DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: kimba1 on July 08, 2016, 02:40:52 AM
-
last night I thought it`s looking bad for police. now I`m thinking is BLM gonna have explain this or say not my problem. any bets it`s gonna be the later?
-
There was a peaceful protest going on , with police monitoring the demonstrations reasonably.
This was the story in fifty cities.
Whether Black Lives Matter is right or wrong , their peaceful protest skills were getting better.
I place my bet on this shooter being an outsider to them.
-
The problem is that there is a bad gun with a gun and all we have is useless guys with guns not rising to the occasion as per their own narrative about how useful it is for them to have guns.
Having a gun, being Black and getting stopped for a broken taillight used to present no problems when some idiot cop went off. But now there are cameras everywhere.
Again, the more guns there are, the more people are going to get shot.
-
People with CCW's are not trained to go after "bad guns with guns". That's law enforcement's job. Pepple with CCW's are trained to defend themselves and loved ones if a bad gun with a gun suddenly opened fired. In fact, you seem to be arguing the opposite point....that there need to be MORE CCW carriers, in order to be in more locations where when something like this happens, they can be more likely present, to potentially stop such ambush style attacks
So the only "problem" here is the mindset that the Democrats have facilitated, in which one no longer has to respect anyone in law enforcement, that you are entitled to to ignore police commands, and that any acts taken upon the police are wholly justified
Again, the more this mindset exists, the more people are going to get shot
-
People with CCW's are not trained to go after "bad guns with guns".
Than Why did Wayne LaPierre make that statement about how the only thing that would stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun?
I hardly think he was advocating arming the police. That would be futile, as the police are already armed. All you do in this forum is crow about how people with guns prevent gun crimes. But then you say that stopping giun crimes is the cops' job. Make up your fucking mind, sirs.
-
In Minnesota, the driver told the cop he had a gun and a permit, just like you.
And he still got shot and killed.
His gun certainly did not make him safer, did it?
I am sure you will be rooting for the cop.
Another "unfortunate accident" Like Freddy Grey, whose spine was broken in three places, after he was arrested for possession of a legal pocketknife.
Baltimore awarded his family $4.6 million. Why did they do that if he was guilty and the cops acted appropriately?
-
Once again, demonstrating your idiocy and embracement of being an ass. I realize you've pretty much condemned any officer of being a racist murderer, any time a black person is shot or killed in police custody.
Never mind the facts that no more than 4% of people shot and killed by a white police officer are Black.
Never mind that the facts of the shootings in Minnesota and Lousiana haven't been fully provided to the general population.
Never mind that the initial video of the Minnesota shooting demonstrates an officer that reacted extremely improperly, and likely should be brought up on charges.
Naaa, let's just jump to every fricken pre-judgemental conclusion, and throw in a gun control rant to boot that does absolutely squat at preventing such police officer assasinations
-
Once a person is in police custody, unless they are officially sentenced to death, then the cops are indeed responsible for whatever happens to them, because they have no way of being responsible for themselves. That is entirely correct. This includes them committing suicide as well.
-
No one should get killed for a broken taillight.
Since I have no control over what happens in these cases, I am simply awaiting all the facts to come out like everyone else.
Possible police malfeasance in LA and MN are no justification for snipers shooting cops in Dallas.
-
Of course no one should get killed for a broken tail light. News flash...NO ONE SHOULD GET KILLED IN POLICE CUSTODY, OR EVEN STOPPED BY THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. Accidents happen, especially when folks don't comply to officer commands, and when officers over step their bounds, they should be held accountable.....BY DUE PROCESS, NOT BY MOB MENTALITY
Its precisely THAT mob mentality that gave these thugs the notion they were justified in executing police officers, and NOT some access to guns.
And no, you're not waiting for any facts...you've already tried and judged every officer of murder, when it happens to some black, and damn any facts to the contrary
-
My issue with BLM is brought up here %4 killed by white police are black . Im not saying 4% is a acceptable loss but that the 96% gets no coverage to anything near that level. This started as a police abuse situation but turned to a racial issue under a very thinly veiled police abuse issue . The sniper is not directly caused by BLM . But is the second time a police killing is obviously spurned by these protest.
