Black man charged with hate crime against white victim during the "knockout game."

Yep the knock-out game suddenly gets national attention when Jewish White folks start getting assaulted......

 

It's fun watching someone try to shoot a .454 Casull as if they had control. Another status gun for guys who like to show off at the range.

 

I believe I have been clear that we are talking about this 'knockout' game, not other crimes, and I have seen no evidence that any non-Jewish white victim's case had a hate crime attached. You're sad attempts to deflect this to other crimes is noted...

 

Lets review your statement.

 

minorities have been charged with hate crimes against white people.



Donald Altschiller, librarian at Boston University, asserts that hate crimes against Caucasians are hate crimes as much as any other. "Hate crime laws are colorblind", he states.[citation needed] Although there are fewer hate crimes directed against Caucasians than against other groups, they do occur and are prosecuted.[17] In fact, the case in which the Supreme Court upheld hate crimes legislation against First Amendment attack, Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993), involved a white victim. Hate crime statistics published in 2002, gathered by the FBI under the auspices of the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990, documented over 7,000 hate crime incidents, in roughly one-fifth of which the victims were white people.[18] However, these statistics have caused dispute. The FBI's hate crimes statistics for 1993, which similarly reported 20% of all hate crimes to be committed against white people, prompted Jill Tregor, executive director of Intergroup Clearinghouse, to decry it as "an abuse of what the hate crime laws were intended to cover", stating that the white victims of these crimes were employing hate crime laws as a means to further penalize minorities

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_c...cation_of_crimes_committed_against_Caucasians

 

I think the police who don't have desk jobs take all assaults seriously. It's just that there is a lot of political pressure to keep the percentage of Black people down in our prisons. The reason we have been given for this is that imprisoning young Black men just creates more Black criminals by preventing them from being employable when they get out.

The cop on the street has to follow what his boss tells him, just like his boss has to do what the Mayor and City Council tell him if he wants to keep his job. And that trend has been to downplay all but the most egregious violence committed by Black people. And unless the city wants a visit from Eric Holder to straighten them out they will follow his guidelines:

http://supportyourlocalgunfighter.com/2009/07/eric-holders-selective-hate-crimes-act

And what Mr. Holder wants is for the Hate Crimes Law to be applied to historical victims. In the USA that seems to translate to persons of Jewish persuasion and Black people.

 

Indeed, we can review how you can take a narrowly focused discussion and start broadening it to fit some deflective agenda. No problem...

 

whites have been victims of hate crimes, and their attackers prosecuted for hate crimes.

 

of course they have, but once again there is no arguing with facts.A white who attacks a black is MUCH more likely to be charged with a hate crime then the reverse.

 

You've just found something else to thank Jews, for without them America would not have noticed this epidemy...

 

any time someone uses a racial slur while attacking someone unprovoked, hate crime charges are filed.

 

What does that have to do with ANYTHING, well unless of course you are trying to imply that whites use racial slurs while attacking blacks more often than blacks use racial slurs while attacking whites, which would be completely inconsistent with any actual evidence we see.

 

the use of a racial slur is good evidence of a hate crime.

no racial slur + robbery = just a robbery.

 

I ask again, what the hell is your point. Are you really trying to say that whites use racial slurs while attacking blacks more often than blacks use racial slurs while attacking whites? yes or no?

 

In this and similar instances, it is the racist white man, not the humble and mistreated black that should be charged and punished for committing a hate crime.

It is tantamount to entrapment or a police sting. White men, because of centuries of unspeakable crimes and abuse against black men, provoke black men to understandably take payback and revenge against the white men. For black men these are natural impulses and acts of passion with no malice aforethought.

Due to past and present social injustices committed by the white man against the black man, the black man should be able to take passionate revenge on the white man ... with utter impunity!

Place your comment within the space provided below:

/_____/

Gracias

 

Trayvon Martin frowns at this post.

"Human beings in a mob
What's a mob to a king?
What's a king to a God?
What's a God to a non-believer, who don’t believe in anything?
We make it out alive...
All right, all right.
No church in the wild."

