Feds charge knockout attacker with hate crime

[Sunshine]

Federal authorities charge white 'knockout' suspect with hate crime - Washington Times

Coincidence the only one committed by a white is the one they prosecute

Why does this surprise you?

 

[Sunni Man]

In todays liberal PC world only white people can be considered racist.

99% of the 'knockouts' have been by blacks on whites.

But the only guy charged with a knockout hate crime is white.

Go figure........

Were any of the blacks stupid enough to record themselves saying that they were specially targeting whites?

Good point.

Blacks have much more experience with criminal activities and how not to get caught. ....

 

[Sunshine]

From the article in the OP:

Last month New York authorities did charge one person with a hate crime, saying the assailant targeted a Jewish man.

Read more: Federal authorities charge white 'knockout' suspect with hate crime - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

 

[Sunshine]

Why do people who attacked elderly whites deserve less punishment?

Because whites are the oppressor, dontchaknow.

 

[BobPlumb]

Anyone who runs by another and knocks him out is guilty of assault. That is a crime. We don't need a special category of "hate" crime. There is no "like" or "love" crime. All crimes have an aura of dislike so placing a label of "hate" seems a bit silly. We don't need a federal distinction of crime, either.

Race doesn't matter. We should be beyond that. Is someone is assaulted, it is already deemed a crime. Prosecute it and get it over with. There is no need for a second bite of the prosecutorial apple. To me that is double jeopardy.

If someone throws a rock through a window of an abandoned warehouse, they're guilty of vandalism.

If they throw a rock through a window of a black family's home in order to instill fear in the family, that deserves a harsher penalty than mere vandalism. Don't call it a hate crime enhancement if you don't like that terminology. Instead, acknowledge that there is another crime in the mix -- vandalism + terrorism, or something like that.

However, I don't understand why people have such difficulty with considering the attacker's motivation in race-based crimes. We take state of mind into account for sentencing in homicide cases. Is that wrong?

Once apon a time, a judge or jury would look at the evidence and determine guilty or not guilty. Then if guilty, weigh the relivant circumstances to help determine the sentence. Motivation would be considered when determining the sentence.

 

[Sunshine]

Anyone who runs by another and knocks him out is guilty of assault. That is a crime. We don't need a special category of "hate" crime. There is no "like" or "love" crime. All crimes have an aura of dislike so placing a label of "hate" seems a bit silly. We don't need a federal distinction of crime, either.

Race doesn't matter. We should be beyond that. Is someone is assaulted, it is already deemed a crime. Prosecute it and get it over with. There is no need for a second bite of the prosecutorial apple. To me that is double jeopardy.

If someone throws a rock through a window of an abandoned warehouse, they're guilty of vandalism.

If they throw a rock through a window of a black family's home in order to instill fear in the family, that deserves a harsher penalty than mere vandalism. Don't call it a hate crime enhancement if you don't like that terminology. Instead, acknowledge that there is another crime in the mix -- vandalism + terrorism, or something like that.

However, I don't understand why people have such difficulty with considering the attacker's motivation in race-based crimes. We take state of mind into account for sentencing in homicide cases. Is that wrong?

The state of mind consideration in homicide cases applies to every case. Not just those who are of a certain 'class.'

 

[Jackson]

Anyone who runs by another and knocks him out is guilty of assault. That is a crime. We don't need a special category of "hate" crime. There is no "like" or "love" crime. All crimes have an aura of dislike so placing a label of "hate" seems a bit silly. We don't need a federal distinction of crime, either.

Race doesn't matter. We should be beyond that. Is someone is assaulted, it is already deemed a crime. Prosecute it and get it over with. There is no need for a second bite of the prosecutorial apple. To me that is double jeopardy.

If someone throws a rock through a window of an abandoned warehouse, they're guilty of vandalism.

If they throw a rock through a window of a black family's home in order to instill fear in the family, that deserves a harsher penalty than mere vandalism. Don't call it a hate crime enhancement if you don't like that terminology. Instead, acknowledge that there is another crime in the mix -- vandalism + terrorism, or something like that.

However, I don't understand why people have such difficulty with considering the attacker's motivation in race-based crimes. We take state of mind into account for sentencing in homicide cases. Is that wrong?

Amelia, the example of the rock through the window to terrorize someone makes sense. I agree that would have a HATE crime enhancement for a stronger sentence than just a broken window as in an accident or a kid throwing rocks as kids do.

But in a homicide case, murder is always a hate crime, isn't it? I mean it is never an accident, then it would be manslaughter. So I don't see murder as a hate crime unless there was something like torture or cruel or unusual about it as in decapitation. Do you see where I am coming from?

 

[Amelia]

Anyone who runs by another and knocks him out is guilty of assault. That is a crime. We don't need a special category of "hate" crime. There is no "like" or "love" crime. All crimes have an aura of dislike so placing a label of "hate" seems a bit silly. We don't need a federal distinction of crime, either.

Race doesn't matter. We should be beyond that. Is someone is assaulted, it is already deemed a crime. Prosecute it and get it over with. There is no need for a second bite of the prosecutorial apple. To me that is double jeopardy.

If someone throws a rock through a window of an abandoned warehouse, they're guilty of vandalism.