-
My issue with BLM is brought up here %4 killed by white police are black . Im not saying 4% is a acceptable loss but that the 96% gets no coverage to anything near that level.
BINGO!! If the only media spectrum were the MSM, you'd think those #'s were reversed. In reality, race relations are worse, NOT because of supposed "racist cops", but by a culture that continues to teach their youth, that there's no need to respect ANY cops. That a command on the Police's part, is arguably racist in nature, and so you're justified in not obeying....or worse, resisting. THAT's when tragic accidents occur. NOT because a cop is bent on killing some black, but because they're having to deal with a growing population of blacks who have been conditioned to believe they are victims of their economic/social condition, and that its the white man's fault, giving their actions supposed justification
For instance, the Minnesota officer who whot the black, appears to have been completely in the wrong. And yet, with the growing drumbeat of BLM folks calling for death to cops, especially white cops, an officer may react poorly to a situation, where someone is legally armed.
But more to Kimba's point....the 94% of those shot and killed by white cops, are not black. And the number of those instances, as a % of the millions of contacts officers make in a day, demonstrate just how few are shot and killed. The media all but ignore the black on black shootings, that headline Chicago on a daily basis. I just read of some black killing a former military fella, and executing his wife, both of them being white. Can you imagine the media coverage if the races were reversed...but instead, nothing but crickets
As I was trying to convey to Professor nearly always Wrong, no one should be killed in either police custody, or simply pulled over for a traffic stop. ANY officer that acts irresponsibly, should absolutely be held accountable, and in nearly all these cases, when all the facts come out, its almost always a justifyable act by the Police. Not sure that's going to be the case in Minnesota, but let's push for more media attention to ALL people involved.
Black lives do matter...but no more than any other
-
Whoa lets not downplay police issue also. Not all incidents are caused by the preps. Somethings that maybe ok by the letter of the law just shouldn't be done. Arresting a farher to be for speeding his pregnant wife to the hospital maybe legal but still shouldn't be done. Arresting firefighter for blocking traffic to protect the injured maybe legal but still shouldn't be done.
-
I'm not downplaying it.....I'm putting it in perspective. Bottom line is that all lives matter, not just Black
-
Indeed a tragedy....
one of our drivers was caught in the crossfire
had to abandon his cargo van and run for his life
now the FBI wont allow him to access his van or the customer court documents needed for a hearing this afternoon
the protest was "mostly peaceful" but there are reports of multiple aggressive "bad apples" among the protesters
cursing Police....filming Police officers while berating and cursing the police...daring the police to touch them
I really like our Black Police Chief and I am glad he was born and raised in Dallas
i hope they catch all the people involved
you know Hillary is secretly pleased the headlines of the FBI Director basically calling her a liar are no longer the headlines.
-
How's this for Justice Dept priorities.....before the Minnesota shooting was even a few hours old, the Justice Dept declared their intention for a full investigation
And yet, following this event, has the Justice dept made clear their intentions on investigating this blatant ambush on law enforcement? or are the people involved, the wrong color?
-
BLM Official statement:
In the last few days, this country witnessed the recorded murders of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile at the hands of police, the latest victims in this country’s failed policing system. As we have done for decades, we marched and protested to highlight the urgent need to transform policing in America, to call for justice, transparency and accountability, and to demand that Black Lives Matter.
In Dallas, many gathered to do the same, joining in a day of action with friends, family, and co-workers. Their efforts were cut short when a lone gunman targeted and attacked 11 police officers, killing five. This is a tragedy–both for those who have been impacted by yesterday’s attack and for our democracy. There are some who would use these events to stifle a movement for change and quicken the demise of a vibrant discourse on the human rights of Black Americans. We should reject all of this.
Black activists have raised the call for an end to violence, not an escalation of it. Yesterday’s attack was the result of the actions of a lone gunman. To assign the actions of one person to an entire movement is dangerous and irresponsible. We continue our efforts to bring about a better world for all of us.
