White Woman Had To Die - Again, Where Is The Outrage?

[hylandrdet]

My Original post statistics:

Statistics from 1976 to 2002 --
·86% of white victims were killed by whites
·94% of black victims were killed by blacks

Does any ware in this data, indicated that whites are not likely to be killed by whites and blacks not more likely to be killed by blacks. I was just pointing out that it was more likely for a white to be killed by a non-white than blacks are.

And what I'm pointing out to you is that the odds of it ever happening to a white person are too remote to care about.

Simple data that’s all, I never made a claim that African Americans were conducting a racial war, but there is also no such attacks going on by whites against blacks either. The KKK and white supremacist aren’t doing any serious amounts of killing against minorities to justify hate crime legislation, there mostly just idiot whites that pretty much every white person will side with blacks against.

Black on Black on violence is out of control though, and has been for a very long time, and African American Politicians seem to care far more about a small percentage of white killing blacks than the much larger portion of blacks killing blacks.

As for the assumption your making about me, I have known three close black work acquaintances in my life, one I considered a good friend at the time. One was a very good sales person, one was a hard working family man from Chicago, and the was a somewhat nerdy, virgin, mid- twenty film student that wanted to be an actor, he did more than anything to destroy any racial stereo types that I might have had.

Get your panties out of a bunch, buddy; nobody's calling you a racist. I always argue against the idea of worrying about things that might not happen in my lifetime. Even though you might not be a racist, postings like these make for good ammo for those who are. Your posting is not racist, but it was irresponsible.

To be frank, I would rather worry about that asteroid that's heading in our direction, than to worry about any man killing me, much less a black man.

 

[Markainion]

And what I'm pointing out to you is that the odds of it ever happening to a white person are too remote to care about.



Get your panties out of a bunch, buddy; nobody's calling you a racist. I always argue against the idea of worrying about things that might not happen in my lifetime. Even though you might not be a racist, postings like these make for good ammo for those who are. Your posting is not racist, but it was irresponsible.

To be frank, I would rather worry about that asteroid that's heading in our direction, than to worry about any man killing me, much less a black man.

Dude I am not worried about African American, I live in Utah, they are minorities to minorities were I live. Most blacks I meet have jobs and don’t have any real attitude about whites. Not saying they wouldn’t prefer more non-white living here though. You’re the one that seem to have problem, I can walk any street in Utah and feel safe, and I have walked many of what might be considered the worst neighborhoods, and don’t think that murders don’t happen here, more than a few happen each years, most of which are less than 10 miles from where I live.

 

[Zhukov]

The state should not get involved in the state of mind of the perpetrator.

the law does consider state of mind

the state regularly gets involved in the state of mind of people who commit crime.

Everything else you wrote is irrelevant, because that was the only point I was making and you have agreed to it.

If you want penalties for hate crimes to be more severe than other (non-hate?!) murder penalties, you may need another reason than the courts already get involved with state of mind.

I don't agree with hate crime legislation

So I have to disagree with you that hate crime legislation is a mere extension of current law as I believe you have indicated.

I don't remember saying anything to that effect.

You are reading entirely too much into what I have said.

But now that you mention it, what is hate crime legislation if not an extension of current law?

 

[Abbey Normal]

Originally Posted by Abbey
"the law does consider state of mind"
----------------------------

Come on now. You take the first few words of one of my sentences, leave out all that follows, and claim that this states my opinion on the topic and therefore we agree? Even a casual reading of my two posts shows that I in no way backed up your point. That is a misrepresentation of what I took the time to write out, in detail. Feel free to disagree, but please don't debate me by editing my words to distort their meaning. kay?

 

[hylandrdet]

Dude I am not worried about African American, I live in Utah, they are minorities to minorities were I live. Most blacks I meet have jobs and don’t have any real attitude about whites. Not saying they wouldn’t prefer more non-white living here though. You’re the one that seem to have problem, I can walk any street in Utah and feel safe, and I have walked many of what might be considered the worst neighborhoods, and don’t think that murders don’t happen here, more than a few happen each years, most of which are less than 10 miles from where I live.

Huh?

Dude, I used to live in Detroit! Trust me, if you treat black people like they're human beings, and stay away from the obvious trouble spots, you won't have a problem with black violence.

Utah??? The only blacks there are playing for the Jazz! (Sorry, I had to throw a little jab at you.)

 

[Zhukov]

Originally Posted by Abbey
"the law does consider state of mind"
----------------------------

Come on now. You take the first few words of one of my sentences, leave out all that follows, and claim that this states my opinion on the topic and therefore we agree? Even a casual reading of my two posts shows that I in no way backed up your point. That is a misrepresentation of what I took the time to write out, in detail. Feel free to disagree, but please don't debate me by editing my words to distort their meaning. kay?

Don't be a wade.

