Here we go again: Media and the Chicago Area Shootings

Well, it's certainly a complex issue. I hear where you're coming from - a life is a life is a life. I guess there are two points I'd like to make:

1) the person who is killed is not the only victim. Given the case where a looney toon shoots into a crowd of (members of group) coming out of place where (group members) stereotypically meet, the victims are all of the members of the group. No, they're not victims of murder. They're victims of terror. Their "civil rights" if you will, are being violated because they no longer feel comfortable meeting (or walking on the street, or riding the bus, or whereever the murder took place).

2) the concept of aggravating circumstances. If our looney toon drives into a crowd and kills a few people, is the charge first degree murder, or vehicular homicide? How could it be ruled first degree murder if the perp wasn't aiming at a particular person? What if it could be shown that the perp was aiming for a particular type of person? In this case, a strong "hate crimes" law lets the DA prosecute a more serious crime.

Come on, you know that murderers are walking after serving 3 or 4 years! In an ideal world, we'd either execute them immediately, or banish them somewhere. I'm sure I don't have to tell you this ain't the ideal world. Anything that legitimately increases the penalty for murder (or any violent crime) is a good thing.

[This message has been edited by Ewok (edited July 07, 1999).]
 
The fact is, this makes one person's safety more important than another. Let's not fool ourselves: hate crime laws are only going to protect a select few. Hate crime laws bark up the wrong tree and succomb to the mentality of "just do anything....it's better than doing nothing (to curb crime)".

Sorry, but when a criminal act happens all people should be concerned. Just because someone of another race etc is attacked does not mean that I don't feel it. Everyone suffers when criminals walk, not just the people of one race. Saying otherwise is racist in itself and making laws as such only serve to divde the races further.

Not only that, but how are we going to prove why someone does a criminal act? There is no doubt that people will be wrongly convicted under these laws, and that wrongly convicted person could be you or me!
As an extreme but very plausible example, what if a white male (who will be the only class of people targeted by these laws because white males are the only people capable of being racist, sexist, prejudice, discriminatory etc) has a history of saying racist jokes. Then, in a legitimate need, he has to shoot a black person to defend innocent life. Now, that black person's life is somehow more valuable than everyone else's, and that white man will stand trial not just for shooting someone in defense, but for a hate crime too. Hogwash. I may not agree with the telling of racist jokes, but I will not be convinced that someone should basically go on trial for a hate crime because of how they choose to be funny in their private time with friends. Racist jokes may be distastful and wrong, but they should not send someone to jail, which is what, in effect, this would cause.

I envision this kind of thing happening to me and my friends and I don't like it. Not because I tell racist jokes, which I do not, but because I am part of the scourge of the Earth....I am a (gasp!) white male. Every single time a white male has need to use violent measures to defend himself, he will be on trial for a hate crime. This could be any one of many of us. In effect, it will further castrate a large portion of the populace into being even less able to defend themselves when needed. We already have to worry about being tried for murder if we shoot someone in defense. I will not support another law that I have to have flash through my mind when defending myself, making me worry that if I defend my life I am going to be strung up for it.

In fact, to put this in perspective: I think we can agree that this law will %99 of the time, be only applied against white males who use violent action (justly or unjustly) against a female, homosexual or minority. I'm sorry, but this law is NOT going to ever be used against a gang of minority hoods who beat up a white guy for coming into their turf. Okay, so with the assumption that this law only protects certain groups, what if we flipped the tables? What if we wanted to make a law that only protected white guys? What if we made a law that said that if you attack a white guy, you will be tried for an extra charge, and will not only go to jail for the crime, but for the fact that you commited this crime against a white guy. Yeah, I think we can see how popular that law would be. Hate crime laws are the same thing, only the opposite, because the only people they will be used on is white guys, and the only people it protects is everyone else. That would be considered a "racist law" in my book.

