PDA

View Full Version : 30 black teens attack 4 white girls in "non-bias" attack



savafan
04-18-2005, 09:30 AM
http://www.brooklynskyline.com/news_article.asp?c=ne&na=1486

By Marianna Hernandez

Invoking the name “Martin Luther King” and screaming “Black Power!” a gang of up to 30 black teens attacked four white girls in Marine Park in what police are saying is not a bias crime.

The March 30 attack was a hot topic at state Senator Marty Golden’s recent public safety forum.

According to witnesses and parents of the victims, four young girls from St. Edmund’s had the day off from school due to Easter recess. They were playing basketball during dismissal from nearby Marine Park Junior High School, when several Marine Park students demanded to use the court.

After adults intervened and asked them to wait their turn, the teens left - but returned in a pack of up to 30, both boys and girls, and stormed into the park.

Witnesses say the attackers were all black and called their victims “white crackers” during the bloody melee, which raged for almost 20 minutes.

“This is not being looked at as a bias crime,” NYPD Deputy Inspector Kevin McGinn said at the meeting.

“When I pulled my car up to the park, I witnessed a pandemonium I’ve never seen in my life,” said Debbie, a mother of one victim who asked to remain anonymous for safety reasons.

Her daughter ran to the car, screaming, “They’re going to kill us,” Debbie recalled. My daughter was so scared and kids were running around like crazy.

Pursued by dozens of teens, some of the girls were “literally running into traffic to save their lives,” she said.

One girl made it as far as a nearby house, but was dragged by her hair back into the playground by a “wolf pack of children,” Debbie said.

The St. Edmund girls were bleeding and beaten to the point where they had cuts, scrapes, footprints and dirt all over them - and the attackers surrounded her car and started pounding on the windows as Debbie tried to herd the terrified children into her vehicle.

Two girls were hospitalized - one with a broken nose and one with a head injury, according to Edith, the mother of another girl.

According to Lt. Mark Molinari, from the 63rd Precinct, five of the assailants, who attend Marine Park Junior High School, were arrested and charged with misdemeanor assault. But since the attackers are all under the age of 16, they are facing charges in Family Court, and were arraigned last Friday.

“I always felt safe in the area and after hearing about such an incident, you start thinking what else could happen. These situations should not be happening, not in Marine Park, or anywhere else, and the safety of our kids should be of most importance,” said Denise Williams, a parent from Gerritsen Beach.

“It’s getting progressively worse in the community - these types of gangs are not only taking away our parks, they‚re ruining our neighborhoods,” said parent Cathy Miller.

“Nobody expects their child to go to a park and get beaten, with footprints on her head and arm, everyone just wants their child to be safe,” said Edith. “Everyone should have the right to be safe from teens, to small kids, to seniors, to mothers with strollers, no one should fear of being beaten while enjoying a day in the park.”

StillFunkyB
04-18-2005, 10:20 AM
They need to arrest each one of those kids parents. The parents as well as the children should be punished.

KronoRed
04-18-2005, 12:30 PM
That's sounds like a hate crime to me :(

Just sad this crap goes on

RBA
04-18-2005, 01:56 PM
I agree. How is this not a hate crime?

smith288
04-18-2005, 02:01 PM
Martin Luther King Jr would be so proud his name was invoked for such "justice" about a basketball court.

For some odd reason, I dont think this is what MLK had in mind... A shame too, because I agree with his dream.

RedFanAlways1966
04-18-2005, 02:09 PM
I agree. How is this not a hate crime?

A very good point. It leads me to ask (to all, not just RBA)...

If it is possible to track (I am sure it is), I wonder how many "hate crimes" have been persued in the United States? How many "hate crimes" that were prosecuted have had a defendant who was from a minority race in this great country... and the victim was caucasian? Has it ever happened? If it has, have any minorities ever been convicted of "hate crimes" in this country?

Is there an age factor for "hate crimes"? Could the younger ages be reason for it to not be considered a "hate crime"?

In my book... all crimes that involve violence against another human are considered hate crimes. To inflict bodily harm on another must involve some sort of hatred towards that person (for whatever reason). Even domestic violence. A crime is a crime. I see no reason to say one sort of violence against a human is any different than another sort of violence. Violence and assault are the same. They should all be punished the same. And let the punishment be severe for all violence.

smith288
04-18-2005, 02:26 PM
In my book... all crimes that involve violence against another human are considered hate crimes. To inflict bodily harm on another must involve some sort of hatred towards that person

DING DING DING.... We have a winner.

redsrule2500
04-18-2005, 03:35 PM
It's not hate crime because of reverse racism.

CaiGuy
04-18-2005, 03:45 PM
If the police said that 30 black kids attacked the 4 white girls because they are white or said that the fight had to do with racism, some of the families who had a kid involved in the fight would try to twist the police's words to make them seem racist and try to file a lawsuit. It happens in everything else, why not this? The police were trying to avoid this by calling it a non-bias attack.

TC81190
04-18-2005, 04:28 PM
If the police said that 30 black kids attacked the 4 white girls because they are white or said that the fight had to do with racism, some of the families who had a kid involved in the fight would try to twist the police's words to make them seem racist and try to file a lawsuit. It happens in everything else, why not this? The police were trying to avoid this by calling it a non-bias attack.


And the parents are stupid enough to believe they mean it. :ughmamoru

Jaycint
04-18-2005, 04:32 PM
This type of stuff is ridiculous. Imagine if it had been reversed and 30 white kids attacked 4 black kids and beat them to a bloody pulp all the while calling them racially derogatory names. It would lead the 6 o'clock news on all three network stations and Foxnews would have a reporter live on the scene. It's funny how what's good for the goose is not always good for the gander in situations like this.

Falls City Beer
04-18-2005, 04:34 PM
The majority hegemony can't be victims of hate crime. It's not possible by definition.