 

Well, its no surprise many bigots ARE "that stupid". Bigotry is certainly often based on ignorance and gullibility.

Also, many times the attack or crime ZIS a conspiracy, often not to just attack a particular victim, but the ENTIRE CLASS of victims. Burning a cross in front of the newly moved in black family's house is not just meant to intimidate and drive away THAT family, but ANY AND ALL black families in the neighborhood or ones that may want to move into the neighborhood. Its no longer a crime with ONE victim, it has MANY intended victims, and deserves a worse punishment.

Its yours and the Right's mistaken obsession with the term "hate" (a nickname term) in the description of these laws, which are not about "hate" against an individual, but the USE of violence and terrorism against an ENTIRE CLASS of citizens.

The law can be enforced with any of the evidence that such bigots leave behind - written or verbal discussions with other people about their desire and goals to attack and intimidate blacks/gays/Whitey'whatever, bragging, statements or acts made at the crime (often done as macabre torture/mutilation/intimidation acts). The POINT of the crimes is often, a side from the satisfaction of damaging the objects of your bigotry is to post a PUBLIC WARNING to other members of that group what awaits them fif they don;t get away, lay low, become "straight" or whatever scumbag idiocies the bigots desire.

Do you know ANYTHING about actual hate crime law? Have you EVER bothered to get the first clue what they are in reality????

Generally, a "hate crime" is NOT a standalone crime, its something that can INCREASE the penalty for other crimes, such as assault, rape or intimidation. The same as killing someone with your car can increase from speeding ticket or manslaughter to murder if it can be shown you INTENDED to hit your victim with the car! ANOTHER "thought crime"! What idiot is going to admit to PLANNING to run down somebody? Yet convictions occur nonetheless.

With hate crimes. we are TALKING about someone who has committed a crime BECAUSE of their bigotry towards the particular named group, or picked the victim to advance their intimidation against a particular named group specified in the law!

That is what a hate crime IS, which has nothing to do with these weird Glenn Beckian ideas you keep repeating.

So increasing penalties for people who are intending to intimidate a whole group of people with a particular crime is "absurd"? A little study of history wouldn't hurt either.

 

Actually, most prosecutors will not charge a hate crime enhancement on a assault based ONLY on a racial slur made during the attack.

Hate crime laws require a premeditated and planned attack on the targeted group, merely using an racial or sexual obscenity or epithet does not provide adequate evidence of that intent.

 

wrong.

using ethnic language while assaulting someone is evidence of a hate crime and is the basis for many hate-crime prosecutions.

 

That's correct. Just uttering a slur isn't enough to garner an enhanced charge. Normally.

 

I notice that if the whites are gay---it pretty much is consider a hate crime. In this instance http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/l...ized-After-Gay-Couple-Attacked-163475546.html No gay slurs...just attacked. The funny thing is....they were probably targeted because they were white. Not gay. But they were gay so...automatic hate crime.

 

You're wrong, as usual

If you get in a fight with a black man and just spontaneously call him a "ni%%er during said fight, for example that does NOT qualify as a hate crime.

 

How does one determine who is or isn't intimidated by actions in which have no direct effect upon them? Should I personally feel intimidated by a hate crime committed upon a white person 100 miles away? 10 miles away? At what distance would such intimidation reach? What if I simply don't feel intimidated by the action at all? Who decides such a thing? Who would you or anyone else be to determined I SHOULD be intimidated?

How does one even prove someone is or isn't intimidated by an action that does not directly effect them?

We need to leave the voodoo science at the door and actually just convict people of the crimes they commit against their victims for the actions in which they commit, not toss in arbitrary concepts like far reaching intimidation or fear that cannot be proven in a courtroom...

 

Your example shows nothing. The crime has no obvious motivation other than it was by a gang against two men holding hands, no robbery, a possible hate crime may have occurred.

It says a hate crime "investigation" is in process. No statements or conclusions, no charges, no accusations of hate crimes from the DA or police.

 

Do you not notice how differently this case was handled? The police are TREATING it as a HATE CRIME. From the get go. If the young men were not gay------it would be seen as simply an assault. That is obvious based on how these other cases are being treated.