Here's another hate crime that will never be reported

Status
Not open for further replies.
unbelieveable but true

I always thought it would make a great experiment to build four identical 100 home neighborhoods place them alone , say out side Las Vegas where you have the room. Make them all completely independent of one another or any other influences. Then populate them with 100 families picked at random from four races white, black, Hispanic, and Asian. Free homes no rent just utilities. the folks have to stay 5 years. At the end of that see what the differences are. Never happen but I kind think we all know thew outcome anyway if your a realist..


These statistics jumped out at me when I accidentally discovered them almost 20 years ago, till to this day I remember the numbers.

USA about 1985 or 6
180,million something Caucasian, 15,000 plus arrests for murder.
26 million something blacks 15,000 plus arrests for murder
Now there were more of the former but it was in the hundreds not thousands.
When I read this I had to go back and reread several times to believe it myself.

My heart hurts for those of color that are good folks and have to deal with what their fellow people do, must be hard indeed.
 
Rem33

Those numbers are a little too vague to really show anything.

First, they only deal with arrests and not convictions.

Second, they do not take income level, location, or other social and financial factors into account. Were the crimes statistics more even when you deal only with income levels? Were they more even when you looked at people from inner cities? and alot of other questions.

For example...lets say 100 people are living in an inner city enviroment and living below the poverty level.
Of these 100 people 80 are black and hispanic and 20 are white. Since, as I mentined before, poor whites are less likely to live in inner cities.
Then lets say 4 whites commit crimes and 16 blacks and hispanics commit a crime.
A racist would say that blacks and hispanics are 4x more likely to commit a crime.
A mathmetician would say that the likely hood is even for each race group since they both offended at a level of 20%.

Location, family status, and financial staus all play big factors. When you look at the social indicators it leans much more towards it being a case of nurture not nature that causes the crimes.
 
your correct in that it included the entire US with no other info at all. It was just so lopsided that I was shocked. I hope this is not taken as a racial blast from me. Also during this time frame the Crips and Bloods etc were at each others throat much worse than today so I have no idea of the fairness or the conviction rate etc etc just what was printed in the Almanac.

Those numbers are a little too vague to really show anything.
Click to expand...

But I wouldn't go quite that far. You can spin it however you like but my understanding these were FBI stats. its plain and simple.

I am going to not reply I don't think anymore here. This could get very racial and I DO NOT want to go there in any way shape or form.
 
your correct in that it included the entire US with no other info at all. It was just so lopsided that I was shocked. I hope this is not taken as a racial blast from me.
Click to expand...
No, I did not take it as a racial blast. You are just pointing out the fact that if you are black or hispanic you are much more likely to commit a crime in this country. That is just reality.

I was just adding that even though you are more likely to commit a crime if you are black or hispanic your race is not the true contributing factor but instead just an instance of hapinstance. It just so happens that the true contributing factors (financial status, family group, and location) tend to be more prevelant in those race groups.

You are not more likely to commit a crime "because you are black" or less likely "because you are white". You are just more likely to fall into the other catagories that contribute to the liklihood of offending if you are black and less likely if you are white.

That is the part that scares the media. Without all the numbers and conditions it seems very misleading and they assume that most Americans are too stupid to understand or too racist to accept the true contributing factors.
 
I always :rolleyes: at even the mention of the word "hate" crime followed by a speech about how "racism is horrible in America." So I guess white on white crime or black on black crime is a "love" crime?:rolleyes: Hate is involved somewhere when murder is involved regardless of race. They throw in the world "hate" crime to politicize it, blow it up and give it special attention to satisfy some goon in offices (or wannabe in office) agenda by catering to crowd A, B or C. (James Byrd case, excellent example. Fry those two thugs who killed him, throw their bodies in the trash and move on with life. No need to make more out of it.)
 
Double Naught, I believe that the point being made is that the media always interjects racism, the basis for "Hate Crime", into cross-group crimes that have whites as the aggressor.
Click to expand...