Merlin made a blanket statement. I replied with a blanket statement that conflicted with Merlin's blanket statement. You presented a nuanced position that contained within it an acknowledgement of the fact of my blanket statement, even if you wished to provide all sorts of caveats to explain why you didn't think it was important despite that all I argued was the fact of it. Which, as I said, you acknowledge.

Are you now saying that didn't happen?

I'm not interested in what role such considerations play in the prosecution of a crime. The fact is that these things are considered, and that's my only point.

I stand by my original statement in all it's simplicity.

 

[Trigg]

There is NO way in HELL the NAACP would let that happen.

That is exactly what's wrong with hate crime laws, and if this guy isn't tried under them than they need to be done away with all together.

White kids beat up black kid = hate crime
hispanic kids beat up black kid= hate crime
black guy says he wanted to kill a white woman = might be a hate crime?WTF

I would think lawyers will be watching this case closely (if he isn't charged)
and white/hispanic people who are being charged with hate crimes can pull up this case and argue against it.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Don't be a wade.

Merlin made a blanket statement. I replied with a blanket statement that conflicted with Merlin's blanket statement. You presented a nuanced position that contained within it an acknowledgement of the fact of my blanket statement, even if you wished to provide all sorts of caveats to explain why you didn't think it was important despite that all I argued was the fact of it. Which, as I said, you acknowledge.

Are you now saying that didn't happen?

I'm not interested in what role such considerations play in the prosecution of a crime. The fact is that these things are considered, and that's my only point.

I stand by my original statement in all it's simplicity.

That's cool- you can ignore the facts about state of mind and stand by your position until the cows come home. It doesn't affect me if you refuse to acknowledge it.

To answer your question, emphatically, no, it didn't happen the way you portray it. I never "acknolwedged your blanket statement", and your wishing does not make it so. But thanks for saying my argument was nuanced. That's a good thing. All those years in law school learning to analyze the law are still helpful.

Btw, your "wade" accusation is happily lost on me. Personal insult, per chance?

 

[Zhukov]

Btw, your "wade" accusation is happily lost on me. Personal insult, per chance?

Nope, just an entreatment.

 

[GotZoom]

Btw, your "wade" accusation is happily lost on me. Personal insult, per chance?

1. Wade
n.
1. One who is enviable in every aspect of his existence.
2. One who induces inferiority complexes and bitterness due to his unattainable and nearly-inhumane perfection.

 

[Abbey Normal]

1. Wade
n.
1. One who is enviable in every aspect of his existence.
2. One who induces inferiority complexes and bitterness due to his unattainable and nearly-inhumane perfection.

Well I'll be gob-smacked! (another phrase that sounds dirty, but isn't).

 

[GotZoom]

Well I'll be gob-smacked! (another phrase that sounds dirty, but isn't).

I have liked gob-smacked for years.

 

[Abbey Normal]

I have liked gob-smacked for years.

It's a fun phrase.

Kind of like "frosting the donut". Some things just sound wrong.

 

[GotZoom]

It's a fun phrase.

Kind of like "frosting the donut". Some things just sound wrong.

Frosting the donut....lol....gross.....if we are using the same definition.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Frosting the donut....lol....gross.....if we are using the same definition.

It's a legitimate phrase, if you work for Krispy Kreme or Dunkin Donuts.

 

[GotZoom]

It's a legitimate phrase, if you work for Krispy Kreme or Dunkin Donuts.

True.

But if you don't......

 

[Abbey Normal]

True.

But if you don't......

We won't go there...

 

[GotZoom]

We won't go there...

So you doooooooooo know what it means....

Enough said.

 

[elephant]

1. Wade
n.
1. One who is enviable in every aspect of his existence.
2. One who induces inferiority complexes and bitterness due to his unattainable and nearly-inhumane perfection.

Could you please cite your source for the defintion of 'wade'?
If possible word origin would be nice as well.

Thank you.

 

[kurtsprincess]

Just a thought - could 'fit of rage' be argued as 'fit of hate'?

I don't know and this is why I'm not supportive of hate crime legislation. Who defines what a "hate crime" is? It would seem that every section of every culture could come up with a hate crime scenario.

This guy said he killed her because she was white, right? Did he say he "hated" whites? Perhaps he just hated blondes with blue eyes; or just blondes; or just people with blue eyes. Why is there even a distinction for "hate crimes"?

Whether or not the law gets involved in the "state of mind" of the murderer, it is still murder. Why is it necessary to determine if the killer was a bigot or just out on a lark and wanted to kill someone? Why should the sentence be any harsher than that for a murderer of one's own race, etc.?

To me, when stiffer penalties are assigned to different types of murders, it negates the importance of any one who was murdered that did not fit within that particular type of murder. If my white child was intentionally killed by a white man, why should that penalty be any less than if a black child was killed by a white man? Regardless of whether the man hated whites or blacks......what if he just hated kids? Is killing kids considered a "hate crime"?

Where does it stop?