"Motion does not equal progress". We are barking up the wrong tree here. Let's not let the nation fool themselves into thinking they are making progress on crime by passing racist laws. Let's use our energy to get to the heart of the matter, and punish criminals for their acts, fully and harshly. It sounds like the reason for making this law is to somehow increase punishment. Why beat around the bush, just get to the heart of the matter and increase punishment for crimes overall!

Murder=Death Penalty. You can't make someone deader than they already are in order to punish them more. As with the gun laws, let's get back the basics and enforce the system we have, like it was meant to be enforced.

Hate crime laws are a Bandaid for America. Just like "gun control". We might as well call it "hate control", because that is about how effective these laws would be. It is all about making new laws to cover the old laws that are already on the books, but we refuse to enforce. But....at least we are "doing something", so therefore things are getting better.

just a humble opinion from a really really poor white guy,
thaddeus



[This message has been edited by thaddeus (edited July 07, 1999).]
 
Ewok, I realize the justice system has its problems. But, I don't agree that the solution is to more severely criminalize some murders / rapes / assaults more than others. I would argue the solution is to improve the system overall.

thaddeus makes some good points. The other evening I heard the Ken Hamblin show - the fellow that calls himself the 'Black Avenger'. He was interviewing a writer who had examined DOJ statistics, and who had concluded that white-on-black crime was far outweighed by black-on-white crime. (He also discussed Latino and Asian stat's, but let's ignore that for this discussion.)

Now, his discussion was cogent and calm, and he simply was pointing out the irony that discussions about 'hate crimes' usually focus on situations where the victim(s) is black, Jewish, Asian, etc. He was raising the question about why we assume that a white-on-black crime is racist, but a black-on-white crime is simple criminal activity for profit.

Consider this - if people like our friend Bill are able to get others to buy this argument, we may have many more 'hate crimes'. Do you really believe this will improve the situation? Do you believe, in your heart of hearts, this will bring people together - or force them farther apart?

I don't feel passionately about this issue. And, I honestly don't believe I am a racist. Perhaps ignorant about some race issues, and certainly not as sensitive as I would be if I were part of a minority group. But I wasn't raised to accept racism, and I think it is illogical and ignorant.

But, I assure you I might become passionately interested in this issue if things develop so that white-on-black crimes become more severely punished than black-on-white crimes. Both are wrong - both are reprehensible. Both must be punished. And, if I personally know some of the individuals involved, my passion increases.

I don't have any patience with racists. No matter what color they are.

'Unintended consequences' comes to mind, and I don't mean the book in this case. 'Hate crimes' will only serve to divide our country further. Which will, of course, lead to more vigorous prosecution and more legislation involving hate crimes. Failure will bring more of the same.

Gee ... this sounds like drug and gun laws, doesn't it? Nah - we'd never do something stupid like that, would we? ;)
 
The previous remarks are EXACTLY why I made this earlier post:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I was raised to believe that ALL crimes are HATE crimes... Somebody will always get hurt either financially, emotionally or physically!

To debate which category a specific act of terrorism can be placed in is just the same as debating the effectiveness of a poison (Dahmer), a knife (OJ), or a rope (Hillside Strangler) vs an "Assault Weapon".[/quote]

I still stand by my beliefs that ANY crime is a hate crime! I am also very much against "Affirmative Action", as it is racist in it's own right...

To be a white male in these troubling times is the same as stamping "SCUM" on your forehead in bright red letters.

We have:

1) All Female colleges, males NOT allowed!

2) All Black colleges, whites NOT allowed!

3) BET, Black Entertainment Television... An all white network would be construed as being incredibly racist though! Even just the name, "White Entertainment Television", would be interpreted as sick and racist... How about just calling it, "NAZI TV"..?

I am apalled with society as a whole! On one hand we have the dumba$$ trailor trash whites saying the "N" word and being sued for it, yet on the other hand we have blacks refering to themselves as "N's" and calling whites "Crackers, Honkeys, Whitey, etc." and that is not just okay, it's the things award winning TV sitcoms are made of!

What if Charleton Heston had made the same comments about Spike Lee... Can you say ACLU and/or NAACP sponsered lawsuit..?