If they throw a rock through a window of a black family's home in order to instill fear in the family, that deserves a harsher penalty than mere vandalism. Don't call it a hate crime enhancement if you don't like that terminology. Instead, acknowledge that there is another crime in the mix -- vandalism + terrorism, or something like that.

However, I don't understand why people have such difficulty with considering the attacker's motivation in race-based crimes. We take state of mind into account for sentencing in homicide cases. Is that wrong?

Amelia, the example of the rock through the window to terrorize someone makes sense. I agree that would have a HATE crime enhancement for a stronger sentence than just a broken window as in an accident or a kid throwing rocks as kids do.

But in a homicide case, murder is always a hate crime, isn't it? I mean it is never an accident, then it would be manslaughter. So I don't see murder as a hate crime unless there was something like torture or cruel or unusual about it as in decapitation. Do you see where I am coming from?

Yeah, I see what you're saying.

In my gut I still feel a difference between killing someone because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time and the wrong color -- versus killing someone because they embezzled from you. But either person should get life in prison, so there's not that much to argue about.

 

[skookerasbil]

Federal authorities charge white 'knockout' suspect with hate crime - Washington Times

Coincidence the only one committed by a white is the one they prosecute

Unbelievable, yet expected in these days and times.

I sense a growing shift in the wind. A storm is brewing.

Indeed it is........ammo up my friend........ammo up!!! This fucking DOJ is trying to incite a race war......for 5 years running.

 

[Zoom-boing]

In todays liberal PC world only white people can be considered racist.

99% of the 'knockouts' have been by blacks on whites.

But the only guy charged with a knockout hate crime is white.

Go figure........

Were any of the blacks stupid enough to record themselves saying that they were specially targeting whites?

They didn't have to say they were targeting whites, their actions of targeting whites did that.

 

[Katzndogz]

Eric Holder said he would never prosecute a black person for a hate crime. This idiot didn't need to mwke a political statement. If he felt the need to make a statement, pick on a 20 year old black man not a 79 year old black man.

 

[Yurt]

Eric Holder said he would never prosecute a black person for a hate crime. This idiot didn't need to mwke a political statement. If he felt the need to make a statement, pick on a 20 year old black man not a 79 year old black man.

he did? i couldn't find a link to that. i agree with you about the idiot, completely insane method of making a statement.

 

[skookerasbil]

Eric Holder said he would never prosecute a black person for a hate crime. This idiot didn't need to mwke a political statement. If he felt the need to make a statement, pick on a 20 year old black man not a 79 year old black man.

Yep......to Holder, it is not possible for a black to engage in a hate crime. Balcks are knocking whites out all over the planet for fun, but to Holder, that's understandable.


ammo up........

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Anyone who runs by another and knocks him out is guilty of assault. That is a crime. We don't need a special category of "hate" crime. There is no "like" or "love" crime. All crimes have an aura of dislike so placing a label of "hate" seems a bit silly. We don't need a federal distinction of crime, either.

Race doesn't matter. We should be beyond that. Is someone is assaulted, it is already deemed a crime. Prosecute it and get it over with. There is no need for a second bite of the prosecutorial apple. To me that is double jeopardy.

However as long as the law exists it needs to be dolled out equally.
In the case of these knockout game attacks the victim is almost always white and the attacker is almost always black. So far, it looks like there's only been a single case of hate crime charges against a black person.

 

[aaronleland]

'Knockout game' attack leads to hate crime charge

Why haven't any USMB "conservatives" jumped on this story yet? Could it be because it's a white man being charged? Could it be because the man stated that his intention was to attack a black person?

 

[Pennywise]

According to Koko Holder, it's only hate when Whitey doin' da deed.

Fo shizzle, nigga.

 

[Warrior102]

'Knockout game' attack leads to hate crime charge

Why haven't any USMB "conservatives" jumped on this story yet? Could it be because it's a white man being charged? Could it be because the man stated that his intention was to attack a black person?

Payback's a bitch, asshole. A few more of these "sidewalk monkeys" should have their brains randomly beat out. Then they'll see what it's like to be on the receiving end of their ghetto bullshit.

 

[aaronleland]

'Knockout game' attack leads to hate crime charge

Why haven't any USMB "conservatives" jumped on this story yet? Could it be because it's a white man being charged? Could it be because the man stated that his intention was to attack a black person?

Payback's a bitch, asshole. A few more of these "sidewalk monkeys" should have their brains randomly beat out. Then they'll see what it's like to be on the receiving end of their ghetto bullshit.

Did the man targeted commit a crime? Did he have anything to do with these other men who play the knockout game? Do you find justice in a man randomly targeting black people for what others have done?

 

[LeadRoundNose]

Well, Trayvon was a pioneer of sorts as it seems after all! The first "knock-out" gamer! And George was the first to show us all how to win at that game.

And oddly enough, whitey wasn't involved at all.

 

[thereisnospoon]

'Knockout game' attack leads to hate crime charge

Why haven't any USMB "conservatives" jumped on this story yet? Could it be because it's a white man being charged? Could it be because the man stated that his intention was to attack a black person?

Hmm. My local paper did not pick up this story. And it's a Mc Clatchy published paper. Very much a left bias editorial dept.
Quite frankly, I did not know about it....
So if this one is a hate crime, why is it when minority perps attack white people is is NOT a hate crime?
You probably should have left this one alone.