Reds/Flyers Fan
04-18-2005, 06:51 PM
This type of stuff is ridiculous. Imagine if it had been reversed and 30 white kids attacked 4 black kids and beat them to a bloody pulp all the while calling them racially derogatory names. It would lead the 6 o'clock news on all three network stations and Foxnews would have a reporter live on the scene. It's funny how what's good for the goose is not always good for the gander in situations like this.


Had that happened it would have been a MAJOR story. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would have field days. And it would all be W's fault.

Jaycint
04-18-2005, 07:15 PM
Had that happened it would have been a MAJOR story. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would have field days. And it would all be W's fault.

My feelings exactly...

Mutaman
04-18-2005, 10:07 PM
Then of course there's the other side of the coin. We had a little incident in my town a few years ago we called the "Central Park jogger case" . Supposedly a large group of blacks attacked and almost killed one white girl. They were tried and convicted and sent to jail. Well then it turned out that the prosecuter's were "overzelous", the confessions were coerced , and these guys were innocent. Now us taxpayers are on the hook for paying off millions in damages-- My point: Lets not jump to conclusiions , particularly in the black-white area, before all of the facts are in. And can we discuss race without bring up Al Sharpton? He really not very important.

Mutaman
04-18-2005, 10:34 PM
Might file this in the Mountain out of a molehill file. I'm a New Yorker and I found it curious that I had heard nothing about this "incident". I did a quick search in the Times, the News and the Post- no report of this story. And believe me the Post lives for stuff like this. In addition, I've lived in NYC over 40 years and I've never heard of the "Brooklyn Skyline". Looks like this was just a fracas between kids that resulted in some cuts and bruises, the kind of thing that native New Yorkers tell me happened all the time when they were kids- the Italians beating up the Jews, the Irish beating up the Italians, and everybody beating up the blacks and vice-versa. Just one big melting pot folks.

So for those of you that want to get indignant about people of color being treated differently than us white folks, you better find another story to complain about. And as for blaiming W, I've got plenty of other **** to blame him about, I don't need to come up with some fracas in Brooklyn. Of course there was Clinton's "COPS" program which was incedibly successful and made the City a lot safer until the Republican congress got rid of it but thats annother story.

ws1990reds
04-18-2005, 11:32 PM
Personally, I think that ANY racist person deserves to be locked up, away from society. That include all 30 of those pigs.

Jaycint
04-18-2005, 11:39 PM
So for those of you that want to get indignant about people of color being treated differently than us white folks, you better find another story to complain about.


Wow, if you can't see the clear double standard in this country when it comes to incidents like this then I just don't even know what to say. I stand by my statement, if this situation were reversed it would be headline news.

Look, I really don't even want to get into a big conversation about this so I'll just leave it at that. The way our society has been beat over the head with the PC stick it's a no win situation for me as a white guy to even have this discussion.

Mutaman
04-18-2005, 11:49 PM
Wow, if you can't see the clear double standard in this country when it comes to incidents like this then I just don't even know what to say. I stand by my statement, if this situation were reversed it would be headline news.

Look, I really don't even want to get into a big conversation about this so I'll just leave it at that. The way our society has been beat over the head with the PC stick it's a no win situation for me as a white guy to even have this discussion.

You obviously don't know much about the New York Post. "PC"- just annother code word.

Jaycint
04-18-2005, 11:54 PM
You obviously don't know much about the New York Post. "PC"- just annother code word.


You're right, I know nothing about the Post. I can't speak to one specific rag in a specific city. I'm talking about the overall vibe in the country with the PC comment. I'm assuming your point is that the Post would have jumped this story like a pack of rabid dogs and would have loved to call out the black kids as perpetrating a hate crime towards whites?

My response is that in general a story like this in the vast majority of the media (not the Post specifically) gets swept under the rug because it doesn't feed the angle that only white people show hatred based on race and commit crimes based on race.

Mutaman
04-19-2005, 12:40 AM
My response is that in general a story like this in the vast majority of the media (not the Post specifically) gets swept under the rug because it doesn't feed the angle that only white people show hatred based on race and commit crimes based on race.

Give me an example to support your opinion. Give me an example of when a major crime (a felony) based on race was commited and swept under the rug by the media.

I have given you an example of the opposite. On April 19, 1989, Trisha Meili, a 28-year-old white investment banker was violently assaulted while jogging in New York City's Central Park. In addition to being raped, she was beaten near death— when found, she was suffering from deadly hypothermia and blood loss, and her skull had been fractured. The initial prognosis of her physicians was that she would die or remain in a permanent coma due to her injuries, but she recovered fully, with no memory of the event.

The crime provoked public outrage. Five teenaged suspects, all black, were identified as the assailants, tried, and convicted in 1990. Four of the men involved confessed to the crime, but later doubts involving possible coercion put those confessions into doubt. Nonetheless, the confessions were considered so damning that few doubted the men's guilt.

This was the major tabloid story in New York in the early nineties. For months not a day went by when the Post or the Daily News did not have blaring front page headlines about the attack, the arrests, and the trials.

However, in 2002, convicted rapist and murderer Matias Reyes, serving a life sentence for other crimes but not, to that point, charged for this one, declared that he committed the assault, and that he acted alone. DNA evidence confirmed his participation in the crime. There had been no physical evidence to connect the other five boys to the crime and their convictions were based on their confessions. Based on Reyes's confession, a judge exonerated the five defendants in 2002, though four of them, having been tried as juveniles, received shorter prison sentences and had already been free at the time. In other words the five were framed.

Needless to say, the events in 2002, received only a minute fraction of the publicity that the 1989 story received, a fact that can be easily ascertained by a little internet searching. Indeed, I submit that while many Americans have heard of the Central Park Jogger, few realize that the convictions of her "assailants" were eventually overturned.