Why can't we just all get along and live by the two sets of rules..?

(1) The "10 Commandments"
(2) The "Bill of Rights"

Remember, all men are created equal!


[This message has been edited by antiUSSA (edited July 07, 1999).]
 
The definition of a "hate Crime" is an act of violence that is perpitrated on another person ****solely*** because of the victims race, religion, sexual orientation or national origin.

If a white guy beats the snot out of a black guy, only ***because he's black*** makes this a hate crime. If the white guy beats the snot of of a black guy because the black guy was cheating at pool, or the white guy wanted to steal the black guys wallet, or because of an aurgument over something that got out of control is not a hate crime. The media is using the "hate crime" phrase as a exclaimation point to call attention to the story. Again, it is another example of the media not knowing or caring about what they are talking about. Hate crimes sells papers, simple assualt or robbery does not. All it sums up to is Yellow Dog Sensationlist Journalism.

Joe Portale
Tucson, Arizona Territory
 
This is the problem with "hate crime"....
It becomes Federalized and as a result becomes the opportunity for ambitious lawyers, judges and politicians.

A white guy beats up a black guy for allegedly cheating at poker...the "hate crime" card is invoked.
"Would you have beaten a white man for the same thing?" Yes
"Can you prove that?" Well, how?
Thus, one is put in the position of trying to prove a negative.

I think I understand "antiUSSA"...but he is confusing the issue semantically. As I understand, he feels all crimes are hate...but by using that term we get caught up in semantics.

The facts are...murder is murder, period. Suppose Smith was a man afflicted by white guilt and believed all whites were racist and he intentionally selected whites to kill. Would hate crime be invoked?
The law allows for special circumstances..
ex. A guy knocks over a 7-11 and its videotaped....he shoots the clerk. Did the tape show the clerk cooperating and helpless or did the clerk come at the robber? One is capital murder, the other is non-capital murder. The terms "wanton", "coldblooded", etc are allowed.
Now, some of us may make no distinction, but the law does. However, a crime like Smith's is clearly wanton and coldblooded. Had he lived he would have been tried for capital murder, so what good (other than BS feel good fluff) would "hate crime" accomplish?

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
Joe, you lost me somewhere. Sounds like we agree on the definition of "Hate Crime." Good, I'm not interested in arguing semantics anymore (one might say that we have a few anti-semantic people here :D). But are you saying that the Benjamin Smith murders don't meet that definition? Why fault the media for calling it a hate crime? Maybe the next Benjamin Smith will be stopped before he kills, if his friends and family realize that hate can be powerful motivation.

Anyway, as JJB said "back to the topic." I suggest we all re-read his post.
 
Ewok,

No, what Ben Smith did WAS a hate crime. He focused is violence on people based on their color and religion. I might have mis-read something that made me believe that we were getting confused on the matter. I was trying to re-enforce the fact that there are inequities presented by the media and a TRUE hate crime can get lost in the media rhetoric. The press and politicians will label an act of criminal violence a hate crime to get ratings and attention when the act does not fit the definition.

apologies for the confusion,

Joe Portale
Tucson, Arizona Territory
 
"lightly armored, mobile weapons platform"
I like it. Gee, my Ranger goes from taking me fishing and shooting to "All-terrain multiple weapons platform"

I should try selling it to the military for $100,000 and buy myself more guns with the money.
 
I dont think the average joe re ally understands how the NWO in Europe and in America are using the Hegalian_Communist doctrine of creating a problem and finding a solution for it. The elites know exactly what they are doing by pitting race against race. I believe these so called racist groups whether White ,Black, or Hispanic(Brown Berets in Kalifornia and Texas who want southwest back) are ALL heavily inflitrated by the Federales who are USING ALL OF THESE GROUPS to foment chaos resulting in the suspension of all our rights. This is how Fascist or Communisthave operated before in other countries and the NEW World Order boys are the same old crowd just recycled. This is my opinion and it probably isnt too popular.Our government would never set up such groups. Sure it woulnt!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top