Now, did you note, that while they supposedly don't sanction or support such deadly actions on police, their rhetoric feeds this supposed widespread injustice, racism, and "open season" on Blacks by a racist law enforcement enviroment. They've done exactly what xo does, have already concluded that these blacks were simply murdered, and have every intention of disregarding any facts to the contrary. So they can "call on an end to violence", but notice they didn't condemn the shooter. Notice they didn't advocate prayers to the slain officers. And to proclaim that the shootings in Louisiana & Minn were race inspired murders is an absolute indirect call to take up arms against those "racist cops"
-
such fine people ::)
Protesters Loot Convenience Store, "Taunt" Officers After Dallas Police Massacre
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/08/video-drunk-protesters-loot-convenience-store-taunt-officers-dallas-police-massacre/
-
That explains that line of officers in front of the 7-11, while the news camera crew was behind the officers. The anchors at the studio kept asking the crew there, why the line, in front of the 7-11, and the crew really didn't know
-
Will Rogers said "I never met a mad I didn't like."
sirs never heard of a Black man shot by a cop that didn't deserve it.
I prefer Will Rogers.
Yes,I do.
-
You continue to spew bile.....where the hell did I ever even infer such an asanine notion??
Please take your time. (here's a hint....you won't find even one instance where I claimed ANY person shot by a cop "deserved it") But go ahead and try. Show us how that much more wrong you are
-
DNC official statement:
“Twice this week, first in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, then in St. Paul Minnesota, tragic, deadly incidents in which black men were killed by police officers have left families and communities shattered while re-igniting anger and racial tensions in cities across the country. Our heartfelt thoughts and prayers are with the families of both victims and the communities that are struggling to make sense of these tragedies.
“But thoughts and prayers are not enough. These fatal confrontations are yet another reminder that similar incidents have been and continue to be a serious problem in our nation, and they expose a larger issue plaguing our criminal justice system.
“Although investigations are ongoing, we must take strong, decisive action now, and in the long term, to protect the innocent and eliminate any appearance or reality of racial bias in law enforcement.
“Democrats are also committed to rebuilding the bonds of trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve. We are committed to reforming our criminal justice system and ending mass incarceration. We are committed to investing in officer training for de-escalation and the appropriate use of force. We encourage better police-community relations and the use of smart strategies that build trust and confidence. And we also encourage communities everywhere, especially in the wake of terrible tragedies like these, to remember that the vast majority of men and women who serve in law enforcement do so honorably, putting themselves in harm’s way to protect us. And while most protesters have made their voices heard peacefully, tonight’s shooting of officers in Dallas is unacceptable and a reminder that the time to address these tensions and find common ground is long overdue.
“As we mourn and join together to heal, we must recommit ourselves to the work of preventing further violence. We cannot rest until all of our streets and neighborhoods are safe for Americans of all races.”
They Dems take THREE FRICKEN PARAGRAPHS to even reference Dallas. And then they say – “Oh… yeah… that. It’s, ummm, unacceptable. For sure.” This is after implying that police officers are racist, that they deliberately target black people for incarceration, that they use too much force too often, that there is a breakdown of trust between law enforcement and the citizens they serve. As if the Democrats and their anti-police, racially divisive rhetoric had NOTHING to do with that
No facts to support those conclusions...just more fueling the fire of racial tension.....and people wonder why these targeted ambushes are occuring. >:(
-
Well not all races.but that's a much older and worldwide issue. Not quite related
-
It'd be interesting to see the breakdown of the actual races that died while being shot by
- White police officer
- Any police officer
We already know that a mere 4% of those shot by a white police officer are black. That means 96% of the others shot and killed by a white police officer is of every other race....including white
-
And now we hear that Clinton's official response to the Dallas shooting is to...... blame whites. Fricken unbelievable. Yea, that’s the answer. Tell white people they suck and it’s our fault for all of this. The racial divisions fueled by the left had NOTHING to do with it. And the totally appropriate thing to do after a BLM sympathizer specifically targeted white police officers for death is to lecture white people AND police on how to interact with the black community.
