Dumb White Guy Slaps the Wrong Woman

[S.J.]

Calling her Rosa Parks makes it a hate crime? Would it have been better if he called her a bitch instead?

Don't be so quick to believe the story. It doesn't pass the smell test. I'm not saying he didn't slap her, but a red flag goes up when I read what they CLAIM he said.
Let's go over it.
They're claiming she walked past him, smoking, and he got in her face and said "Rosa Parks, move" and spit in her face. Then, as he walked away, the Law Division Judge (I assume that's her) followed him and called out for assistance. Nicosia then turned and allegedly slapped the judge on the left side of her face with an open hand, prosecutors said. He was then arrested by sheriff’s deputies and charged with four counts of aggravated battery and a hate crime.

Were the deputies already there, did they see it, or is this just hearsay? If they were already there, why did she have to call on them for assistance (before he slapped her)? Spitting on someone is assault, why didn't they already have him in cuffs before he "walked away"?

Then the judge, named "James Brown" set his bail at $90,000.
If this doesn't sound like a grossly padded and inflated accounting of events, I don't know what would qualify. This is what it sounds like actually happened.

She stood next to him, smoking. He asked her not to. She told him to fuck off (or some other smart ass remark). He said "Fuck you, bitch", and walked away. She followed him, giving him shit and he turned around and slapped her upside the head. Sounds a lot more like reality.

I don't condone him slapping her, and he should be charged for that but I doubt seriously if the rest of the story is remotely true. Sounds more like they're trying to make a case for racism where there was none, and it sure as shit wouldn't be the first time it's been done.

I think there is more to the story myself. The guy might be a racist; however, it's unlikely that even a racist white asshole will assault an old black lady unprovoked. One thing is for sure, we only have one side of the story.

The incident took place in Cook County (Chicago). It says he's a business owner but doesn't say what kind of business. Chances are the guy has been robbed repeatedly, and let's not fool ourselves about who commits most of the crimes in Cook County. He's probably been on the receiving end of racism many times, so if he's a little prejudiced, he probably has good reason to be. I won't judge him until I hear his side of the story (IF we ever get to hear it).

 

[BobPlumb]

No one really cares what you think about the hate crime law. Its not up for discussion as its already a law. The point is he committed a hate crime against an elderly Black woman. She just happens to have enough clout to make sure he gets whats coming to him in full measure.

This is a discussion board. And since I've been discussing hate crime law, it is certainly up for discussion. If you don't want to be part of the discussion then don't let the door hit your black racist ass on the way out.

Maybe i should clarify my remark. You discussing the hate crime law wont change it. You have not even a scintilla of power in the matter. If that causes consternation for you then deal with it.

Also with your clarification you are trying to move the goal posts. I am under no delusions that any discussions on USMB will change any laws whether it be about hate crimes or jay walking.

 

[Asclepias]

This is a discussion board. And since I've been discussing hate crime law, it is certainly up for discussion. If you don't want to be part of the discussion then don't let the door hit your black racist ass on the way out.

Maybe i should clarify my remark. You discussing the hate crime law wont change it. You have not even a scintilla of power in the matter. If that causes consternation for you then deal with it.

You are discussing hate crime with me. Just can't help yourself can you? Apparently you do care what I think, otherwise you would just move along.

No I'm telling you what you think has no relevance on the law. I care enough to inform you about that.

 

[Asclepias]

This is a discussion board. And since I've been discussing hate crime law, it is certainly up for discussion. If you don't want to be part of the discussion then don't let the door hit your black racist ass on the way out.

Maybe i should clarify my remark. You discussing the hate crime law wont change it. You have not even a scintilla of power in the matter. If that causes consternation for you then deal with it.

Also with your clarification you are trying to move the goal posts. I am under no delusions that any discussions on USMB will change any laws whether it be about hate crimes or jay walking.

I'm glad you have understood my point. That took you long enough.

 

[BobPlumb]

Maybe i should clarify my remark. You discussing the hate crime law wont change it. You have not even a scintilla of power in the matter. If that causes consternation for you then deal with it.

You are discussing hate crime with me. Just can't help yourself can you? Apparently you do care what I think, otherwise you would just move along.

No I'm telling you what you think has no relevance on the law. I care enough to inform you about that.

But you said that no one cares what I think! You can't have it both ways.

