'Knockout Game' Suspect Charged With Hate Crime

Really, most of the victims of the crimes young black men commit are against black folks.

Are they targeting them solely because they are white, if so I agree they should be charged with a Hate Crime or any crime for that matter as long as they are punished.

Ok, but were they charged with a crime?

How is it my fantasy world, I don't remember ever posting were this type of criminal activity is ok.

 

It's impossible for an African American to be racist to a white legitimately, their criminal acts are usually due to the effects of being oppressed in a white mans country, and therefore are reactive rather than proactive as racial intent specifically necessitates before any hate crime can be committed.

Most crimes against whites therefore can't be reliably called hate crimes if the offender was a non white for so said reasons, including those victims of the so-called 'knockout game'.

 

Please show us how Racist Sean Hannity forced his hand.

 

Hate crimes, and not crimes committed.

- - - Updated - - -

According to Al Sharpton you are now both a race-baiter and a racist. Enjoy.

 

It officially did not exist on national level news until Sean spoke up about it. One week later Al Sharpton weighed in on it. Sean forced his hand; because otherwise Sharpton would have continued to ignore it.

 

because the fact is they hardly ever consider white bias by blacks when they victimize white people.

case in point

http://violenceagainstwhites.wordpr...outing-racial-slurs-but-its-not-a-hate-crime/


but you bet your ass had this been white teens attacking a black cab driver and black passenger while yelling racial slurs it would have been instantly a hate crime. BUT blacks always get away with saying racist words while attacking someone of another race much more than a white is allowed to get away with.

 

not when it comes to the knockout game, or better yet "polar bear hunting" .

but yeah its true, blacks do victimize more blacks which makes me wonder when you are going to start giving a damn about cleaning up your own mess. where is your outrage when it comes to that. pretty sad all you care about is the much rarer white on black crime.

they dont call it polar bear hunting for no reason.

yeah, but given a pass on being called a hate crime. had it been white on black it would have been automatic hate crime.

no, but you will go to defend anything blacks do against whites as not racist at all, while anytime a white commits a crime on a black person you pull the race card fastr than Al Sharpton can scream "racism" !!!!!

 

I don't click on white supremacist, white nationalist, or racist websites.

Obviously your earlier statement was not supported by the facts. Clearly, very clearly, as I demonstrated your claim that most hate crimes were agaisnt whites was grossly erroneous.

 

So now you are resorting to scrolling the same right wing talking points which I have debunked numerous times? Nice.

 

What? What on earth does that mean? Are there hate crimes not committed but they are still crimes?

Obviously your earlier claim was demonstrated to be incorrect. I am not sure what on earth the moving of the goalposts in this latest post even means.

 

i just chose the first web site with the story, the same story was covered by many other outlets and news sources and it didnt change the story one bit. you want me too post more of the same story from different sources so you can accept one of them to make it better?

lastly the huge bias of the hate crime legislation is the proof.


here is a source and a study even you cant say is not "biased" ......


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_c...cation_of_crimes_committed_against_Caucasians
Analysis of the 1999 FBI statistics by John Perazzo in 2001 found that white violence against black people was 28 times more likely (1 in 45 incidents) to be labelled as a hate crime than black violence against white people (1 in 1254 incidents).[20] In analysing hate crime hoaxes, Katheryn Russell-Brown propounds a hypothesis explaining the disparity in how hate crimes against whites are viewed with respect to hate crimes against blacks. She hypothesises that the prevailing view in the minds of the public, that hate-crimes-against-blacks hoaxers intend to take advantage of, is that the crime that whites are most likely to commit against blacks is a hate crime, and that it is hard for (in her words) "most of us" to envision a white person committing a crime against a black person for a different reason. The only white people who commit crimes against black people, goes the public belief, are racially prejudiced white extremists. Whereas in contrast, she continues, the situation with hate-crimes-against-whites hoaxers differs, because the popular perception is that black people in general are liable to "run amok, committing depraved, unprovoked acts of violence" against white people.[21]

 

Yes, and your original contention was still incorrect, as I demonstrated with a link.

 

Because they were targeted because of their race.

C'mon, you're better than this.

 

Good, as they should.

Not all black teenagers should be villified, but the black community shouldn't also act as though they don't recognize that they have deep rooted issues within their community.

 

I think so. The victim in the OP was Jewish. Did I miss the hate crime charged against those blacks who attacked non-Jewish whites?

 

You have my deepest sympathies, because no matter how many times you whack a set of inconvenient truths over the head with a shovel they continue returning, chipper and fresh as a daisy. Still I give you full credit for continuing your forlorn efforts. Whack! "Die truth! Die!" Whack! Whack! Whack! Ahhh . . . damn it, why won't they die?!"

 

To simplify your epic intelligence in one sentence: Justice for all or none at all. And I prefer the whole Justice thing .

 

I disagree, this is more then just a assault, this is much more, this is a hate crime..

 

And this example study just blew everything you said away. Mine proves whites are more likely to be charged with a hate crime because of spineless bias from people like you. The hate crime legislation in no way is used equally.

Which was my point the whole time. Blacks gets a free pass when it comes to their equally vile racist actions.

 

Absolutely, and I do believe that we get a bit better at delivering justice for all with each passing decade.

 

Does it "blow away" my demonstration that your statement was grossly incorrect when proven grossly incorrect? Your post was demonstrably wrong, utterly and completely wrong, and proven so. You can move the goalposts to avoid the fact that you were wrong, now claiming it is about hate crime legislation being used "fairly", but your original contention still will not be right.

Spineless? Really? You want to throw out nasty little personal attacks because you were wrong? Because your post was the absolutely opposite of fact? Because it was proven to be wrong publicly?

Why not simply check your facts next time and post what is correct as opposed to name calling when proven wrong? No need to insult me. I did not make you wrong.

 

So you are essentially admitting to trolling now? Interesting.

 

Hey, here I am trying to demonstrate sympathy with your position and you just don't want to know. Gosh . . . had I any feelings you just might have hurt one of them.

 

I've always agreed with that! There shouldn't even be a law that states one race getting attacked is worse than another race getting attacked. It should be judged solely by the crime itself, IMO. BUT since there IS such a law, they must treat it fairly and not just one way.

 

Well, you've admitted to scrolling falsehoods which I have debunked numerous times before. The only conclusion one can draw from that is that you are trolling.