Fox: It's Extraordinary That Charleston Church Shooting Is Being Called a Hate Crime

A "culture of racism" exists. Sure does ! A white is 7 times more likely to be assaulted by a black than a black by a white. That includes murders, rapes, all violent crimes. As horrible as this massacre in the church was, if the measure of racism is inter-racial crime, then the black community owns it.

 

The issue is not inter-racial crime. It's violence due to racism. In the vast majority of violent crimes, race plays no role. In the church shooting, it did. get it now?

 

How loony. There is no doubt that Roof wanted to kill blacks. Not in dispute. However, as I noted with inter-racial crime, that being one color victimizing another, which is used as a basis to demonstrate deep-seated racism against blacks when the victim(s) are black, and the perp(s) white, that such analysis shows an enormous depth of racism, black on white, and it is not close to which ever metric comes in second.

Get this Crat. You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts.

 

And I've already addressed this, which you patently ignore in favor of your myopic viewpoint: http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=413351&p=1065120883#post1065120883

 

Stop acting silly.....I've just given you a link that demonstrates how this issue has been addressed by legal and historical scholars a hell of a lot more versed on the subject than you or I. You're just irritated that it renders your personal interpretations irrelevant.

 

So, what you are saying is that the people of that time were stupid and misused "well regulated" in their everyday use of the English language and the anti-gun liberal lawyers and judges of modern times know exactly what they meant to say?

 

It's a fact regarding "privateers" (organized groups or businesses), NOT the INDIVIDUAL FARMER, NOT the INDIVIDUAL SHOE MAKER, BLACKSMITH, TAVERN OWNER, ETC., ETC. to go and buy a cannon, as you compadres have asserted. See, you gunners love to make generalized statements, but when pressed you can't produce EXACTLY what you claim. Do your research as to how the militia were regulated during colonial times, especially regarding weapon storage. If you're honest, you'll see the error in your assertions.

 

A privateer is a private citizen. They were the shoe makers, blacksmiths, tavern owners, etc...

They were given permission by the government to kill the enemy and blow enemy stuff up.

 

With a few discrepancies, I concur.

 

There was no regulated militias. At least in the National Guard of today's model. There were armed citizens, who were familiar with hunting and shooting skills of a soldier that were duly bound as citizens of the communities they lived in to take up 'their' arms and follow the leadership of an appointed military representative when ever the need to take out the enemy, both foreign or domestic, had arisen. Then go back to the local tavern and down a pint or two before returning back to work in the profession they normally did.

Nobody was meeting regularly, playing war games or doing short order drills, as those words seem to envision incorrectly.

 

Spare me all this smoke & mirrors, Tex. You couldn't disprove what I stated regarding the SC church shooting, so you moved the goalpost and was disproved AGAIN with FACTS. Now you just throw anything against the wall is some sort or warped justification through association ploy. Sorry, but the intelligent and rational reader sees through you, as I do.

- - - Updated - - -

As asked for factual proof of your claim, NOT more of your opinion. Clearly, you can't produce it, so you continue to blow smoke. If you can't meet a simple burden of proof, then I won't waste time responding to you.

 

Wow, that is the LAMEST excuse I've ever gotten from posters who are too intellectually dishonest to admit when I've proven them wrong on a subject or to even concede a point. See ya around, son.

 

yeah, a white kid cranking on Rhodesia, apartheid, the Confederate flag is so upset that a black man is in office, he just lost it. Nope, no racism in America....unless one READS: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-a-bridge-over-americas-racial-divide/383649/

- - - Updated - - -

And when I ask for verification, that doesn't mean your opinion or your personal recollections. If all you're going to do is stall and blow smoke, then I'll just IA you as a waste of time.

 

the point is and will be that degrees of murder sentencing is based on the determined degree of the crime. That is the point you and your compadre fail to accept.

 

You can go around sucking your own dick in victory if it makes you feel better about yourself, but I am not wasting my (*)(*)(*)(*)ing time editing your lazy posts on a phone.

 

Sorry, I'm not going to hunt on Youtube for video clips of every case of white on black crime and watch as its called a hate crime, while black on white crime has no such connotation. You're being amazingly dishonest or never watch the news, if you think the media treats these cases the same. Crap the Zimmerman shooting was a hate crime when he was Jewish, then they backed off. Then he was Hispanic and it sort of wasn't. Then he was a white Hispanic and it was a hate crime again. Any time a white cop shoots someone black, its racist(hate crime), but when black cops shoot white guys.....crap you just can't find any news on that=) Yet, it happens.

