissed.

"Whites call police, they have no fear of the juvenile, if they target African Americans, they get family together and retaliate."

Turn about is fair play. But if a group of whites were to retaliate, it becomes a hate crime.

The way ammo is being gobbled up all over the America I'm thinking the "McFarlan Boys" and others of their ilk are going to be on the endangered species list soon. Too bad. So sad.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Motherfuckers.

Who wants to start a gang with me? We'll hunt them down and kill them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I need no gang , I've got everything I need to defend myself from anyone. I just do not go into places where I know trouble lurks and the dregs of society like to hang out.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Twentieth-century chic is so passe

Wow, race baiting? Really? In the twenty-first century?

Here, let's review, just so there is no question about it:

"Gang attacks only Whites - charges dismissed"​

And from the article linked in the topic post:

When the 18-year-old victim failed to show up for the boys’ trial in Hamilton County Juvenile Court, Magistrate Elizabeth Igoe dismissed the case against his co-defendants, who also faced robbery charges. Igoe said charges could be re-filed if the witness decides to go forward with the case.

(Coolidge)​

___________________

Notes:

Coolidge, Sharon. "Charges Against Youths Dismissed". Cincinnati Enquirer. April 30, 2009. Cincinatti.com. Accessed May 2, 2009. http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090430/NEWS0107/905010333

 

Amazing how that works, isn't it?

 

No. If the retaliation was immediate it might be self-defense. If it happened later it would be, well, mere retaliation or vigilantism. It would be easy to show that retaliation was the motive and not race.

Having a victim who is of another race is not enough to make something a hate crime.

 

I really disapprove of the phrase 'hate crime' as if other crimes were somehow less serious. Crime is crime even if they are motivated out of prejudice

 

Matters of context and perspective

Well, that seems to depend on how we look at motivations in general. For instance, why would I choose a certain victim? Easy target? Fine. I can always be wrong, right? That one might have a keen eye, an itchy finger, and a gun big enough to leave no question. But because the target was even born?

And there is also a question of what the crime says.

I might mug a guy in a nice suit because I expect him to be carrying cash and valuables, and even the scantest casing of the target suggests he'll be compliant. What does that really say to rich people, though? Anything? Rich people aren't the only ones mugged.

I might target a particular car because it's easy to open and start. What does that say to people who own that car?

I might drag a guy behind my pickup truck until he dies because he's a fucking nigger.

What does that say to black people?

Hate crimes are viewed, by this perspective, as occurring in a context somewhere between mundane crime and outright terrorism. Which does suggest an alternative: Get rid of hate crime charges and sentencing schedules, and when something meets the criteria of a hate crime, charge it under the relevant terror statute.

 

I was more concerned about this act of cowardice Their victims included a 5-foot-1, 130-pound deaf woman they followed out the Westwood library.

 

And I would favor the death penalty for such behavior, regardless of the motivation. I don't care if the victim is black. I don't care if the criminal committed his crime because of the race of the victim, or because he didn't like the cut of the guy's jib. Would you, having declared the dragging to death a hate crime, suggest a more severe penalty than death?

 

A painful death?

Given that I would not suggest a death penalty in the first place ...?

Most assaults or murders originate in some other context. The philosophy behind the hate crime designation recognizes a specific, compounding element in the hate crime. Vandalism? Assault? Murder? Any of these crimes has its own effect on the community in general, and on various subgroups in particular.

But in addition to these effects, the hate crime carries an implicit weight of threat against an entire group of people.

For instance an assault:

Common assault:

You deserve to get your ass kicked for ...

... sleeping with my wife.
... always letting your dog shit on my lawn and never cleaning it up.
... selling crack to children.
... spilling your beer on me.
... being an asshole.
... being a bitch.​

Hate crime:

You deserve to get your ass kicked for ...

... being a nigger.
... being a the wrong religion.
... being a Mexican from Guatemala.
... sleeping with men.
... not sleeping with men.
... wearing women's clothes.
... wearing men's clothes.​

A cross burning on a lawn doesn't just threaten the people whose lawn it is. The graffiti on the synagogue doesn't just threaten the rabbi. A gang rape to punish a lesbian doesn't just threaten its victim. A baseball bat to a cabbie's skull doesn't just threaten that particular Ethiopian immigrant.

Looking like an easy target is not the same as being born black or female or Jewish or whatever. I mean, we have people up here who are smarting because a Christian should have to show respect to an opponent in a Judo tournament. I understand that people in the empowered majority suffer these sorts of hatreds, too. But you know, majorities are usually disgraceful pussies about such things.