Right >:(
-
looks like the poor black guy shot in the car with concealed weapon license didn't really have a CCL, and he had a criminal record. Since he did not have a CCL was it legal for him to have a gun in the car?
so the media narrative was wrong
and fed into the anger that led to the Dallas mass murder of Policemen
here is a video of the same two bozos in MN on July 4th smoking weed with kids in the car
most of the left's narrative is always bullshit lies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsQLFV_VWIU&sns=em
-
looks like the poor black guy shot in the car with concealed weapon license didn't really have a CCL, and he was convicted felon, so shouldn't have even had a gun, much less in a car
If that's true...so much for xo's rant about an officer shooting someone with a CCW
For instance, I've been pulled over on 2 occasions, and both times, I made it abundantly clear that as I was handing him my DL & Registration, and my CCW license, and that I had a firearm on me. I kept my hands on the steering wheel at all times, answered all his questions. 1 time it was signing for a ticket, the other just a warning. At no other time did I ever speak disrespectfully, but the officers both times, kept their hands on the handle of their pistol
And NO, xo, that doesn't mean either I or Cu4 are claiming the black male got what he deserved, so you can stick that can of idiocy back in the cupboard. If everything that is stated here is true, the officer's actions were still highly over reactive, IF, the officer demanded to see some ID, and that's what the male was reaching for. We have to wait for all the facts to come out, such as
- Did he have a legal permit to carry a weapon?? If he were a felon, that would be an impossibility
- Was he a felon, or simply accused of a felony?
- Where exactly was his wallet specifically?
- Was he cleared by the officer to reach for his ID? That's not on the video, that's just her saying it, after the shooting.
- Was it where he was reaching, or was his wallet on the other side, and the gun was near where his hand was reaching?
These are pertinent and necessary facts. An officer doesn't pull his gun, unless he perceives a direct threat. His hand will remain on the gun, but the gun remains in its holster. If he pulled it, because he saw the male reaching quickly to his side where a gun happened to be........We simply need more facts before we can condemn this officer for supposedly murdering a black man, based on nothing more than his color. Especially given how so many now are conditioned to lash out, if they believe they themselves are being disrepcted
-
Go paint yourself black and try that, sirs.
Seriously.
-
Yea, brilliant rebuttal. Like I said, you've already condemned the police, and screw any facts to the contrary. It's precisely that type of mindset that is facilitating the racial degradation in this country, and putting more lives, both police & non-police at risk. I hope you're proud of that
-
The police are trained to be alert and proactive .
We do not get trained , perhaps we should be .
A guy I knew in High school became a policeman and when serving an ordinary warrant was shot right through a screen door.
The police are right to be cautious and alert , but not too proactive.
The requirement for alertness should not amount to a hair trigger on all of the time.
Meanwhile we in the public need some sort of protocol that makes us safe to approach. Keeping hands in sight is a good start.
The police do white guys too, you do not know the rate at which they do if you do not look.
-
This will burn xo's britches a bit more:
So, I'm driving to my office to turn in my weekly paperwork. A headlight is out. I see a Tucson Police Department squad vehicle turn around and follow me. I'm already preparing for the stop.
The lights go on and I pull over. The officer asks me how I'm doing, and then asks if I have any weapons.
"Yes, sir. I'm a concealed carry permit holder and my weapon is located on my right hip. My wallet is in my back-right pocket."
The officer explains for his safety and mine, he needs to disarm me for the stop. I understand, and I unlock the vehicle. I explain that I'm running a 7TS ALS holster but from the angle, the second officer can't unholster it. Lead officer asks me to step out, and I do so slowly. Officer relieves me of my Glock and compliments the X300U I'm running on it. He also sees my military ID and I tell him I'm with the National Guard.
Lead officer points out my registration card is out of date but he knows my registration is up to date. He goes back to run my license. I know he's got me on at least two infractions. I'm thinking of how to pay them.
Officers return with my Glock in an evidence back, locked and cleared. "Because you were cool with us and didn't give us grief, I'm just going to leave it at a verbal warning. Get that headlight fixed as soon as possible."
I smile. "Thank you, sir."