Interesting, I read the start of the thread as suggesting there was some sort of media conspiracy based on race to not report such events. The media, especially CNN, is apparently not reporting the story...since there is more than one entity involved, the conspiracy, and the notion stated is because of the factors of the case.

I found it odd that this is now considered a HATE crime although there isn't much in the way to suggest the crimes were motivated based on racial differences. It appears those involved like David Duke want to make this out to be a hate crime in playing tit for tat to match those cases where cross-race crimes are claimed to be HATE crimes when the only basis seems to be because of more than one race involved.
 
Dangerwing

The point is not that these statements are true (which they are) but that they are also ideologies promoted by the popular media. It should be ok to be white, conservative, Christian, heterosexual, and to teach your own children about the birds and bees when it is appropriate for them and not when the school decides it is appropriate (I have a real problem with schools teaching 4th graders how to put on condoms). That last line is what the media thinks of us. I too claim the title of extreme right wing on at least most things. I do not however consider myself a danger to myself or others (so long as others do not become a danger to me, my loved ones, or my country).

Didn't mean to be confusing.:)
 
I do not however consider myself a danger to myself or others (so long as others do not become a danger to me, my loved ones, or my country).
Click to expand...
That is a sticky statement. The first two parts (you or your family) are ok but the last part is pretty scary.

It makes people wonder just what would you consider a threat to your country? Some people consider women who get abortions a "threat to their country" because they feel they are a threat to what they consider the "moral" backbone of their version of America.
 
Playboypenguin

Point well made. I mean that I am willing to take up arms if required to defend the Constitution of the United States against enemies foreign or domestic. It does sound rather ominous dosen't it. Have to stand with the statement though.

As for decaying morals... Morals are standards set and modified by individual belief systems and community norms. Though I find much of modern behavior repugnant and very often unethical, because it is tolerated and even accepted by the community I cannot call it immoral but rather a shift in what constitutes moral behavior.
 
"They closed that thread. I guess TFL didn't want it to get out either ?"

It was already "out" before it was ever mentioned here. It didn't garner the level of attention of the mass media's usual case-of-the-week/month/year, but very, very few stories ever do. They pick one or two to harp on and the thousands of others get minimal attention. What's so hard to understand?

John
 
They closed that thread. I guess TFL didn't want it to get out either ?
Click to expand...

Yeah, you caught us. We're part of the national Liberal media conspiracy that aims to conceal black-on-white crime, so people won't learn that blacks are criminal savages who delight in torturing and killing white folk.

Is that the answer you were looking for?

Seriously...I find the implications of your statement insulting, and I fear that my IQ has dropped two points by even addressing it. If you think that highly of TFL, maybe you should find yourself another online venue, because we're clearly not for you.
 
Seriously...I find the implications of your statement insulting, and I fear that my IQ has dropped two points by even addressing
Click to expand...

Insulting? No I find that a obviously liberal guy that didn't even grow up in America can judge how we feel here and your anti-blue collar white American predigests are so thinly veiled anyone with a lick of common sence can see right Thur it. I have found that most when they begin to brag of their IQ are far to smart and cool for me anyhow.

This will probably be my last post here as I bet this gets me banned and the post will be deleted but, oh well. I will refuse to cower to PC thinking and if my views cause me to be banned so be it.

I would think someone in a position of " staff lead" would or could at the very least hide his distaste of the descendants that built this great nation.
But then maybe I am to stupid to "get it" and if this is too personal here go look at some of your past posts
Good day sir.
 
No, I think your opinion ought to remain accessible to the membership.

If you think I'm "obviously liberal", you've never read anything I've written in L&P. As for the "not born here" thing, I have to point out that I chose to become an American. What did you ever do for the privilege, other than being born here?

Also, I was addressing the original poster, not you.

Once again, if you dislike my opinion and the way in which I enforce board policies, there are plenty of other gun boards out there. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to keep reading and contributing here.

But then maybe I am to stupid to "get it"
Click to expand...

That's a possibility, of course.
 