Oh, and there is a difference between, say, the shitty public service we all get from our institutions, and the shitty public service certain minorities get.

So, yeah, I sympathize. I've been hearing a lot lately from white people about how they're oppressed. So, yeah, I get it. And it's still something completely different.

Knowing that there are people out there specifically looking for you, aiming to fulfill the proposition that you should suffer essentially for the crime of being born, is way different than simply recognizing that it's a dangerous world out there.

Look, the last time I had to face it was before I was born. And I suppose if I actually drank in those bars more, the ricin threat earlier this year would have rattled me a little more. But, yeah, I live in a fairly progressive region and right now it's sport to actually drive into Capitol Hill, Seattle, and go gay bashing. Gays are getting beaten for being gay in their own neighborhood right now.

To the other, as I never date these days, it's not a problem for me. I can either feel this heat or not. But that's a fairly unique luxury.

Yes, there's a difference between the types of crimes. And, yes, once you've rushed to the end, what else is there to do? I guess maybe we could torture them. Or maybe it's not an option. Maybe the bad guys will force us to torture them.

 

And I think that's really, really well-said, Tiassa. I'll cease singing your praises, but that's pretty much the embodiment of a hate crime.

 

Ditto.
I've finally found the first ever post by Tiassa that I like. Maybe it's 'cause I'm high right now...

Seriously though, well-put, T.

 

Stop wearing short skirts and you won't get raped.
Amazing how that works.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

How's that relate? I'm saying I don't hang out in bad areas alone because it's sensible. If I had to be in a bad area, that doesn't entitle people to harm me.

No one is saying mugging is okay.

 

You're just saying that because you like to rape mug people. Anything to beat people up and steal their money, huh?

Of course not. But one is more ok than the other.
Why?
Because black people don't know any better?
Because all cops are racist sociopaths?

 

I really don't understand the difficulty here ....

Probably helps.

• • •​

To reiterate: Looking like an easy target is not the same as being born black or female or Jewish or whatever.

Likewise, looking like a tempting target is not the same as being born black, female, Jewish, &c.

Here, let's use an example that doesn't involve a white person. Will that help?

Anyone remember Gary Payton? A premiere basketball player with strong northwest roots, having played his college ball at Oregon State and defining himself in the NBA with the Seattle Supersonics. And also a bit of an attitude problem, sometimes, but I digress.

Payton, in his early years as a pro, returned home to Oakland, the local boy made good. And he got mugged. In his own neighborhood. And as much as fans adored "The Glove", everyone had the same question: Now tell us, Gary ... you dressed up in a thousand-dollar suit and ten times that in gold jewelry, went for a walk in a neighborhood known to have a difficult crime rate, and ... well, why?" Essentially, the guy went swaggering around in his fine clothes and glittering rope, and got held up.

And everyone said, "Well, what did you expect?"

(It's a familiar argument, eh? One we've encountered in other contexts.)

The thing is that he made a point of looking rich. So, really. You case two people at a cash machine. One is dressed in ratty jeans and a flannel shirt, and carries a backpack with a peace sign pinned onto it. The other is dressed in a Brooks Brothers suit, expensive Italian shoes, and is flashing a Rolex.

Which is the more attractive target? So you end up mugging a drama queen wrapped up in psychological overcompensation, getting a fake Rolex and a hundred bucks for your troubles. If you'd gone after the hippie, you might have picked off three hundred dollars and some weed. Turns out he's in a really popular band.

If a person meets certain criteria—should have something worth stealing, maybe looks like easy prey for a beating—those are practical issues. If a person meets certain other criteria—being a nigger or spick or faggot, for instance—those are of considerably different character.

White people are less likely to go on a vendetta? That's a fairly practical consideration inasmuch as it might be true. One could look really foolish guessing wrongly, of course.

 

These whites were being targeted because whites make tempting targets, since they don't retaliate. How is that different than targeting blacks because blacks are criminals or arabs because they're terrorists?

Both cases stereotypes are being made based on the color of someone's skin. These white people had no choice in being born white and are being targeted by a gang purely because their whiteness is correlated with not retaliating, just like blackness is correlated with violent crime, or arabness is correlated with international terrorism.

Black people are more likely to sell crack. Do I need to break out all the crime statistics showing that racial profiling has practical considerations?

 

Not that tough to figure out

What, you can't tell the difference?

• Whites: Selected for presumption of behavior.
• Blacks: Selected for being born with dark skin.​

Really, it's not that tough to figure out.

 

lets not lose sight of the fact that they were around 12 years old.