I'm a black man wearing a hoodie and strapped. According to certain social movements, I shouldn't be alive right now because the police are allegedly out to kill minorities.
Maybe...just maybe...that notion is bunk.
Maybe if you treat police officers with respect, they will do the same to you.
Police officers are people, too. By far and large, most are good people and they're not out to get you.
I'd like to thank those two officers and TPD in general for another professional contact.
We talk so much about the bad apples who shouldn't be wearing a badge. I'd like to spread the word about an example of men who earned their badges and exemplify what that badge stands for.
This is a fella that was "painted black", a resident of Tucson, AZ, and a perfect example of responding to police with resepct vs some supposed entitlement of not being disrespected by police
-
This looks like the way we want everyone involved to behave.
The driver was cool and the police were cool and they reciprocated trust for measured trust.
If there were a really good process that we all knew , it would still have a failure rate, the best hope is for is a low failure rate.
-
Precisely. However there are 2 big obstacles to this process
1) actual racist cops (whatever fraction of a fraction of the police force, they make up) who do make it a point to harass and target blacks
2) an ever-growing African American minority population being spoonfed, that if anyone, esepcially law enforcement, treats you with any disrespect, its because of underlying racism, that means to hurt, if not kill the "black man", therefore justifying any action taken, before they can be "taken out
But as the excerpt provides, that if everyone simply made it a goal to respect the comands and position of law enforcement, these tragedies would all but disappear. If you think an officer is giving you unneeded grief, say "thank you", sign our citation, and follow-up with a formal complaint, that goes on the officer's official record. What you DON'T do, is give them lip or resistance.
-
(https://s31.postimg.org/gvstttlbv/crime.jpg)
-
Ohhh....this just in.....the shooter/murderer/assasin, was apparently not only a member of the new Black Panther Party, but the rifle he used in his shooting spree, was an old fasioned SKS....as in not only NOT an AR-15, its also would pass nearly every one of the present gun control measures trying to ban so-called "assault weapons". Including the latest ones here in CA
Perhaps its not about the gun
-
Media Narrative Fail: Castile Had Gun in His Lap, Failed to Comply to Do Not Move Order.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNIWAGeHcSw
-
(https://s32.postimg.org/t7zg6bxwl/thinblueline.jpg)
-
OUCH
-
The video shows his lap and there is no gun in it.
-
It doesn't show the entire episode, which is absolutely pertinent to the reactions of the officer. It may have slipped off his lap from the recoil of being shot. We just don't know. All we have is "after the fact", and running commentary from the girlfriend. Hardly definitive
-
I know what happened: LEPRECHAUNS moved it, little tricksters that they are.
Here is what will happen: that cop will nor keep his position, just like the cop who shot Michael Brown.
He screams too much to be a cop, anyway. He is louder than the loudest woman on The Price is Right.
He will not do any jail time.
Black people and cops in Minneapolis will trust one another even less as a result. Someone will get paid a settlement.
It is stupid to drive around with a gun in your car unless you are a security officer, a cop of a bank courier.
It will make you less safe if you are White, and even less so if you are Black.
-
(https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/s526x395/13619898_1045280872224372_3222090832992264779_n.jpg?oh=8465f4949645cdd7fe0b0a2e8ccd2018&oe=582B9341)
-
I know what happened: LEPRECHAUNS moved it, little tricksters that they are.
Time for the professor to deflet from the issue with some idiocy.....check
Here is what will happen: that cop will nor keep his position, just like the cop who shot Michael Brown.
He screams too much to be a cop, anyway. He is louder than the loudest woman on The Price is Right.
Good thing we have xo to produce what actually happened and what will happen given...and screw any facts
He will not do any jail time.
If you say so. Personally, I'm going to wait for the facts to be fully vetted
It is stupid to drive around with a gun in your car unless you are a security officer, a cop of a bank courier.
Or you have a valid CCW
It will make you less safe if you are White, and even less so if you are Black.
Quite the polar opposite in fact....if you're legally carrying a firearm. Just produced an example in this thread in fact. Facts are not your friend professor, when this topic comes up
-
How do you suggest that they decorate the White House to commemorate five dead cops?