I have given you an example of a Hate crime that was not only not swept under the rug but was in fact one of the major news stories of the last decade. When it turned out the story was wrong, that story was swept under the rug. I also suggest you goole "the Scottsboro boys" for annother example. Give me an example proving your point.

The Baumer
04-19-2005, 03:19 AM
In my opinion the punishment for crimes shouldn't be intensified by what the court thinks you're motive was. A crime is a crime and should have a standard punishment. When you start to guess someone's motive and decide who they are allowed to hate, then that can potentially be the first step towards the courts telling us who we can love or how we are allowed to think.

Jaycint
04-19-2005, 07:42 AM
Give me an example of when a major crime (a felony) based on race was commited and swept under the rug by the media.

Give me an example proving your point.


The very nature of my argument is that there won't be major coverage of it where a black on white hate crime takes place. So you are asking me basically to prove my point by disproving it with links to major news sources. I could provide you links to multiple stories all over the internet as well as cold hard statistics about crime rates but you would immediately call into question the source of the story or the website it is found on so what's the point?

I'm well aware of the New York Jogger story by the way, it's a very tragic and sad story for all involved. Even more sad that the real perp decided not to let the truth be known before those innocent men rotted in jail for however long they did.

What you seem to be arguing, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that it's not possible for a black on white hate crime to occur. And even when one does it can be explained away to societal factors and 400 years of oppression, inequality, etc etc etc. Basically, whitey has it comin so don't complain when it happens and don't call it for what it is (black on white hate).

Jaycint
04-19-2005, 07:46 AM
In my opinion the punishment for crimes shouldn't be intensified by what the court thinks you're motive was. A crime is a crime and should have a standard punishment. When you start to guess someone's motive and decide who they are allowed to hate, then that can potentially be the first step towards the courts telling us who we can love or how we are allowed to think.


I totally agree Baumer but the simple fact is that any time a black person is attacked by a white person the hate crime card gets pulled no matter how minor the offense and it just doesn't when a black person attacks a white. The story linked above is a prime example, how more blatant of an offense do they need than a group of black teens call 4 white kids "crackers" while they beat them up? Sounds like the authorities are scared to call it for what it is because of the uproar they would receive from the black community.

GAC
04-19-2005, 08:40 AM
all crime is hate motivated IMO.

KittyDuran
04-19-2005, 08:53 AM
Has Drudge picked this up... I haven't seen it on his site...

RedFanAlways1966
04-19-2005, 09:48 AM
Give me an example...

How many do we need to show? Did you hear about the one below? Or did the national media decide that it is not as important as say a "many-times convicted" person like Rodney King? Not that Mr. King deserved what he got (no, of course not). But I do know that King was not riding a city bus. I think he was fleeing from police thru residential streets at 90 mph. I think he was told be many officers to lay on the ground and he would not do it. Maybe police beating someone is more important to the media and people? I see it all as a human beating a human. Those cops were not charged with hate crimes, but we sure as hell heard that term when described by the media and people who defended Mr. King (the man with the rap sheet a mile long). Think racial hatred and violence does not work both ways? If so, then I doubt that anyone or anything will be able to convince you otherwise.

Chao Xiong, Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN)
April 13, 2005 BUS0413

Nine people have been arrested in an attack on a 15-year-old boy who was dragged from a Metro Transit bus, beaten and robbed before he was able to flee and get help.

The ninth suspect was arrested Tuesday in the attack on the teenager, who was riding the bus from downtown Minneapolis through the North Side on April 2 when he was dragged off near 34th and Fremont Avs. N.

The victim was punched, stomped on and kicked in the face, according to charges filed Monday against one of the suspects. Authorities said they expect that more charges will be filed this week against seven juvenile suspects and an adult suspect.

Three charges were filed Monday against Markee L. Colquitte, 18, of Minneapolis.

Colquitte was charged with first-degree aggravated robbery, kidnapping and third-degree riot.

Some of the suspects have been identified as members of the Tre-Six Vice Lords street gang, said Mike Martin, regional commander of the Minnesota Gang Strike Force.

That relatively small gang, made up of mostly juveniles and young adults, is suspected of committing robberies and assaults and trafficking in crack cocaine and marijuana in north Minneapolis, Martin said.

According to the criminal complaint filed Monday in Hennepin County District Court, the victim boarded the bus at 7th St. and Nicollet Mall in downtown Minneapolis. Six to 10 young males in the back of the bus surrounded him and taunted him, making repeated references to his race (the victim is white, the suspects black). When the bus stopped at 34th and Fremont, they grabbed him and pulled him off, the complaint said. They punched and kicked the victim, breaking his wallet chain and fleeing with the wallet, which contained $17.

He ran to a nearby convenience store and called 911. He suffered scrapes and bruises to his face, forehead, hands and back, the complaint said.

Video surveillance from the bus shows the group dragging the victim onto the sidewalk, according to Metro Transit police.

"It was outrageous," said Metro Transit police Capt. Dave Indrehus. "The victim in this case was totally innocent, had nothing to do with these parties."

The video shows that other bus passengers did not try to intervene, Indrehus said. "Quite frankly, I don't know if I would blame them," he said. "You may end up becoming a victim yourself."

The surveillance tape did not capture the bus driver's actions, he said.

The driver called Metro Transit's control center to report the incident, said Bob Gibbons, director of customer service. He refused to divulge further details pending an investigation of the driver's and Metro Transit's handling of the case.

Metro Transit's 1,600 drivers are trained to call for help on the bus radio, to protect the victim by pulling over and letting the victim or perpetrators off the bus, or to try to defuse altercations without harming themselves, Gibbons said.

"They have to make that judgment, if there's anything they can do, shouting, honking their horn," he said.

Gibbons called such altercations rare, and Metro Transit police said the bus line where the fight took place is not known for such problems.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/5344906.html

Falls City Beer
04-19-2005, 10:05 AM
all crime is hate motivated IMO.


What about crimes of passion, crimes in which love/lust is also bound up within them?