Do you think people shouldn't discuss things they can't change? That would really limit what people discuss!

I've read your post enough to know what you are trying to do....be a rude asshole. And you are doing a great job of that.

 

[BobPlumb]

Maybe i should clarify my remark. You discussing the hate crime law wont change it. You have not even a scintilla of power in the matter. If that causes consternation for you then deal with it.

Also with your clarification you are trying to move the goal posts. I am under no delusions that any discussions on USMB will change any laws whether it be about hate crimes or jay walking.

I'm glad you have understood my point. That took you long enough.

Since I never implied that my posts would change anything to do with the law, your point is moot. Your real point was to be rude in telling me that no one cares what I think. Then you prove that not to be true by continuing the discussion with me.

 

[Esmeralda]

I don't think that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it because she is black. If it were a woman wearing glasses and he called her four eyes would if mean that he hates women that wear glasses? Some people simply find names to call people that they are mad at. He could of been mad at her for smoking, not because she was black. He may simply be a bully. It is a common technique of a bully to ridicule the person for whatever characteristics they have. Not that this is any defense for what the guy did.

I would like to know if there is a second side to this story. Was the woman being inconsiderate with her smoke? Did she blow smoke in his face either on purpose or inadvertly?

Reasonable doubt will be an issue when there is a trial. There is enough here to arrest him for assault. The hate crime issue, as well as the assault, will be dealt with during the trial. However, being angry at someone is one thing, making remarks about someone's race while you are attacking them is considered a hate crime.

I personally know of a case in the early 70s where 3 men went to a guy's house to beat him up. They were white and he was black. They tried to force their way into his home and were calling him the 'n' word over and over. He shot one of them and the other two retreated. There was nothing in the books then called a hate crime. There also wasn't anything like the Castle law either.

He was arrested and held for 30 days before being charged, which was the law then in that city. A local civil rights attorney (a white man) took his case pro-bono. The person he shot didn't die. He was released after 30 days and never charged. I imagine all factors were taken into account...self defense, people trying to force their way into your home, and the racist component. My point is, even then, without contemporary laws against hate crime, it was considered so heinous to call someone the 'n' word while attacking him, that a civil rights attorney volunterred to take the case for free.

"Rosa Parks" is light years from using the N-word. Based on this anything that is said that acknowledges a person's race during a crime makes it a hate crime.

I am bias when it comes to these so called hate crimes. To me, it's no better or worse for a person to commit a crime like described in the OP because the man is an asshole bully than if it is because he is a racist.

Actually, calling her Rosa Parks is not calling her a 'n', but it implies the same thing: she is being attacked because she is black; he hates her because she is black.

 

[S.J.]

Reasonable doubt will be an issue when there is a trial. There is enough here to arrest him for assault. The hate crime issue, as well as the assault, will be dealt with during the trial. However, being angry at someone is one thing, making remarks about someone's race while you are attacking them is considered a hate crime.

I personally know of a case in the early 70s where 3 men went to a guy's house to beat him up. They were white and he was black. They tried to force their way into his home and were calling him the 'n' word over and over. He shot one of them and the other two retreated. There was nothing in the books then called a hate crime. There also wasn't anything like the Castle law either.

He was arrested and held for 30 days before being charged, which was the law then in that city. A local civil rights attorney (a white man) took his case pro-bono. The person he shot didn't die. He was released after 30 days and never charged. I imagine all factors were taken into account...self defense, people trying to force their way into your home, and the racist component. My point is, even then, without contemporary laws against hate crime, it was considered so heinous to call someone the 'n' word while attacking him, that a civil rights attorney volunterred to take the case for free.

"Rosa Parks" is light years from using the N-word. Based on this anything that is said that acknowledges a person's race during a crime makes it a hate crime.

I am bias when it comes to these so called hate crimes. To me, it's no better or worse for a person to commit a crime like described in the OP because the man is an asshole bully than if it is because he is a racist.

Actually, calling her Rosa Parks is not calling her a 'n', but it implies the same thing: she is being attacked because she is black; he hates her because she is black.

If he hates her, it's probably because she's a bitch. I'm sure you can relate to that.