Tell us what appropriate decorations could be added to commemorate two Black guys needlessly killed as well.
I mean, if you think that White House lighting out to be employed on a regular basis, you ought to come up with some ideas as well.
I think you, or more specifically, the chuckleheaded clown that you copied this stupid crap from missed the point that the White Hose lighting was used to celebrate specific accomplishments: Prince's dedication to music and same sex marriages being legalized. Not every event can be reflected meaningfully with White House lighting,
Suggesting that this si a proper function of the presidency is simply asinine.
-
BLUE
-
sigh......
http://therightscoop.com/breaking-st-paul-blm-protesters-attacking-police-with-bricks-concrete-cops-injured/
-
Thank you President Obama, your "Justice" Dept, and like minded Democrats >:(
------------------------------
Just read that the DHS chief, Jeh Johnson, thinks its too early to call the actions of the Dallas assassin, a member of the New Black Panthers party, and yelling his intention kill any white person he sees, in particular, a white cop, a "hate crime"
So, what exactly does it require for an act to be a hate crime?? Simply flip the colors of the races involved?? >:(
-
due to the polices race it`s cannot be a hate crime. it require certain type of social status . basicly attacking whites and asians does not qualify as a hate crime.
-
Apparently not
-
by this logic we can attack nigerians and it would not be a hate crime. armenians can attack anybody they want
-
It does not matter whether to call it a hate crime or not. He is dead is it is, and equally dead if it is not.
-
Then why do we have crimes? Dead is dead, right?
-
We could add to the force of hate crimes by saying that if you were killed in the commission of a "hate crime" or sentenced to death for committing one, in addition to the usual execution, you would be buried in a special combination murderers' cemetery/ dog park, where dog walkers would bring dogs to poop and pee on your grave for a time, the duration of which would be determined by a jury.
Idle speculation, and "cruel and unusual punishment" I know, but just a thought.
The sentence would make for an excellent photo to put on the New York Post, and the dogs humping and peeing would be great for Fox and other News for Morons.
-
So basically you're saying the notion of hate crimes is idiotic.....correct?
-
I support hate crime laws despite I criticised it. Because it does get the crime in questions to actually enforce d. Remember these are crimes that norm get ignored. The very fact people are upset they exist is proof shows these crimes finally gets attention. I don't recall the opposition saying their already enforced
-
So xo thinks hate crimes are idiotic and you belive they have the effect of making prosecution of such a crime....more important? If someone slaughters a family in a home burglary, you believe wouldn't be prosecuted as vigilantly, unless the intention was race centric?
-
This guy is making a hell of a lot of sense!
It is so nice to hear people with no filter
(https://s32.postimg.org/xsm9wn1ed/chief_david_brown.jpg)
"We're asking cops to do too much in this country" said Brown.
"Every societal failure, we put it off on the cops to solve" said Brown. He listed mental health, drug addiction, loose dogs, failing schools as problems the public expects "cops to solve."
"Seventy percent of the African American community is being raised by single women, let's give it to the cops to solve that as well" said Brown. "Policing was never meant to solve all those problems."
When asked what advice he would give black men, Chief Brown said, "Become a part of the solution, serve your community. Don't be a part of the problem, we're hiring. Get off that protest line and put an application in. We'll put you in your neighborhood, we will help you resolve some of the problems you are protesting about."
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2016/07/11/dallas-police-chief-were-asking-cops-to-do-too-much-in-this-country/
-
Calling a crime a hate crime can have its place, as in swastika scribbling on the synagogue being a hate crime while tagging a boxcar with your logo is not.
But once the perp is DEAD, that is all there is to ti, He cannot be punished unless you want to defile his corpse.
The context was the police chief was asked whether it was going to be called a hate crime or not. Being as the Chief did not know and is not the one who decides, he said that this was undecided. It was the best possible answer to a rather dumb question.
The only reason to label it a hate crime would be that it would be reported as such statistically,
But since it cannot affect the punishment (we do not punish corpses) in that case it was silly.