Hatred is a pretty specific emotion, it seems to me.

Collateral victims in a bank robbery, say, aren't really "hated" by their victimizers, they happen to be in their way.

So I would disagree, I think a lot of crime is not "hate" motivated.

Jaycint
04-19-2005, 10:17 AM
Here's another example, one of many that don't get any play in the mainstream news:

Black on White Hate (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1019229/posts)


ITHACA--A white female student assaulted Sunday night leaving the Nappy Roots and Ludacris concert at Cornell's Barton Hall told The Sun that she was the victim of a hate-crime, which left her with a ruptured ear drum and thirteen stiches on her face.

The Cornell Police morning report noted that the police received a "complaint from a student that was physically assaulted by an unkown individual." The report indicated that the assault occurred at 11:47 p.m. and that the investigation is continuing.

The incident, as described by the victim, began when the student had a minor altercation with another girl who was at the concert while the performace was still going on.

"She said 'Get your white hair out of my face,'" the student said.

After the student put her hair up to get it out of the way, the alleged assailant proceeded to hit her, at which point the student and her friends moved to the back of the concert space.

When the concert was over, the student separated from her friends to get into her car and said she found herself surrounded by a group made up of five black females and one black male, who have yet to be identified.

"They said they were gonna f**k up my pretty white face," she said.

Allegedly, the incident turned physically violent when one of the girls slapped the student hard enough to rupture her eardrum, a blow which threw her off balance. The other five assailants proceeded to kick and punch her as she fell down.

"They pulled a ton of my hair out," the student said.

The six assailants stopped hitting the victim only when one of her male friends came out of the concert and stepped in.

"If it wasn't for [him], I don't know how long it would have gone on," she said.

The victim said doctors estimate it will take her eardrum a year and a half to heal.

"This was a hate crime, and it shouldn't happen to another person. The more people know the better," said the victim's mother.

The University is currently investigating the situation.

"We take any sort of hate crime very very seriously," said Linda Grace-Kobas, interim vice president for communications and media relations. "We will thoroughly investigate all aspects of the incident."

"I would encourage her to file a bias-related incident report," said Robert Harris, vice provost for diversity and faculty development. "We have a process and with a report we can begin putting that process to work."

Once an incident report is filed, a University employee is assigned the case to assist victims in pursuing their situation, according to Harris.

"It's really hard to live with this. I want people to know because I need to press charges. If anyone has any information, tell the police because [they] don't know anything right now," the student said.

The examples that me and RFA1966 provided are just two of many...Why don't they get the same airplay on the major networks that White on Black Hate crimes do?


Even More (http://www.kplctv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1989869&nav=0nqxOQEL)


The court battle is underway to determine what tapes, statements and other evidence a jury will get to review when Wilbert Rideau has his 4th trial for murder. After a court ruling Thursday, prosecutors will be able to show several media interviews in the trial.

KPLC has obtained excerpts of one interview first aired 23 years ago. It was 1981. By this time, Rideau had been convicted of murder three times and was serving his sentence at Angola State Penitentiary. He was interviewed by former Baton Rouge T.V. Reporter Jodie Bell. He talked about the killing of Julia Ferguson and the injuries of the two bank employees who lived.

The reporter asked, "You didn't cut their throats? I was told you cut their throats."
Rideau replied: "Yeah, one."
Reporter: "You cut one?"
Rideau: "That's the one who died."
Reporter: "Why did you do that, rather than shoot that person?"
Rideau: "I think I ran out of bullets."
Reporter: "Okay, so you took four, you took three, shot two and killed the other one."
Rideau: "Right."
Reporter: "I know I've asked you a lot of questions, just interesting about why you would want to kill them when they hadn't done anything to you. I'm not in the right frame of mind to understand what you're saying."
Rideau: "You have to understand what happened. Back then, like Billy pointed out, I was criminal. I needed to be locked up even before I committed the crime."
Reporter: "How old were you when you did it?"
Rideau: "Because I was dangerous. I was 19 years old. I had just made it. And aside from being criminal, back then I had to-- the fact that I hated white people added an extra dimension to the whole affair. I mean, you're not that concerned about the humanity of people you hate."

Though Rideau was sentenced to die, he escaped the possibility of execution after state's death penalty law was thrown out by the U.S. Supreme Court. He talks about the death penalty in the interview:

Reporter: "Should you have been executed for what you did?"
Rideau: "Yeah."
Reporter: "Why?"
Rideau: "Because, if you have a law you gotta enforce it."

Rideau also talks about life in prison being worse than death: "It's just another form of death. It's just that this one is more excruciating than the other because he's going to suffer for the rest of his life." By this time, Rideau was pleading his case for release from prison. In fact, he says the time he spent on death row gave him empathy for his victim. "It made me realize what my victim must have felt, because I did the same thing to her. I ignored her pleas."

The Jodie Bell interview is one of three media interviews the defense sought to keep out of the trial. However, the judge denied the motion. Judge David Ritchie ruled to allow use of a written statement Rideau gave to the FBI in 1961, but defense will appeal to the Third Circuit. Both sides will be back in court at 9:30 Friday morning to continue hearings on pre-trial motions. The trial is set for October 25th.

And more... (http://dir.salon.com/news/feature/2000/03/06/hate/index.html)


Why are black leaders silent on black hate crimes?

Their failure to denounce violence against whites, like the suburban Pittsburgh killings, cedes the moral high ground to white supremacists.

By Earl Ofari Hutchinson
- - - - - - - - - -

March 06, 2000 | In the Pittsburgh suburb of Wilkinsburg, Joseph Kroll, a middle-aged maintenance man, was busily going about his repair duties in the apartment building where he worked. Joseph Healey, an elderly former Catholic priest, was enjoying a bite to eat at a nearby Burger King restaurant. Emil Sanitelevici, a physics student at the University of Pittsburgh, and two other men were eating at a nearby McDonald's restaurant.