 

[Esmeralda]

I don't think that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it because she is black. If it were a woman wearing glasses and he called her four eyes would if mean that he hates women that wear glasses? Some people simply find names to call people that they are mad at. He could of been mad at her for smoking, not because she was black. He may simply be a bully. It is a common technique of a bully to ridicule the person for whatever characteristics they have. Not that this is any defense for what the guy did.

I would like to know if there is a second side to this story. Was the woman being inconsiderate with her smoke? Did she blow smoke in his face either on purpose or inadvertently?

You may not think but sane adults do. Your ad hominem has no bearing on the issue because people wearing glasses is not a covered category under the hate crime description.

His story is irrelevant. She is a judge. He simply messed with the wrong person. For his cowardice he will pay dearly.

His story is irrelevant because she is a judge? Really? The truth is what is relevant.

Are you guys intentionally missing the point here about her being a judge? It isn't that he should be prosecuted because he hit a judge but that she has the power, as an average elderly black woman may not, to make sure this guy is prosecuted, and, imo, made an example of. However, I believe had it been a white woman judge or a white male judge of any age, the same thing would be happening: the attacker would have the law coming down on him like a ton of bricks. You don't mess with judges.

 

[BobPlumb]

Reasonable doubt will be an issue when there is a trial. There is enough here to arrest him for assault. The hate crime issue, as well as the assault, will be dealt with during the trial. However, being angry at someone is one thing, making remarks about someone's race while you are attacking them is considered a hate crime.

I personally know of a case in the early 70s where 3 men went to a guy's house to beat him up. They were white and he was black. They tried to force their way into his home and were calling him the 'n' word over and over. He shot one of them and the other two retreated. There was nothing in the books then called a hate crime. There also wasn't anything like the Castle law either.

He was arrested and held for 30 days before being charged, which was the law then in that city. A local civil rights attorney (a white man) took his case pro-bono. The person he shot didn't die. He was released after 30 days and never charged. I imagine all factors were taken into account...self defense, people trying to force their way into your home, and the racist component. My point is, even then, without contemporary laws against hate crime, it was considered so heinous to call someone the 'n' word while attacking him, that a civil rights attorney volunterred to take the case for free.

"Rosa Parks" is light years from using the N-word. Based on this anything that is said that acknowledges a person's race during a crime makes it a hate crime.

I am bias when it comes to these so called hate crimes. To me, it's no better or worse for a person to commit a crime like described in the OP because the man is an asshole bully than if it is because he is a racist.

Actually, calling her Rosa Parks is not calling her a 'n', but it implies the same thing: she is being attacked because she is black; he hates her because she is black.

So the cigarette smoke had nothing to do with it? I don't know the whole story, but I'm keeping an open mind. Have you ever been in the nearby an impolite smoker? Ever jump to an incorrect conclusion?

 

[skookerasbil]

Fail slap.

God I hate assholes who complain about smoke.......holy fuck.......the limpwristers are everywhere.

 

[Esmeralda]

"Rosa Parks" is light years from using the N-word. Based on this anything that is said that acknowledges a person's race during a crime makes it a hate crime.

I am bias when it comes to these so called hate crimes. To me, it's no better or worse for a person to commit a crime like described in the OP because the man is an asshole bully than if it is because he is a racist.

Actually, calling her Rosa Parks is not calling her a 'n', but it implies the same thing: she is being attacked because she is black; he hates her because she is black.

So the cigarette smoke had nothing to do with it? I don't know the whole story, but I'm keeping an open mind. Have you ever been in the nearby an impolite smoker? Ever jump to an incorrect conclusion?

I think the assumption the attacker jumped to was that an elder woman, perhaps especially an elderly black woman, would have no power, that he could smack her and say something racially insulting and nothing would happen to him because she's just an old black lady.

He jumped to an incorrect conclusion, and that is what this thread is about. Don't assume just because someone is black, or a woman, or old that they have no power.

 

[skookerasbil]

Actually, calling her Rosa Parks is not calling her a 'n', but it implies the same thing: she is being attacked because she is black; he hates her because she is black.

So the cigarette smoke had nothing to do with it? I don't know the whole story, but I'm keeping an open mind. Have you ever been in the nearby an impolite smoker? Ever jump to an incorrect conclusion?

I think the assumption the attacker jumped to was that an elder woman, perhaps especially an elderly black woman, would have no power, that he could smack her and say something racially insulting and nothing would happen to him because she's just an old black lady.