Hey Marko,
Ever hear of the 1st amendment . And yes I still feel you didn't give that thread a fair chance just cause of one word. Would it have been different if he call them a pack of wild dogs ? Or called them savages,Because thats what they acted like. And thats an understatment. Any time things get a little controversial you guys (some more then others) decide to close it up for whatever reason. If this is the kind of response I get when I question one of you or make a remark then maybe your right, maybe I should go to another forum. And I don't know who you think you are trying to chastise me like a I'm one of your kids either.
 
I am sure Rem33 knows there are plenty of other gun boards on the web but his opinions, (and others), are valuable to the members here at tfl.
There is a national liberal media conspiracy that is concealing black- on -white crime?
I will definitely start keeping an eye out for that.
Thank you for the heads up .
 
rerick,

I have typed this response so many times that I actually have taken the time to make a little text file out of it.

The First Amendment only has bearing on the government, not on private parties. Freedom of speech does not apply on private property. You cannot invoke your “free speech” rights on a private bulletin board anymore than I can demand a right to “free speech” in your living room. As the owner of the property, you have the absolute right to set standards of acceptable conduct or speech, and your guests have to abide by them. If you hold a gathering in your living room, and one of your guests continuously uses foul language in front of your children, can that guest invoke the “right to free speech” when you tell them to shut up or leave? The answer, of course, is “no”. The Firing Line is not a “public forum”, but private property, operating like a private club, and subject to specific guidelines to which you agreed when you signed up for participation.

Now, first of all this thread has not yet been closed, despite your insulting implication that we at TFL are somehow trying to keep a lid on reports of black crime. (There goes your argument, by the way.)

Second, the closed thread to which you are referring was closed because it violated board policies, plain and simple. We don't close threads that discuss crime; we close threads where posters are a.) insistent to blame crime on the perpetrator's race or religion, and b.) unable to phrase their post in a civilized manner.

Now, ask yourself what kind of discussion the original post is supposed to foster. Was this a post merely describing the crime in a Legal & Political or self-defense context? No, it was a salacious description of the event intended to stir emotions, and a simultaneous accusation that such "black on white" crimes are intentionally kept under wraps because of "political correctness". What the hell kind of quality discussion do you expect from a starting post like that?

As for your "chastising"...I don't know why you're all offended now, when it was you who flat out accused TFL and its staff of "politically correct" censorship of black-on-white crime news. Do you expect to sling accusations and have them go unanswered? Who exactly do you think you are?

Once again, if you're offended by the way this board is run, feel free to cease posting. This is not your (or anyone else's) personal club house, and you will abide by the Forum Rules and moderator directions if you wish to remain a member. You don't get to set the rules in another man's living room, even if it's just a virtual one.
 
There is a national liberal media conspiracy that is concealing black- on -white crime?
Click to expand...

That's an option. Another option is that black-on-white crime (as well as black-on-black crime) is common enough to not qualify as being particularly "newsworthy," compared to the less common white-on-black crime. Or, you know, it could be a little of both.

It's also worth noting that this (hate crimes) is hardly the only issue where news coverage is horribly biased based on race. One white blonde girl disappears, and it gets national media attention. One black girl disappears, and you're lucky to get local police attention. So it goes both ways.

One thing to remember about the bias in the news media: this may be cynical, but they're in it for the money. So news that people don't care to see will generally be reported on less than news that the unwashed masses are interested. You don't see hours upon hours of Anna Nicole coverage because somebody in the news department decided it was the most important story around. You see it because people who are not you (or me) are watching the heck out of it.
 
You cannot invoke your “free speech” rights on a private bulletin board anymore than I can demand a right to “free speech” in your living room.
Click to expand...

If you were a guest in my home you would be free to speak your mind and I would insist and welcome it Whether I agree or not. Enough said


You don't see hours upon hours of Anna Nicole coverage because somebody in the news department decided it was the most important story around. You see it because people who are not you (or me) are watching the heck out of it.
Click to expand...
Juan,
Did they say who the father was yet ? :eek:
 
One thing to remember about the bias in the news media: this may be cynical, but they're in it for the money.
Click to expand...

I'm all for a fully funded independent news source such as the BBC. Take the money out of the equation and you might actually have some balanced reporting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top