 

Uh all that made no sense whatsoever.

 

Selective ignorance. I know you well. White on black crime gets far more press than black on white crime. You know it, we all know it. What makes no sense is denying reality.

 

Please, tell ME that they couldn't. I already gave you examples but you have chosen to ignore because it doesn't fit your fantasy. No wonder liberalism is a mental disorder.

 

You are not understanding me, but lets start at the top.


The speculation goes to motive, yes, but as the word speculation means... it is only theory or conjecture. Nothing is absolute. Given that the victims are black and that it happened in a church, it is reasonable to conclude either or both possibilities prior to any witness tesitmonies. How the cops operate holds no baring on how people specualte about situations and if anything, given the stigma surrounding cops right now, it makes sense to think in contrast of what the cops think. However, when I first heard about it (at the time), I had not seen or read anything from the officers at the time. I was at work when I heard about it and admittedly didn't have much to any time to do any real investigation myself. Now again, with all of this said, it is now clearly a racially motivated crime. There is no arguing that. However, at the time that I was hearing about it, there was no information from the cops or the witnesses... or even about the victims yet. Nonetheless, my point is that early on speculation is just that, nothing more. And again, there is no denying the racism now.

Now on to your clip... To be honest, I don't like Doocy, so I don't watch him. However, I did watch your clip. The clip you presented hardly showed them working "very hard to discredit the idea that the attack was initially racially motivated". Perhaps you are influenced by your ideology, but since I am new here and don't know you (or how you post) I will assume that we may have a difference of opinion of what constitutes "working very hard" to produce a specific outcome or train of thought. Not to mention that the black pastor on the show was the one that suggested the attack could have been against them because they are Christians. To which Doocy eventually responds saying that may be a 'good point'. However, even with that Doocy and even given the fact that I do not like Doocy, he CLEARLY states that they (or he) has not been given information or been made aware of any specifics. I forget the actual quote, but he clearly states that thought in the clip you showed. Furthermore, MMFA is a clearly biased organization... now that does not make them wrong, but they do have their own agenda hence attempting to discredit a rival (in the sense of ideology) outlet when they state that they haven't been given definitive information yet rather than MMFA releasing actual news.

Third comment, I have read the shooters manifesto. It clearly outlines him as a racist, however that was not my point by my comment and here I think lies the real misunderstanding that I stated at the top of this post. The point of my comment was to say that a white person killing a black person does not AUTOMATICALLY make it a hate crime, it does not make it racist. In this case, yes, it was absolutely racist. But no one should jump to conclusions that it is anything other than what it currently is. If a white person intentionally kills a black person, it is murder... if the white person admits that it is because he hates black people, it is THEN known to be racially motivated or a hate crime. So just because there have been racist motivations in that region before, does not mean that it HAD to be racially motivated. Again, in this case it was, but it does not default to that.

 

I don't have to be....I merely linked to the STATE & FEDERAL APPROVED/SANCTIONED militias on record. Too bad you have neither the intellectual courage or capacity to acknowledge such.

 

translation: JWBLACK was taken to task and has neither the intellectual honesty or courage to concede a point or directly discuss valid, factual material presented that contradicts his assessments. No further point in my responding to him.

 

Actually, this case has been so big because of it actually being done because of race and the fact that it was done in a church to little old women. That's just a bigger story than your average black on white crime. Why is that hard to understand?

 

You keep inserting your silly scenarios against what is actually stated. The driver's license is the track and the subsequent limitation....anything above that requires a doctor's prescription. You don't go with a friend, as you put forth. A similar tact can be used for firearms.

Oh, and regarding assault weapons, here's what you left out from your source: A New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services study of homicides in 1993 in New York City found that
assault weapons were involved in 16% of the homicides studied.


A study by the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services reviewed the files of 600 firearm murders that occurred in 18 jurisdictions from 1989 to 1991. The study found that hand-
guns were used in 72% of the murders (431 murders). Ten guns were identified as assault weapons, including five pistols, four rifles, and one shotgun.

Now I don't know about you, but I prefer a 0 tolerance approach to prevention of deaths by assault weapons. Carry on.

 

Once again, you IGNORE legal statutes as described in the link in favor or your own personal interpretation. No one gives a damn about what you THINK the law should be, Joseph....that you couldn't logically and factually prove your point is the issue. You can stubbornly hold onto your beliefs, the rest of the world will stick to the facts. You can have the last word, because I'm not going to waste more time on your insipid stubbornness.