He jumped to an incorrect conclusion, and that is what this thread is about. Don't assume just because someone is black, or a woman, or old that they have no power.

Oh Gawd!!!!!


How predictable are the responses of the feminist bulldogs? Every one screams, if you look closely, 'IM FUCKING MISERABLE AS SHIT AND IM IN YOUR FACE!!!"

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

The incident took place in Cook County (Chicago). It says he's a business owner but doesn't say what kind of business. Chances are the guy has been robbed repeatedly, and let's not fool ourselves about who commits most of the crimes in Cook County. He's probably been on the receiving end of racism many times, so if he's a little prejudiced, he probably has good reason to be. I won't judge him until I hear his side of the story (IF we ever get to hear it).

^^^^ Taking up for the guy who slapped and spit on a woman, because he's white! Nice!

 

[S.J.]

I think there is more to the story myself. The guy might be a racist; however, it's unlikely that even a racist white asshole will assault an old black lady unprovoked. One thing is for sure, we only have one side of the story.

The incident took place in Cook County (Chicago). It says he's a business owner but doesn't say what kind of business. Chances are the guy has been robbed repeatedly, and let's not fool ourselves about who commits most of the crimes in Cook County. He's probably been on the receiving end of racism many times, so if he's a little prejudiced, he probably has good reason to be. I won't judge him until I hear his side of the story (IF we ever get to hear it).

^^^^ Taking up for the guy who slapped and spit on a woman, because he's white! Nice!

Instead of believing this obviously biased report that sounds pretty fishy to begin with, like the rest of the drones in this thread, why don't you show some independent thinking and wait for the other side of the story? Maybe because you're the type who believes everyone is guilty until proven innocent?

You like to claim wisdom all the time, why don't you show some, or do you think you can make a judgement with only half the story?

 

[Politico]

Any man who hits a woman should be jailed.

Unless he's gay, of course. Then they should wrestle topless.

I hit a woman once. But she was sent to kill me. In all fairness this situation is different.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Instead of believing this obviously biased report that sounds pretty fishy to begin with, like the rest of the drones in this thread, why don't you show some independent thinking and wait for the other side of the story? Maybe because you're the type who believes everyone is guilty until proven innocent?

You like to claim wisdom all the time, why don't you show some, or do you think you can make a judgement with only half the story?

So, the guy slaps a US judge and spits on her and you think that she is probably lying or that the guy was just having a NEGRO flashback?

Don't accuse me of being the type who believes everyone is guilty until proven innocent, because that could not BE any more wrong, sir.

Women falsely accuse men all the time, I get that. I seriously doubt that a US judge would put her career on the line just because a guy looked at her funny.

Also, I am not very quick to play the race card, I think most of the time, it's hogwash. In this case the guy made a racially based statement. It boils down to who I believe, the guy or the judge.

At this time, I'm going to avoid the X-mass rush and side with the judge, as I do not believe she would have concocted this.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Oh Gawd!!!!!

How predictable are the responses of the feminist bulldogs? Every one screams, if you look closely, 'IM FUCKING MISERABLE AS SHIT AND IM IN YOUR FACE!!!"

Care to comment on the thread, tough guy?




I'm wondering who pressed charges - the judge or the police?

 

[Bush92]

Knockout Game: Teens Accused Of Beating Random Student For Fun | WREG.com

 

[BobPlumb]

Actually, calling her Rosa Parks is not calling her a 'n', but it implies the same thing: she is being attacked because she is black; he hates her because she is black.

So the cigarette smoke had nothing to do with it? I don't know the whole story, but I'm keeping an open mind. Have you ever been in the nearby an impolite smoker? Ever jump to an incorrect conclusion?

I think the assumption the attacker jumped to was that an elder woman, perhaps especially an elderly black woman, would have no power, that he could smack her and say something racially insulting and nothing would happen to him because she's just an old black lady.

He jumped to an incorrect conclusion, and that is what this thread is about. Don't assume just because someone is black, or a woman, or old that they have no power.

You interpretation of what happen is very possible. However having power is not the same thing as truth. That is a small but reasonable possibility that this little old lady judge likes to push people around. Power corrupts you know!

And maybe the dude called the woman "Rosa Parks" because she looks like Rosa Parks.