-
Ok.....i think i have your version down. A hate crime is perfectly ok if its some white person acting out on a non-white, based primarily on race or religion. But if its a non-white acting out on a white person, based primarily on their race or religion, then its idiotic to say its a hate crime. That about it?
-
Damn, you are fucking stupid! No one can explain a goddamned thing to you because your stupidity is absolutely monumental.
If Mikah Johnson had been captured alive, then of course he could have been charged with a hate crime, just like Darren Roof who shot all those people in Charleston. I will be very surprised if Roof is not charged with a hate crime. Of course, the most they can do is sentence him to death, and they cannot sentence him to death twice. There is nothing more that they can do than execute him. But they can use him as a sort of example of hate crime for future trials.
No one can try a dead person. It is insane to charge him with a hate crime or murder, anyway, because the maximum penalty would be a rather peaceful lethal injection, and he was blown to bits with a bomb. If they wanted to write down for posterity that he was blown to smithereens for a hate crime and five murders, that would be fine with me.
Are you in favor of scraping up the bits of Mikah Johnson and putting them on trial for hate crime and murder for the sake of symmetry, sirs?
Is that what you are saying?
Let us note that apparently Johnson returned rather warped from Juniorbush's falsely mongered war.
When we have shooting wars, we need more soldiers, and therefore lower the standards for recruits. And we end up with messes like this and Abu Graib as unfortunate results.
Sweden and Switzerland mind their own business and never have shit like this go down.
-
You really get peeved when your hypocrisy is layed bare. Seriously though, you really should avoid throwing around the term stupid, when you post things....especially rants. Igoring the whole idiotic war/blame Bush misdirection, stupid is implying a hate crime can't be a hate crime unless the person committing it is taken alive. That's a stupid sematic game.
This whole discussion about hate crime has never been about the potential prosecution of Johnson, it's about the act itself. And you helped demonstrate how its apparently idiotic for something to be termed a hate crime if its a black person acting out on a white person. But then immediately fall all over yourself rationalizing how it is a hate crime if a white person, such a white supremist, acts out on a non-white. That's called hypocrisy
So let's make this easy, for even the xo's of the world can understand.
if ANYONE acts out in such a way to cause damage/injury/death to another person, motivated by their race, is that a hate crime.....yes or no?? (hint, it doesn't require anyone to be taken alive)
And recognizing that dead is dead, are hate crimes idiotic or do they have an important purpose in being classified a hate crime??
-
I did not say they were idiotic. I say that charging a dead perp of a hate crime is idiotic.
I fullly expect that Roof will get the death penalty, even if they don't charge him with a hate crime.
The only real reason to charge him with a hate crime is to set some sort of precedent.
There would be no point in sentencing Roof to be executed twice, since that is impossible.
Hate crime is more reprehensible.
If you spray a swastika on Beth Shalom or "Die Nigger Die" on the Holy Resurrection Baptist Church
it seems to me that is more antisocial that just tagging the same location with the stylized and usually illegible logo of Gonz0134.
It seems to me that the more antisocial the message, the greater the penalty.
Hate crime would be more useful in deterring non-lethal physical violence against some random individual who belongs to some group just because the victim is someone the perp hates on account of their race, religion or such.
I don't think this is at all complicated.
-
Let's try this again, for those who still didn't manage to grasp its simplicity the 1st time:
if ANYONE acts out in such a way to cause damage/injury/death to another person, motivated by their race, is that a hate crime.....yes or no?? (hint, it doesn't require anyone to be taken alive, in order to be prosecuted)
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posthumous_trial
There have been occasional trials of the deceased,
As a rule, they have been quite successful, as the average recidivism rate is zero.
Posthumous trials are somewhere between extremely rare to nonexistent in thew annals of American jurisprudence.
When the criminal has not been caught, or has jumped bail or otherwise skipped the country, we have tried perps in absentia.
Since you will never admit that I am correct about anything, it seems difficult for you to discuss this logically,.