Then, in a moment of rage, Ronald Taylor gunned down Healey, Kroll and Sanitelevici and seriously wounded the other two men. These heinous killings almost certainly were racially motivated: Taylor is black; the three men killed and the two men wounded were white.

But unlike after other hate crimes, no black leader or organization immediately rushed forth to vigorously denounce the shootings. There was no expression of outrage from black communities, and there was no demand that Taylor be harshly prosecuted under the federal civil rights hate crimes act if he shot the men because they were white. Worse, some blacks quietly shrugged off the killings with the bitter remark that whites have been killing blacks for years and getting away with it, and that there has been no massive explosion of white outrage at the lax treatment of white killers.

The deafening silence by blacks on this apparent racial outrage against whites instantly drew shouts from some whites that blacks are hypocrites and have a double standard when victims are whites. They're not totally wrong. Black leaders and organizations should have quickly condemned the shootings. The victims of Taylor's rampage were innocents who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and were shot because they were white.

Blacks must mourn these murders as passionately as they do those of black victims of white attacks and just as passionately call for the harshest punishment of the killer(s). The great strength of the civil rights movement was that it seized and maintained the moral high ground by never stooping to ape the violence of white racists.

But the Taylor shooting spree is deeply troubling for another reason. While it is a grotesque and extreme example of racial violence, it is hardly an aberration. More whites than ever are the targets of racially motivated attacks by blacks. True, some of the attacks against whites by blacks are for their money and valuables. Others are revenge assaults by blacks for real or imagined racial insults. It is equally true that the vast majority of violent crimes against whites are committed by other whites, while the vast majority of violent crimes against blacks are committed by other blacks.

Yet even after discounting crimes that are hastily and erroneously tagged as racially motivated, many blacks do attack whites because they are white. A Justice Department study in 1998 confirmed that nearly 20 percent of the hate crimes examined were committed against whites by black attackers. And the Southern Poverty Law Center has noted that black-on-white violence soared during the 1990s.

A motley collection of white supremacists and rightist extremist groups has eagerly made black-on-white violence a wedge issue in their crusade to paint blacks as the prime racial hatemongers in America. Avowed white supremacist David Duke instantly screamed that Taylor's carnage proves that whites are under assault from lawless blacks and that the federal government won't protect them.

The New Century Foundation, an ultraconservative think tank, has launched a full-blown national campaign to alert whites to the danger of hate crimes committed by blacks. It uses the issue of black hate crimes to rationalize and bankroll its research into alleged genetic defects among blacks. These groups and individuals relentlessly magnify black hate crimes to oppose affirmative action programs, stronger hate crime laws and various social programs; to downplay or justify the proliferation of white-supremacist-tinged paramilitary groups, police violence and racial profiling; and to lobby strenuously for more prisons and police and tougher laws. Black-on-white violence also reinforces whites' fears of blacks as the ultimate menace to society.

The Taylor onslaught claimed innocent lives and caused monumental pain and suffering to the victims' families and friends. It dangerously heightens racial distrust and poisons racial attitudes. When blacks say or do nothing about these attacks, it is taken by some as a tacit signal that blacks put less value on white lives than on black lives -- a terrible price to pay for black silence on black hate crimes.

Phoenix
04-20-2005, 12:52 AM
What about crimes of passion, crimes in which love/lust is also bound up within them?

Hatred is a pretty specific emotion, it seems to me.

Collateral victims in a bank robbery, say, aren't really "hated" by their victimizers, they happen to be in their way.

So I would disagree, I think a lot of crime is not "hate" motivated.

This post really sums up why I'm opposed to "hate crimes". This "hate crime" legislation is on the books because some want additional punishment for what is thought to be the traditional racist crimes of majority upon minority. But by very definition then, the law treats the murder of innocent collateral bank robbery victims as lesser crimes. I can't buy into that. Tell that to a parent of a dead child who was not killed as a result of legislature-defined "hate". I want the death penalty for a racist pig who kills someone because they are a different color. And I want the death penalty for a bank robber who kills someone because they just happen to be standing in a teller line.

The law should busy itself with penalizing horrible actions not branching off into a whole new wing of law trying to get to motivations behind actions.

Redsfaithful
04-20-2005, 01:23 AM
It's nice to see people use Free Republic to back up their arguments. Lets you see where they're coming from at least.

And, of course Jaycint, your other two sources disprove your statement that these crimes aren't covered by the horrid, horrid mainstream media. Your second link is from a TV station and your third is from Salon. How do you define mainstream exactly?

Jaycint
04-20-2005, 07:44 AM
It's nice to see people use Free Republic to back up their arguments. Lets you see where they're coming from at least.

And, of course Jaycint, your other two sources disprove your statement that these crimes aren't covered by the horrid, horrid mainstream media. Your second link is from a TV station and your third is from Salon. How do you define mainstream exactly?


First of all I just did a google search on hate crime to get the stories I linked, I don't advocate Free Republic's ideology nor had I ever visited their website until yesterday when I did the search. Thanks for assuming "where I'm coming from" though, when you don't have any other supporting arguments it's always convenient to pull the "well you're a racist card". You don't know me and don't pretend to by making a thinly veiled suggestion that I'm some sort of racist because of the source of one of my stories. Let me ask you this though, does the fact that it was reported on that particular website mean it didn't happen?

My point by the way isn't that they aren't covered at all by the mainstream media, my point is that they don't get nearly the coverage that they get when the crime is commited in the other direction.

Mutaman
04-20-2005, 07:48 AM
It's nice to see people use Free Republic to back up their arguments. Lets you see where they're coming from at least.

And, of course Jaycint, your other two sources disprove your statement that these crimes aren't covered by the horrid, horrid mainstream media. Your second link is from a TV station and your third is from Salon. How do you define mainstream exactly?

