I guess it's only classified a hate crime when the roles are reversed?
It's not their fault. It's generations of oppression by the white man that drives them to do this. The white man should be charged with a hate crime for allowing this to happen.
As a side note, I do like when I stumble across this type of activity. I take great satifaction in teaching shitheads like this a lesson. There is no fealing like smashing someones face that was begging for it to be smashed. Violent bullying drives me absolutly batshit crazy. Probably just psychosis from being picked on in grade school.
that's one sick individual. the part about the husband being shot while trying to save his wife may be the worst part of it.
What is the difference, exactly?
Don't go there.
1) Blacks do get charged with hate crimes (and should).
2) Its up to the prosecutor to decide what the charges will be.
The idea of a "hate crime" is ridiculous. There should be no such laws.
However, being as there are, this had better qualify for one.
I hope someone catches those kids in an alley and shows'em whats up. I'd be fucking furious.
Very definitely. What if everybody here was the same race? Does that make it a love crime? Or even in any way less criminal? What if they would have yelled... whatever it is their gang yells, but it didn't include any reference to race? What if they didn't say anything? The crime is assault and is in no way extra criminal because of why they did it.
Can you give a real life example of blacks being charged with a hate crime for attacking whites with apparent racial motivation? (Serious question. I have never heard of it, but am open to the idea that it may have happened.)
Also, if a person attacks you because you piss him off for whatever odd reason that is no fault of yours and he is a violent person, why is this really a differing crime than him attacking you because you piss him off because of your race and he is a violent person?
I want that person locked up just as long in either case. I don't agree with penalizing his thought process: it his actions that merit imprisonment.
While I agree with this sort of rationale, I think it goes further then this. The real problem with the idea of a "hate crime" is it's too much like "hate speech". Who gets to decide what sort of motivations determine which crimes are hate crimes? Also, who gets to determine what type of speech is hate speech and therefore criminal? Is anti-black speech hate speech? What about ant-islam rhetoric?
If anti-anything rhetoric is potentially hate speech, just how strong does it have to be? Do I have to openly attack or slander the said group, or is just denouncing their beliefs enough? For example, is a pastor standing at the pulpit and saying that homosexuality is a sin hate speech? Some people would say it is.
My point is that I do not trust anyone to get to decide what sorts of views in and of themselves are criminal, and likewise what sorts of motivations for criminal acts deserve harsher punishment. This sort of power is far too open for government abuse, both in suppressing some groups and in manipulating public opinion against others.
It reminds of the line from Wesley Snipes in Demolition Man where he says "you can't take away people's right to be assholes". And you can't. I mean you can if you wanna live in a police state. There is no person on this Earth who is more opposed to genuine racism than myself, but racism cannot be expunged at the point of a statute. Things like hate crimes/speech legislation only serve to perpetuate suspicion and resentment between people many of whom would do much better if left to get to know each other without the state attempting to coerce their reconciliation.
Yip. Every assault or murder is a hate crime. Legally the decision to allow for hate crimes is an attempt to redress past wrongs -- essentially the victim of a hate crime is deemed to be more valuable than the average citizen based on history.
Basic ethics people: The remedy for injustice is not more injustice the other way, but fairness all around.
And as always, I might just be full of shit.
I agree that the idea and concept of a "hate crime" has a lot of Constitutional problems; and personally, I think they ARE ridiculous as a statute.
But the premise of the original post was another one of those "reverse discrimination" arguments/implications.
Those kids need to be punished for whatever they did. Again; what they will be charged with will be up to the prosecutor.
Prosecutors will only file charges that they feel confident they can win. If after looking at the evidence, they will determine what to charge the suspect with. This is why you see manslaughter charges rather than murder on occasion.
Still googling for examples of black on white hate crimes?
You actually see manslaughter A LOT more. With a genuine murder charge, they've got to be able to prove that the crime was premeditated, and that the perpetrator actually had the intent to kill someone. This is a lot more difficult than it sounds.
However, manslaughter could be punching the guy who slapped your girl's ass, but his head hits the deck and he dies. You didn't mean to kill him, but you could've avoided it.
There is such a thing as unpremeditated murder where one party intentionally causes the demise of another minus the malice of forethought.
The funny thing about hate crimes, is that there is much more black on white crime as opposed to white on black crime. Black on black is the highest, with white on black being much lower than either.
I have never heard of a minority being charged with a hate crime. I'd like to see 10 cases outlined. I know there are a few hundred at least every year reported. In the town where I practice there is a possibility of a hate crime. I will go into details later.
And it's stupid here when you know the details.