-
if ANYONE acts out in such a way to cause damage/injury/death to another person, motivated by their race, is that a hate crime.....yes or no?? (hint, it doesn't require anyone to be taken alive, in order to be prosecuted)
I thought i said no due to the requirements are social status based not only race. Hence attacking whites and asians not a hate crime
-
But im not sure about jews. I they get a separate catagory
-
There have been occasional trials of the deceased,
As a rule, they have been quite successful, as the average recidivism rate is zero.
Posthumous trials are somewhere between extremely rare to nonexistent in thew annals of American jurisprudence.
When the criminal has not been caught, or has jumped bail or otherwise skipped the country, we have tried perps in absentia.
::)
And everyone notes that you still couldn't seem to answer a simple yes or no question. Apparently the concept is still too complicated (here's a hint, the topic being discussed doesn't requires prosecution. It simply requires a yes or no to the question posed). Kimba had no problem with the question.
And when you ever are correct about something we're discussing, I may be too shocked to respond. Looking forward to that event ever happening......in this lifetime
-
if ANYONE acts out in such a way to cause damage/injury/death to another person, motivated by their race, is that a hate crime.....yes or no?? (hint, it doesn't require anyone to be taken alive, in order to be prosecuted)
I thought i said no due to the requirements are social status based not only race. Hence attacking whites and asians not a hate crime
Yes you did, Kimba. You grasped the question being asked, fairly easily. Thanks for your response. I have a somewhat different response, in that I don't agree with the whole hate crime classification myself, so my answer would also be no.....you're trying to prosecute thought. If you kill someone, it shouldn't matter if you killed someone for greed or killed someone because of their race. The intention was pretty obvious. Same with acts of vandalism, or acts of violence. Its the act that should be prosecuted, not what someone might have been thinking at the time
-
You seem to think that "hate crime" is an actual thing. That every crime is or is not a hate crime.
Hate crime is an emotional term used as a tool to state that a crime deserves greater punishment if it includes reference to hatred of a race, religion or gender or whatever.
You cannot take a conceptual term invented by human beings and use it one does a word like "tree" or "stone".
Everyone agrees on the means of concrete nouns. Conceptual nouns are subject to opinion, and in this case emotional opinion.
If you do not use it to officially label an actual crime, it is meaningless.
Okay, Nat Turner committed hate crimes.
He was executed for his crimes and the word "hate crime" never occurred to anyone.
So what?
You are a simpleton sirs. You want yes or no answers to questions that are multiple choice or require an essay type answer.
-
It is "a thing", as it relates to the court of law
And everyone notices yet again, your inability to answer a simple yes or no question. Bravo. Kimba had no problem with it. One wonders why you keep stumbling all over it.
-
Again, it is not a yes or no question.
What is your fucking problem?
I will not allow you to force me to answer your idiotic questions.
I won't obey you, ever., You are an ignorant asshole.
-
Yes it is......Kimba figured it out rather easily. What's your fricken problem I wonder (actually, that was a rhetorical question, since I already know the answer....its referred to as your underlying hypocrisy on this issue, that you already helped illuminate.)
-
But I support hate crime laws due to existing laws are not being enforced so this repetitive law spotlights it. Even though I don't benefit it directly at least the argument helps my people get some protections. The. Very act of complaining about it actually helps keeps these laws in the books and not once has anybody ever said the existing laws are being enforced .
-
Yes, I recognized that POV the 1st time. I respectfully disagree in their need, repeating the issue I have about trying to prosecute thought, but at least you were sharp enough to grasp the question being asked, and provide a simple yes or no answer to it
-
No simple yes or no answer is possible.
Only a specific incident can be labeled a hate crime or not.
-
There was.....kimba already proved that.
-
The "hate crime" concept seems a needless complication.
Someone who has lots of strong hate , but who keeps himself harmless , should not be punished at all.
Someone who causes harm and demonstrates depraved cruelty ought to be put out of contact with the rest of our citizens , whether he is full of hate or love.
I think God is very interested in the thoughts and hatreds of those he judges, but from God these things are not hidden, from us they can be.
-
Someone who has lots of strong hate , but who keeps himself harmless , should not be punished at all.
I agree, since no one should be punished for what they are thinking.
Whether or not something is a hate crime depends on the actual real incident.