Shucks, just when the Rushcrowd was convincing me that us white guys were getting the short end of the stick.

Jaycint
04-20-2005, 08:08 AM
Shucks, just when the Rushcrowd was convincing me that us white guys were getting the short end of the stick.


Believe me, I'm definitely not part of the "Rushcrowd". I tend to be liberal on more issues than not. My problem, as stated multiple times on this thread is the uneven way that hate crime stories are handled in the media. My simple statement, and I'll leave it at this is that not nearly the attention is given a story like this when it is a minority perpetrating the hate crime. I never said it doesn't get covered at all, note that point Redsfaithful, it's an important one. That's it, nothing more, no vast conspiracy, just a simple viewpoint. Thanks for the healthy debate guys, I'm through with it.

This thread has devolved to the point where I'm being called a racist and I simply won't stand for that. Wanting fair treatment for all of these stories doesn't constitute racism. It's easy to pull the race card anytime somebody wants to defend a white person's standpoint on an issue like this, takes a lot more to actually make a valid argument which you fell terribly short of Redsfaithful. So go ahead and jump back in here and slander me some more for everybody to see, I will take the high road and not bother responding. Accusing me of being racist was the easy and cheap way out of the argument and you jumped all over it.

KittyDuran
04-20-2005, 08:21 AM
Accusing me of being racist was the easy and cheap way out of the argument and you jumped all over it. When did he do that? :confused:

GAC
04-20-2005, 08:37 AM
Collateral victims in a bank robbery, say, aren't really "hated" by their victimizers, they happen to be in their way.

Well Gee, that is really convenient.... "Sorry lady. I didn't mean to blow your brains out, but you were in my line of fire. I was aiming out these other people. Nothing personal."

Jaycint
04-20-2005, 08:51 AM
When did he do that? :confused:

I was referring to Redsfaithful, not Muta.

When he said this:


It's nice to see people use Free Republic to back up their arguments. Lets you see where they're coming from at least.

He knows good and well what he was getting at.

KittyDuran
04-20-2005, 08:57 AM
I was referring to Redsfaithful, not Muta.

When he said this:



He knows good and well what he was getting at.

IMHO, that's reaching - but to each his own.... :dunno:

Jaycint
04-20-2005, 09:02 AM
IMHO, that's reaching - but to each his own.... :dunno:

That's cool, everybody's entitled to an opinion, in mine he was saying "read between the lines". What else could he possible mean by "lets you know where they are coming from."?

RedFanAlways1966
04-20-2005, 09:25 AM
It's nice to see people use Free Republic to back up their arguments. Lets you see where they're coming from at least.

Don't worry. If Jay had been here during that thing called the U.S. Presidential election... he would understand that this comment is laughable to a lot of members here. It sometimes felt like the RZ Non-BB Forum was a link to some of the most "L" web-sites out there. But that is expected during an election year.

Not pointing fingers or calling anyone a hypocrite, but they know who they are. Cocaine, affairs, DUIs, AWOL, illegal business deals, secret electronic devices on the president during debates, etc, etc... we saw them all last year. And the majority were copy-n-pasted from some of the most "L" sites out there.

So, Jay, take comments like this with a grain of salt. And never-ever-ever-ever feel bad about C-n-P'ing from Free Republic here. That shoe fits well around here. And until a new rule is posted about these things, C-n-P away friend. B/c that rule will be much harder for people other than yourself. Believe me!

:thumbup:

Jaycint
04-20-2005, 10:42 AM
Don't worry. If Jay had been here during that thing called the U.S. Presidential election... he would understand that this comment is laughable to a lot of members here. It sometimes felt like the RZ Non-BB Forum was a link to some of the most "L" web-sites out there. But that is expected during an election year.

Not pointing fingers or calling anyone a hypocrite, but they know who they are. Cocaine, affairs, DUIs, AWOL, illegal business deals, secret electronic devices on the president during debates, etc, etc... we saw them all last year. And the majority were copy-n-pasted from some of the most "L" sites out there.

So, Jay, take comments like this with a grain of salt. And never-ever-ever-ever feel bad about C-n-P'ing from Free Republic here. That shoe fits well around here. And until a new rule is posted about these things, C-n-P away friend. B/c that rule will be much harder for people other than yourself. Believe me!

:thumbup:

Thanks RFA, I guess I just don't understand a lot of the personalities on the board yet and from what angle they are coming from. Had I been around during the presidential election I'm sure I would have been involved in a few barnburners regarding that as well. I tend to be an excitable fella from time to time on certain issues and hopefully I won't rub too many people the wrong way. :)

No offense to anybody I've argued with on this thread, I just despise being pigeon-holed into any groups, and in this case I felt like I was being thrown into the ultra-right wing anti-minority racist category which is simply the furthest thing from the truth.

I'll bow out of this one for now, and again, no hard feelings Redsfaithful or Mutaman, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this issue. No harm in that.

:)

KittyDuran
04-20-2005, 11:17 AM
Unfortunately, Jay - you've already marked your territory... :(

Thanks RFA, I guess I just don't understand a lot of the personalities on the board yet and from what angle they are coming from. Had I been around during the presidential election I'm sure I would have been involved in a few barnburners regarding that as well. I tend to be an excitable fella from time to time on certain issues and hopefully I won't rub too many people the wrong way. :)

No offense to anybody I've argued with on this thread, I just despise being pigeon-holed into any groups, and in this case I felt like I was being thrown into the ultra-right wing anti-minority racist category which is simply the furthest thing from the truth.

I'll bow out of this one for now, and again, no hard feelings Redsfaithful or Mutaman, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this issue. No harm in that.

:)

Redsfaithful
04-20-2005, 12:24 PM
So go ahead and jump back in here and slander me some more for everybody to see, I will take the high road and not bother responding. Accusing me of being racist was the easy and cheap way out of the argument and you jumped all over it.

