Thread: Philly: Teens in cab attack will not be charged with hate crimes

Originally Posted by texmaster

LOL You didn't come close to proving intent on his side. Why? BECAUSE YOU CANT READ HIS MIND.

Don't you get it? Thats why hate crime law is so STUPID. You can't prove what is in people's minds. These kids also threw racial slurs at this guy and beat him up. How do you know their intent wasn't racial? You don't and that's why you loose the argument.

Yes we can prove what was in the mind of the Santa Ana attacker's mind when he attacked the Hispanic woman!

He SHOUTED IT OUT LOUD!

If it is STRICTLY "in his mind", then it is not a hate crime because there is no way to prove it.

The two teenagers in this thread did NOT make threats in that regard, and thus are not (provably) guilty of a hate crime!

Our legal system is BASED on "thought crimes". You can't convict someone of 1st degree murder without PROVING they INTENDED to kill the person they murdered. If you can't PROVE that, then it is 2nd degree murder, or manslaughter.

The article was quite clear that they couldn't prove the racial aspect to get a hate crime charge to stick. Plenty of other crimes will be charged, though, but there was no proof they were going after a particular race.

If they had somebody who, two blocks before, heard them say 'We're going to beat somebody up because they're white, brown or purple,' it might be different."

Originally Posted by Zook

Ohhhh I see... so these Mexicans should definitely be charged with hate-crimes then based on that philosophy...

They could be - IF they were attacking or threatening to attack white people at the time or later.

But they weren't assaulting whites. They were just talking. No "hate crime".

You need to have an ASSAULT involved along with the racially targeted threat.

But they won't.

Because heterosexual White people are the victims.

What "victims"? Were the protesters assaulting, raping, murdering?

Nope. You need to have BOTH the assault AND the threats.

The double standards of anti-racists are hilarious...

The lack of ability of the poor oppressed straight white males to understand the simple concept of an assault AND the threat are needed for hate crimes.

I am sorry minorities do not seem to be assaulting "straight white males" AND telling them to "go home to Europe" very much.

Well, maybe you will get lucky soon, eh?

Originally Posted by fiddlerdave

No, they wouldn't. You need more than the use of racial slurs to substantiate a hate crime.

If they said they were robbing ONLY white cab drivers to keep white drivers out of their neighborhood, then that would be a hate crime.

That's utter nonsense.

The fact is that hate crimes were conceived to use against whites and now liberals have to jump through hoops to justify the racial double standard they practice when blacks misbehave.

Originally Posted by Mac-7

That's utter nonsense.

The fact is that hate crimes were conceived to use against whites and now liberals have to jump through hoops to justify the racial double standard they practice when blacks misbehave.

Yeah, Dave is going to break his back with those types of contortions.



"That is not a hate crime"

_


_

Originally Posted by DonGlock26

Yeah, Dave is going to break his back with those types of contortions.
_

Originally Posted by MAc-7

That's utter nonsense.

The fact is that hate crimes were conceived to use against whites and now liberals have to jump through hoops to justify the racial double standard they practice when blacks misbehave.

So it is a "contortion" to claim that a hate crime needs to consist of TWO factors: An assault (The "Crime") AND a stated indication that the MOTIVE for the crime is BASED on and against the PARTICULAR RACE, SEX, religious group, etc. of the victim.

So, if an assailant says "I am going to kill/rob/beat you, Whitey!", that is not enough for a hate crime. It is simply an epithet and description of the ONE person being attacked!

If an assailant says "I am going to kill/rob/beat ALL of you Whities", that IS a hate crime because the assailant indicates his attack is against White people as a group!

And he has to SAY it, or be in a group that espouses it, or some other clear indicator to satisfy a reasonable doubt that the attack meets the criteria. If a white guy is a member of Stormfront that espouses killing/driving out/deporting ALL minorities, for instance, and he attacks a minority, he has a good chance fof getting a hate crime charge. The same is true of a black guy in a group that espouses driving ALL whites back to Europe who attacks a White person.

It is a fair law, and there have been NO examples of it being used unfairly against Whites posted on this board.

Originally Posted by DonGlock26

Yeah, Dave is going to break his back with those types of contortions.



"That is not a hate crime"

_


_

That picture illustrates the liberal position on hate crimes perfectly.

But it is almost impossible to shame a liberal by pointing out THEIR hypocrisy so don't hold your breath waiting for them to reform.

Originally Posted by DonGlock26

Thursday, February 2, 2012

Teens in cab attack will not be charged with hate crimes

Three juveniles who allegedly assaulted a cab driver and his passenger in Center City Saturday night while shouting racial slurs will not be charged with a hate crime, according to the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office.

The teens, who are black, were not charged with hate crimes because there was no evidence that the assault was motivated by the victims' race, said Tasha Jamerson, district attorney spokeswoman. Just shouting racial epithets during the commission of a crime doesn't rise to the level of ethnic intimidation, she said.

"They just didn't have that in this case," she said. "If they had somebody who, two blocks before, heard them say 'We're going to beat somebody up because they're white, brown or purple,' it might be different."

However, the three teens - two of whom are 17 and one who is 15 - have all been hit with additional counts of aggravated assault, simple assault, conspiracy and recklessly endangering another person after the passenger in the cab, Brian Goldman, came forward Monday.

Around 8:30 p.m. Saturday, Goldman was in a cab that was stopped at a red light at 15th and Chestnuts when he and his 53-year-old cab driver were assaulted at random. Goldman escaped but the cab driver was able to flag down officers who nabbed the teens.

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/d...mpid=124488459

This is an injustice. If whites called blacks racial slurs as they assaulted them, they would certainly be charged with hate crimes. Tasha Jamerson's bosses need to be fired.

_

It's a one way street Don. Justice for yee but not for thee.

You mean this guy?

Originally Posted by fiddlerdave

You need to have an ASSAULT involved along with the racially targeted threat.

Dave,
According to the FBI.gov website, of 5,136 hate crimes in a recent year:
40% were simple assault

35% were intimidating their victims

24% were aggravated assault

The 35% were convicted of hate crimes without any assault. This seems to disprove your point.

This is an injustice. If whites called blacks racial slurs as they assaulted them, they would certainly be charged with hate crimes.

We are still waiting for an example of this, other than the hysterical imaginations of "oppressed" Whiny White Men.

Originally Posted by Mac-7

That picture illustrates the liberal position on hate crimes perfectly.

But it is almost impossible to shame a liberal by pointing out THEIR hypocrisy so don't hold your breath waiting for them to reform.

They know they look stupid and that no one is buying their BS.

_