FreeRepublic is a relatively well known hate site. It's kind of ironic that you'd post something trying to back up your belief in reverse racism from a site that's extremely racist. Go there sometime and see what they think about Palestinians, do a search. Or the French. You remember two summers ago when France had that heat wave that killed thousands? You should have seen the gloating on FR. Or the A-rabs. People post all the time about nuking the Middle East.

I could care less if you're racist or not and that wasn't the point I was trying to make. The point I was making was that the perspective you're approaching this issue on is obviously from the far right. Linking to FR backs that up.

Jaycint
04-20-2005, 02:22 PM
Unfortunately, Jay - you've already marked your territory... :(

Marked my territory??? In what way? Because I disagree with the viewpoint of another poster? Because I felt I was personally attacked by that poster and defended myself? Or because I don't necessarily fall in line with the popular way of viewing the types of issues that this thread was about?


I beg to differ with the argument that I've "marked my territory".


Redsfaithful, choose to believe it or not but I was completely unaware of what kind of website Free Republic was when I copied and pasted that story. I have no agenda here. I'm not pro-white, pro-black, pro-whatever. I simply think there is a double standard in stories like the one that this thread was started about.



It's kind of ironic that you'd post something trying to back up your belief in reverse racism from a site that's extremely racist.

If the national networks would have found the need to pick up this story perhaps I would have come across their websites first when I googled about hate crimes. Pretty much proves my point about the levels of coverage a story like this gets as opposed to what it would be if the roles were reversed. By the way, is your position that reverse racism doesn't exist? The way you phrased that sentence about "my" belief in reverse racism would lead me to believe that you don't think it's even possible for a white person to suffer from reverse racism. If that's the case then we are both just absolutely pounding our heads into brick walls here and might as well not discuss the topic.



The point I was making was that the perspective you're approaching this issue on is obviously from the far right.

And you're obviously approaching it from the far left.

KittyDuran
04-20-2005, 02:53 PM
Marked my territory??? In what way? Because I disagree with the viewpoint of another poster? Because I felt I was personally attacked by that poster and defended myself? Or because I don't necessarily fall in line with the popular way of viewing the types of issues that this thread was about? Yes, you felt personally attacked - so you went on the attack. Two wrongs, perceived or not, do not make a right. If you felt that RF was calling you a racist, you should go to the moderators and report it. They would issue him a PM warning. But since you're new here you got a bye - if RF did the same he'd be banned. You're best bet was to keep debating your ideas and ignore what RF said especially if you didn't know what he was getting at - heck, I didn't know what he was getting at!!!

Jaycint
04-20-2005, 03:02 PM
Yes, you felt personally attacked - so you went on the attack. Two wrongs, perceived or not, do not make a right. If you felt that RF was calling you a racist, you should go to the moderators and report it. They would issue him a PM warning. But since you're new here you got a bye - if RF did the same he'd be banned. You're best bet was to keep debating your ideas and ignore what RF said especially if you didn't know what he was getting at - heck, I didn't know what he was getting at!!!

I did know what he was getting at. And so did he whether or not he would ever own up to it. Obviously RF and I come from different ends of the political spectrum (although I hardly think I'm coming from as far to the right as he thinks I am).

The one thing I will grant you is that it should have been handled in a PM. I should have contacted him that way to express my concerns over his comment.

Look at my posting history Kitty, I am NOT the type to get into flame wars with people. Heck I don't even come here to talk about stuff outside of baseball normally. Unfortunately I made the mistake of ever even clicking on this thread link and offering my opinion. I should have known better than to even let people know my opinion on the matter.

Falls City Beer
04-20-2005, 03:50 PM
This post really sums up why I'm opposed to "hate crimes". This "hate crime" legislation is on the books because some want additional punishment for what is thought to be the traditional racist crimes of majority upon minority. But by very definition then, the law treats the murder of innocent collateral bank robbery victims as lesser crimes. I can't buy into that. Tell that to a parent of a dead child who was not killed as a result of legislature-defined "hate". I want the death penalty for a racist pig who kills someone because they are a different color. And I want the death penalty for a bank robber who kills someone because they just happen to be standing in a teller line.

The law should busy itself with penalizing horrible actions not branching off into a whole new wing of law trying to get to motivations behind actions.


So you don't think pre-meditated murder (say, a guy who lays out every step of kidnapping, raping, and murdering a young girl) should be punished more severely than aggravated assault with a weapon or manslaughter? After all, they all result in death of a victim.

My point is not to mitigate murder, but to point out that motivation (no matter how you slice it) does and should affect sentencing. The first example above should never see the light of day again; while the 18 year old kid who gets pressured into a gang and shoots someone in a holdup should pay his debt to society (a severe debt), but should also have a chance to produce in society at a date some point down the road.

KittyDuran
04-20-2005, 04:25 PM
Look at my posting history Kitty, I am NOT the type to get into flame wars with people. Heck I don't even come here to talk about stuff outside of baseball normally. Unfortunately I made the mistake of ever even clicking on this thread link and offering my opinion. I should have known better than to even let people know my opinion on the matter. Your mistake was not offering your opinion, the mistake was confronting what you preceived as a threat. Opinions are transparent to those who don't share your POV. Posting history aside, all it takes is that one mistake - I know because I've made them on this side of the forum. Hopefully, it's a lesson learned - you are not going to change anyone's POV - so all you can do is debate and not attack [even if you think, or know you've been attacked wrongly]. I'm glad you understand the reporting and using the PM -that's the first step.

Blimpie
04-20-2005, 04:26 PM
How many do we need to show? Did you hear about the one below? Or did the national media decide that it is not as important as say a "many-times convicted" person like Rodney King? Not that Mr. King deserved what he got (no, of course not). But I do know that King was not riding a city bus. I think he was fleeing from police thru residential streets at 90 mph. I think he was told be many officers to lay on the ground and he would not do it. Maybe police beating someone is more important to the media and people? I see it all as a human beating a human. Those cops were not charged with hate crimes, but we sure as hell heard that term when described by the media and people who defended Mr. King (the man with the rap sheet a mile long). Think racial hatred and violence does not work both ways? If so, then I doubt that anyone or anything will be able to convince you otherwise. It should be obvious to everyone that ALL media is biased to some extent. The only thing that differs is the direction and the extent of their "leanings."

What many people fail to realize is that there was much more of the Rodney King video tape filmed than what normally aired on your local nightly news. It was not until the trial occurred that many people were able to witness the FULL video tape. If you viewed the entire tape unedited, you could see how truly hostile and violent King actually was prior to he being pounced upon. While on PCP mind you, King refused all commands to exit his vehicle. Once he was removed, he took several swings at officers. Even after being pepper sprayed and TASERed, he managed to break his restraints. After about a two minute struggle, he attempted to grab either an officer's baton or his firearm (depending upon which video tape expert you believe). It is at this point in the incident that most TV stations would begin their King tape segment. Of course, this is also the part where the most severe beatings by the officers occured. Some argued that King was not attempting anything malicious by "grabbing for" the officer's baton/firearm. My guess is that there are several bailiffs working in an Atlanta courthouse today that would feel entirely different if placed in the same situation.

News producers would argue that, in the interest of time, they could not air the entire footage on a nightly basis. However, don't they have a responsibility to report all of the facts? If they are basically letting the tape roll and allowing the viewers to draw their own conclusions, shouldn't they have aired the entire amount of tape they had in their possesion? Everyone--especially news producers--has their own personal agenda. When considering the media, we all need to realize this and filter out the appropriate amount of propaganda and bias that was contributed by all those involved.

Jaycint
04-20-2005, 04:42 PM
Hopefully, it's a lesson learned - you are not going to change anyone's POV - so all you can do is debate and not attack [even if you think, or know you've been attacked wrongly]. I'm glad you understand the reporting and using the PM -that's the first step.

I've never functioned under the crazy idea that I could change someone's opinion, especially on such a hot button topic as the one being discussed in this thread. I tried quite simply to state my side of it. Yes RF got under my skin a little bit and I felt like he baited me. I should have let it go and not even responded to it. I admitted as much.

I understand what you are trying to do here Kitty and I appreciate it but please explain the "that's the first step" comment. First step to what? I am not a bad poster or the type of poster that would typically incite an argument. Just because I am fairly new here doesn't mean I am a child in terms of posting on message boards. I feel I'm fairly well spoken and formulate my thoughts and opinions quite well. No need to scold me like a child. :(

Mutaman
04-20-2005, 06:56 PM
Lets sum up:
1. Jaycint seems like a nice enough guy.
2. Rredsfaithful seems like a nice enough guy (and I like his politics).
3. Many whites are biased against people of color and some commit hate crimes.
4. Many people of color are biased against whites and some commit hate crimes.

The issue is: Does the media emphasize fact number 3 and downplay fact number 4?
Not in the media I watch ie- the New York tabloids.

5. Do Rush and Druge ect ect constantly assert that the media is biased against whites and religious people and the rest of the not so silent majority ? You betcha. Its to distract you all from the stuff that really matters.

Jaycint
04-20-2005, 07:50 PM
Lets sum up:
1. Jaycint seems like a nice enough guy.
2. Rredsfaithful seems like a nice enough guy (and I like his politics).
3. Many whites are biased against people of color and some commit hate crimes.
4. Many people of color are biased against whites and some commit hate crimes.

The issue is: Does the media emphasize fact number 3 and downplay fact number 4?
Not in the media I watch ie- the New York tabloids.

5. Do Rush and Druge ect ect constantly assert that the media is biased against whites and religious people and the rest of the not so silent majority ? You betcha. Its to distract you all from the stuff that really matters.

1. Totally agree, he's a really nice guy! :)

2. Would agree with this also, just because RF and I don't see eye to eye on this doesn't mean we can't agree on anything else. I would say with almost certainty he's a nice guy also. (although it sounds like our politics don't match ;) )

3. Agreed

4. Agreed

The issue: This is the only place where our opinions part paths. I can't speak to the New York tabloids specifically since I don't read them, I take you on your word that they are fair and even handed in their coverage of crimes like this. I'm speaking more of the national media, network 6:00 world news types of programs. In the instance of those programs I feel like the coverage is slanted somewhat.

5. Agreed on Rush and Drudge. However for every Rush and Drudge I would offer up a Bill Maher or Jerry Springer on the opposite end of the politcal spectrum. They are just as guilty in my opinion of "propagandizing" for their political interests as are the Rushes and Drudges of the world.


Summation: I think I have pretty well gotten across my feelings on the matter as have the other guys involved. Can we just let this one drift off into the sunset now fellas?

Redsfaithful
04-21-2005, 05:37 AM
However for every Rush and Drudge I would offer up a Bill Maher or Jerry Springer on the opposite end of the politcal spectrum.

Bill Maher and Jerry Springer probably don't have a tenth of the reach that Rush and Drudge have.

I have no idea why dominant groups feel the need to take on a persecuted air, but it's really kind of ridiculous. Christians and whites seem especially fond of this tactic. I think it helps some people avoid feeling bad for being part of the majority that oppresses minorities.


Can we just let this one drift off into the sunset now fellas?

Sure, I just had more to say.

Jaycint
04-21-2005, 09:12 AM
Bill Maher and Jerry Springer probably don't have a tenth of the reach that Rush and Drudge have.

I have no idea why dominant groups feel the need to take on a persecuted air, but it's really kind of ridiculous. Christians and whites seem especially fond of this tactic. I think it helps some people avoid feeling bad for being part of the majority that oppresses minorities.



Sure, I just had more to say.

Couldn't disagree more with this whole post but you win RF, you got the last word. Congrats. :cool: