why is it that African Americans never seem to be charged with hate crimes?

[IntelliQ]

Originally Posted by DianaG

You poor persecuted kid.

reported.

This isnt the pit.

Instead of insulting me, you could try adding something to the topic.

[DianaG]

I suppose I could, if you'd post something worth responding to in a way I haven't already.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by DianaG

I don't, but since I suspect it's a scenario you're itching to try out, maybe you can claim it's in the name of science.

Knock it off. This is appropriate for the Pit, but not GD.

[Boyo Jim]

WTF are you even continuing this debate OP. It has been repeatedly shown that your perception, or perhaps your memory is incorrect, and that blacks are charged with hate crime, as you seemed not to believe.

Now you've moved the goal posts to some ague complaint about the "media" not giving any (or adequate) coverage to black-on-white violence motivated by race. You have not resented any genuine evidence of this claim.

I would claim with at least as much validity that the killing or kidnapping of black children does not get nearly as much media attention as the same thing happening to young white girls. I don't have any evidence for my claim either.

So just what are you so up in arms about?

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

So just what are you so up in arms about?

There's something happening somewhere, and it's not fair. Not fair at all!

I'm outraged!

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by IntelliQ

Many of them are black on white - with the attackers even shouting racist remarks . How many does it take to be newsworthy, a hundred, a thousand?
We can see it only takes one instance of the reverse (and with little to no evidence to support it) to be newsworthy.

Your last sentence is balderdash. White-on-black violence occurs all the time without making the national news.

We have already seen that most of your claims are merely your inferences of what might have happened.

We have already seen that even when whites are the perpetrators, it does not routinely make the national news.

Your point is rather pointless and you have failed to substantiate it. I guess you are having a good time, but as long as you cherry-pick your "evidence," you simply fail to persuade.

[DianaG]

Originally Posted by Marley23

Knock it off. This is appropriate for the Pit, but not GD.

Apologies. I'll work on my "weaselly."

[Age Quod Agis]

Just FYI, a (relatively) new story of a black-on-white hate crime: Delmon Young -- an African American major league baseball player -- has been arraigned on hate crime charges, as reported by (among others) ESPN.com.

[Zebra]

Here is an interesting link about Reginald Denny. Remember him from the LA riots in 1992? Does that count as "today's media". Anyway it also talks about Reginald Denny and Fidel Lopez. If you remember Denny, surely you remember Lopez. After all he pulled up to the same intersection and was attacked by the same guys and got the same treatment. I've personally never heard of him till I found that link. (btw, I'm not really sure about that website, but the OP might enjoy it.)

But you probably don't remember him.


Remember Katrina? You know, the hurricane, New Orleans and the "rape gangs in the Super dome" that never existed? How black people taking stuff was looting and white people "found" stuff?



To me this thread reminds me of the wave in politics right now that I call "Well they do it too!"

The attempt to try and downplay some fault of your own by putting it on the others.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Zebra

Here is an interesting link about Reginald Denny. Remember him from the LA riots in 1992? Does that count as "today's media". Anyway it also talks about Reginald Denny and Fidel Lopez. If you remember Denny, surely you remember Lopez. After all he pulled up to the same intersection and was attacked by the same guys and got the same treatment. I've personally never heard of him till I found that link. (btw, I'm not really sure about that website, but the OP might enjoy it.)

But you probably don't remember him.


Remember Katrina? You know, the hurricane, New Orleans and the "rape gangs in the Super dome" that never existed? How black people taking stuff was looting and white people "found" stuff?



To me this thread reminds me of the wave in politics right now that I call "Well they do it too!"

The attempt to try and downplay some fault of your own by putting it on the others.

I already mentioned Reginald Denny as well as the Crown Heights riot and he sputtered about how those were "historical accounts" and irrelevant because they didn't happen recently.

You're right I should have mentioned Katrina, but I suspect he'd have insisted it didn't count because it was six years ago.

[What the .... ?!?!]

Originally Posted by brickbacon

First, if the news isn't covering these incidents, how do you know about them?

I've got to hand it to most leftish arguers........ when a canned response is shown not to make any sense it usually is abandoned. Why this one is still around puzzles me.

How does the fact that one person read or heard something somewhere have anything to do with whether or not the main newsdrivers are reporting something adequately for all to see or hear??

[davidm]

Originally Posted by brickbacon

Maybe, but I think when the media reports on hate crimes you need to consider the underlying logic of hate crime legislation. That being that the crime is one that extends beyond just the individual being hurt. It is often a means of intimidating and terrorizing a larger group or people. It's a crime against the community. As unacceptable as it is when a minority attacks a member of the majority, the reality is it doesn't usually have the same chilling effect as it does when the reverse happens. This is generally true for a few reasons:

1. There is generally not a long, recent history of discrimination and systemic prejudice against the majority. There is no history of Hispanics, for example, attacking White people, and making laws to criminalize being White.

2. Members of the majority generally don't have to live, work with, or work for members of the minority. Most Black people, for geographic and socioeconomic reasons, don't have the luxury to avoid White people if they want to. If for some reason, Blacks were in fear of their lives as a result of intimidation coming from a local group of White people, they generally don't have a choice to not interact with Whites without great hardship.

3. For numerical reasons, minority violence towards the majority, in aggregate, doesn't represent a clear and present danger to the majority's existence or way of life. White people were never rounded up and put in camps, or targeted for wholesale extermination.

4. Media hesitance to report on minority crimes also comes from the common tendency of the viewers to treat minority crimes as irrational; as maniacal and hysterical actions that are the result of one's race and background. Media members are generally responsible enough to not fan these flames. They know harping on a Black guy robbing an old lady will have negative consequences for all Black guys in that area, whereas a White guy doing the same will not have that effect. Just as Timothy McVeigh, and a plethora of White school shooters don't make people fear White kids, or separatists in the same way many now fear Arabs and Muslims because of terrorism here. they recognize they have the ability to shine a light on things, and that they need to use that spotlight in a responsible way.

When the media reports these things, they usually implicitly consider these things. Regardless of how you feel about the propriety of it, when most Black parents heard about Trayvon Martin, they immediately feared for their own children. It affects them on a personal level regardless of how likely it is something might happen. Even if hate didn't inspire George Zimmerman, his actions put the fear of God into any Black parent with teenagers. The same cannot (generally) be said for Whites. When you read about a Black guy beating a White guy several states away from where you are, are you fearful?

Fair or not, when minorities see other minorities as victims of hate crimes, it feels more like a personal attack. Race and ethnicity, as a minority, are inextricably tied to identity in America. Most people in the majority don't have those same ties. I know few White people who have strong opinions on being White, and all that that entails. For most of them, it's just never been as issue. Most minorities I know cannot say the same. That alone makes things like Trayvon Martin's shooting more newsworthy as the number of interested parties is often far greater, and they are impacted on a far deeper and personal level. It may not be fair to the White guy who is a victim of a hate crime, but it's not some PC liberal agenda to pretend minorities are better than others.

I just saw this thread for the first time and I had to remark on this post. Amidst all of the rhetoric, it's a gem. It amazes me the way some people have tried to twist your very clear words into something nearly the opposite of what you're saying. One poster in particular has a very appropriate name.

Now someone will come along and claim that I'm a "soft racist" or some such nonsense for posting this.

[What the .... ?!?!]

Originally Posted by davidm

I just saw this thread for the first time and I had to remark on this post. Amidst all of the rhetoric, it's a gem. It amazes me the way some people have tried to twist your very clear words into something nearly the opposite of what you're saying. One poster in particular has a very appropriate name.

Now someone will come along and claim that I'm a "soft racist" or some such nonsense for posting this.

Referencing the post to which you are commenting, the statement " the underlying logic of hate crime legislation" is made in the very beginning.

Is it OK to point out that there may be some other very logical underlying motives ? By that I mean that the legislation is also a good way for a certain party to convince a certain voting bloc that they are their only hope and that the other party is out to get them?

[brickbacon]

Originally Posted by davidm

I just saw this thread for the first time and I had to remark on this post. Amidst all of the rhetoric, it's a gem. It amazes me the way some people have tried to twist your very clear words into something nearly the opposite of what you're saying. One poster in particular has a very appropriate name.

Now someone will come along and claim that I'm a "soft racist" or some such nonsense for posting this.

Thank you very much for this. I am glad someone appreciated what I was trying to say.

Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?!

Is it OK to point out that there may be some other very logical underlying motives ? By that I mean that the legislation is also a good way for a certain party to convince a certain voting bloc that they are their only hope and that the other party is out to get them?

Why don't you say what you want to say. If you want to argue that the Democratic party is trying to scare minorities into voting for them, I don't think there is much evidence for, or need to do that. The reality is minority allegiance to social liberalism, and by extension, the Democratic party, began long before hate crime legislation existed, and will likely continue long after. The reality is that while the GOP itself may not be racist, racists typically prefer the GOP. That alone will convince most minorities to favor the Dems if only for the reason that they know they will not be aligned with individuals who often go out of their way to highlight their immutable, and/or inconsequential religious, cultural, ethnic, sexual, gender, and racial differences as a liability.

[Oldeb]

Originally Posted by IntelliQ

Here's yet another story of black mobs beating up on a white couple. It's covered in local outlets, however not at the national level with cbs, abc, msnbc, nor has Jessie, Al, or Barry dashed to the tv cameras.:

Wave after wave of young men surged forward to take turns punching and kicking their victim:
http://hamptonroads.com.nyud.net/201...and-brambleton

Just an update on this story. The police have arrested one 16 year old for assault. He threw a rock at a car and then landed a couple punches. Injuries were minor. Certainly no waves of men surging forward to take turns. Police were on the scene within one minute of receiving the dispatch; paramedics arrived at the same time and had examined the injured and released them within 10 minutes of the initial call.

Racial motivation has not been ruled out but neither is it part of the charges at this time. The police haven't concluded their investigation yet, but the editorial linked by IntelliQ does not resemble any of their findings so far.

[What the .... ?!?!]

Originally Posted by brickbacon

Why don't you say what you want to say. If you want to argue that the Democratic party is trying to scare minorities into voting for them, I don't think there is much evidence for, or need to do that. The reality is minority allegiance to social liberalism, and by extension, the Democratic party, began long before hate crime legislation existed, and will likely continue long after. The reality is that while the GOP itself may not be racist, racists typically prefer the GOP. That alone will convince most minorities to favor the Dems if only for the reason that they know they will not be aligned with individuals who often go out of their way to highlight their immutable, and/or inconsequential religious, cultural, ethnic, sexual, gender, and racial differences as a liability.

I did..... and you understood me it seems. I should have elaborated that its not just about convincing minorities to keep voting Democrat but also a good way to get out the vote.

[brickbacon]

Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?!

I did..... and you understood me it seems. I should have elaborated that its not just about convincing minorities to keep voting Democrat but also a good way to get out the vote.

Yes, I understood your implication even though you were needlessly pussyfooting around the topic. Do you have ANY evidence or rationale for your assertion. ANY reason to think such a thing would actually work?

[What the .... ?!?!]

Originally Posted by brickbacon

Yes, I understood your implication even though you were needlessly pussyfooting around the topic. Do you have ANY evidence or rationale for your assertion. ANY reason to think such a thing would actually work?

Playing the race card doesn't work? C'mon now.

[IntelliQ]

Originally Posted by Oldeb

Just an update on this story. The police have arrested one 16 year old for assault. He threw a rock at a car and then landed a couple punches. Injuries were minor. Certainly no waves of men surging forward to take turns. Police were on the scene within one minute of receiving the dispatch; paramedics arrived at the same time and had examined the injured and released them within 10 minutes of the initial call.

Racial motivation has not been ruled out but neither is it part of the charges at this time. The police haven't concluded their investigation yet, but the editorial linked by IntelliQ does not resemble any of their findings so far.

Really? Update here.

"The responding officer coded the incident as a simple assault, despite their assertions that at least 30 people had participated in the attack."

Im not aware of the national mainstream picking up on it still. It's just one example, there's tons out there to choose from.

Also, last Saturday a couple was severely beaten in NJ outside the Prudential Center. Even though the "roving band of teens" who committed the violence seem to still be at large, the reports go out of their way to omit any reference to descriptions of the assailants. That's pretty screwed up in itself, shouldn't citizens have a right to get alerted for their own safety? Im not sure how much the "investigative process" is allowed to jeopardize the safety of it's citizens - so that one's still developing. No national media seems interested even though there's a trend that should throw up red flags all over the place. I'll leave it to others to guess why no details of the perpetrators arent being shared with the public.

Just as an aside, I watched Bishop Jackson on TV last night (Black Repub Virginia candidate for US senate also from Harvard, US Marine, and Baptist Minister) who's been involved with youth groups and interventions, and just a really busy guy in the communities. He stated last night that he's been in the trenches for years trying to educate black youths and pump up their self esteem because of the widespread anti-white attitudes they've latched on to because of Sharpton, Jessie, et al, and the way in which the media shines a spotlight on some crimes and not others. He was respectful but very sad at how news is handled. He doesnt have an axe to grind, nor is he bombastic or trying to ramp up division. He said all crime should be treated equally, and that the one-sided race hype is counterproductive.
I like this guy, it's too bad it wasnt him filling the podiums during TrayvonTV time instead of Al and Jessie.

So it's clear that certain people and some media have had a negative impact on youths, and do a disservice in providing people with information without tainting it with their politically correct (or straight up racist) views.

In the end, race is playing a factor in national mainstream coverage, the evidence is there before you take it or leave it.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by IntelliQ

Really? Update here.

That's not an update. It is the same blog to which you first linked.

[IntelliQ]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

That's not an update. It is the same blog to which you first linked.

It looks like the story was updated because of the link that's sandwiched in it. Following the "update" link it gets even more interesting. The editor appears to be playing PC cover up, which is really sad.

Now, one show (Oreilly) decided to pick up on the story and try to get to the bottom of what's going on. If he'd shut up long enough to let people answer maybe we'll get some answers. But to his credit it wont remained buried anymore. It's now getting national attention no thanks to the crowd that threw Zimmerman to the wolves "while it was being investigated".

[dngnb8]

Originally Posted by obbn

Hello everyone,

Once again it seems that crimes based on race committed by blacks against whites are being discounted as hate crimes. The most recent here:


http://www.540wfla.com/cc-common/new...ticle=10077815

In this news story the police in Alabama refuse to classify the beating of a white man by a black group a hate crime, even though during the beating one of the assailants shouted "this is justice for Treyvon"

Are we to expect Jesse Jackson and All Sharpton to run to this victim's bedside with TV cameras in tow demanding justice? Or are those two blind to racism if it is committed by members of their own race? The reason I ask this question is I can't seem to recall an African American being chartered with a hate crime or if they were it making national news. There seems to be a sick double standard here, if we expect racism to die in this country, then EVERYONE has to be treated equal. Am I the only one noticing this?

Oh, just because I ask the question doesn't make me a racist. If anyone has their fingers itching to start tapping at their keyboard to call me one, save your energy and go get bent. I hate racism as much as the next person, but if we are going to take a stand against it, we have to take a stand against all of it. Not just the feel good PC kind. And let's try to have a civil and respectful conversation. Thanks

Stop being racist <sarchasm off>

Ive seen this quite a bit. Since the history of racism in this country is White on Color, it is considered acceptable that any Color on White is nothing more then deserved because of the past.

Color on Color is (for the most part) pathetically ignored as well.

[IntelliQ]

Originally Posted by dngnb8

Stop being racist <sarchasm off>

Ive seen this quite a bit. Since the history of racism in this country is White on Color, it is considered acceptable that any Color on White is nothing more then deserved because of the past.

Color on Color is (for the most part) pathetically ignored as well.

Yes, it is. It's the same culprits responsible for lack of coverage on those as well.

[dngnb8]

Originally Posted by IntelliQ

Yes, it is. It's the same culprits responsible for lack of coverage on those as well.

I was a medic in East Los Angeles, and Watts. The gang wars there was basically hispanic vs black, with whites getting in the crossfire, rather then being the target.

Funny how nobody cared about that racism.

[brickbacon]

Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?!

Playing the race card doesn't work? C'mon now.

Allow me to repeat my question since you didn't bother answering it. Do you have any evidence or rational justification for how and why democrats would use hate crime legislation to gain more support, or scare minorities? If anything, Democrats, in recent years, have been pushed to support such legislation by their own constituency, often at the expense of independent conservative voters. "Playing the race card" would have hardly been effective as a means of picking up new voters.

[Chen019]

Originally Posted by obbn

There seems to be a sick double standard here, if we expect racism to die in this country, then EVERYONE has to be treated equal. Am I the only one noticing this?

Similar to why the Black Panther voter intimidation case was dropped. The reason is that the idea of hate crimes was introduced with white oppressors in mind. Blacks are seen as victims who have no moral agency to discriminate or be hateful against white oppressors.

[Oldeb]

Originally Posted by Chen019

Similar to why the Black Panther voter intimidation case was dropped.

Can you not find a real case? Cause this isn't one.

Originally Posted by Newsweek

As voter-intimidation exercises go, it wasn’t much. In 2008, a lone white voter reported he had encountered two black men dressed all in black, one carrying a nightstick, at his Philadelphia polling place in a predominantly black neighborhood. The armed man was escorted away by police, and no one reported the incident to the local district attorney.

Seriously. Despite what Fox tells you this was not a big deal.

The "whistleblower" for this story was J. Christian Adams, a W. Bush political appointee and GOP activist. Can you guess why he might have a grudge against his new boss when Obama took office? Media Matters does not consider Adams' story to stand up to the facts.

[What the .... ?!?!]

Originally Posted by brickbacon

Allow me to repeat my question since you didn't bother answering it. Do you have any evidence or rational justification for how and why democrats would use hate crime legislation to gain more support, or scare minorities? If anything, Democrats, in recent years, have been pushed to support such legislation by their own constituency, often at the expense of independent conservative voters. "Playing the race card" would have hardly been effective as a means of picking up new voters.

I don't know what might qualify as evidence. New legislation would, vocal support for existing laws does and whaling by the Sharpton types would make me happy if I was a black person who had any existing idea that the Republicans were out to make my life worse.

It may not get Dems many new voters but as I mentioned above there are "get out the vote" benefits too.

I do agree that Democrats walk a fine line between the cost and the benefit.

[brickbacon]

Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?!

I don't know what might qualify as evidence. New legislation would, vocal support for existing laws does and whaling by the Sharpton types would make me happy if I was a black person who had any existing idea that the Republicans were out to make my life worse.

As an actual Black person, it does little for me or the other Black people I know. For the vast majority of people, hate crimes legislation is not on their radar. It rarely comes up during debates or stump speeches, and it's used in very few cases that get national exposure. Regardless of how the "Sharpton types" might spin it.

I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but can you explain what you mean by "Sharpton types"?

Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?!

It may not get Dems many new voters but as I mentioned above there are "get out the vote" benefits too.

Then please link to a few situations where Dems have used such tactics.

As I said before, hate crimes legislation is only a wedge issue insomuch as the GOP takes the task (every time) of having to defend criminals, racists, and homophobes on a regular basis. Their willingness to be on the opposite side of every issue regardless of it's rectitude is what turns off minorities. Not the tepid response or action of the Democrats.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?!

I don't know what might qualify as evidence. New legislation would, vocal support for existing laws does and whaling by the Sharpton types would make me happy if I was a black person who had any existing idea that the Republicans were out to make my life worse.

It may not get Dems many new voters but as I mentioned above there are "get out the vote" benefits too.

However, as was long ago demonstrated to the OP, blacks get charged with "Hate Crimes" proportionately more often than whites do.
Claiming that we have such laws, (one more crack cocaine example of laws harming blacks disproportionately to others), hardly seems like a really good way to either get votes or "get out the vote."

I'll go with brickbacon, I would like to see actual campaign messages, (or even PSAs), promoted by Democrats that rely--or even allude to--hate crime laws.

[What the .... ?!?!]

Originally Posted by brickbacon

I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but can you explain what you mean by "Sharpton types"?

By benefit of the doubt, do you mean that there is an acceptable criticism of Sharpton and those like him. If so, rather than poison the well, I'd like to hear that criticism from an actual Black person.

[brickbacon]

Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?!

By benefit of the doubt, do you mean that there is an acceptable criticism of Sharpton and those like him. If so, rather than poison the well, I'd like to hear that criticism from an actual Black person.

He, like any other person, is not perfect, and therefore open to valid criticism. That said, using a clearly loaded term like, "Sharpton types" tends to imply many things you may not intend it to.

Furthermore, I am not sure why it should matter what I think about just because I am Black. Especially since I didn't bring him up in the first place. I don't really think about him, or hear much of what he says. The only time I hear his name is when someone else brings him up to make a specious claim about him or what they think he stands for.

[Farmer Jane]

Originally Posted by obbn

Hello everyone,

Once again it seems that crimes based on race committed by blacks against whites are being discounted as hate crimes. The most recent here:


http://www.540wfla.com/cc-common/new...ticle=10077815

In this news story the police in Alabama refuse to classify the beating of a white man by a black group a hate crime, even though during the beating one of the assailants shouted "this is justice for Treyvon"

But is he said/she said 'probable cause' for the police to charge with a hate crime? The story you linked said, "The next day, rumors circulated..." or something. Sure, the fact that the mayor is black isn't helpful here. The fact that it's Mobile, Alabama makes me think it was likely racially-charged.

But these were teenagers that beat up this guy. I've seen kids go off on adults before. A kid may say, "F--- you, cracker!" and lay in on a teacher, but the kid is using that as an added insult. It's not the main reason for his crime.

But to answer the question: I'd venture to guess that black kids aren't often charged with hate crimes because it's not politically expedient. But I think a black kid (or kids) beating up a white person makes for a better story. I mean, white people picking on black folks? That's so 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s been done before!

This is the main reason why I oppose hate crimes legislation. After Matthew Shepard, I completely supported it. But now I think it just makes people think that the law will be applied unfairly. It's too subjective.

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by dngnb8

I was a medic in East Los Angeles, and Watts. The gang wars there was basically hispanic vs black, with whites getting in the crossfire, rather then being the target.

Funny how nobody cared about that racism.

What's racist about gang warfare, exactly ? Or innocent bystanders ?

[Farmer Jane]

Originally Posted by Kobal2

What's racist about gang warfare, exactly ? Or innocent bystanders ?

Did you really just ask what was racist about black v. Hispanic gang wars?

[Kobal2]

Errr yes ?
They're criminal gangs. They beef over territory for who gets to sling drugs, pimp girls, run grifts and similar bullshit. That's what they do. It's all in the game though, isn't it ? Or would you assert that when a Crip runs a drive-by on a Blood it's just gangs being gangs, but when a Crip stomps on a goon wearing MS-13 ink it's a race-motivated hate crime ?

(Not that the Bloods & Crips are exclusively black or MS-13 exclusively Latino, but assume the individuals in that hypothetical are for the purpose of discussion)

[Farmer Jane]

Originally Posted by Kobal2

Errr yes ?
They're criminal gangs. They beef over territory for who gets to sling drugs, pimp girls, run grifts and similar bullshit. That's what they do. It's all in the game though, isn't it ? Or would you assert that when a Crip runs a drive-by on a Blood it's just gangs being gangs, but when a Crip stomps on a goon wearing MS-13 ink it's a race-motivated hate crime ?

(Not that the Bloods & Crips are exclusively black or MS-13 exclusively Latino, but assume the individuals in that hypothetical are for the purpose of discussion)

I think dngnb8's point was that people don't care when brown people shoot brown people, even when it is racially motivated.

In some places, gang crime is about race. LA is a great example. I'm not sure why you're arguing that just because someone is already a criminal, it means they should be immune from hate crime laws.

Sureños is multi-ethnic(ish), but come on. How many African American kids have Sur 13 tattooed on them? Prison gangs are also typically race-motivated. But do we care? Typically, no.

Do kids in race-based gangs get prosecuted for hate crimes? If the law says they should I'd hope so, but I doubt it.

[Farmer Jane]

Originally Posted by Farmer Jane

Did you really just ask what was racist about black v. Hispanic gang wars?

Originally Posted by Kobal2

Errr yes ?
They're criminal gangs.

Note I didn't say Crips v. Bloods. I was talking specifically about race-based gangs. Reminds me: Ayran Brotherhood is also a race-based gang, created especially to fight off black and Hispanic gangs in prison.

If hate crimes laws exist, they should be prosecuted for that shit, too.

[Kobal2]

I see what you mean, but I don't think they're getting a free pass based on their ethnicity. It's just that the facts that gangs are for the most part segregated along ethnic lines (mainly because the neighbourhoods they hail from are) ; and gang violence can erupt for a whole slew of reasons, makes it hard to determine whether a given action was racially motivated, or simply gang identity motivated, or "business", or something else. Even harder than your average "this is a hate crime" call I mean.

There's also the fact that, as far as I'm aware, gang affiliation is an even more aggravating factor than racial prejudice when it comes to sentencing (not to mention a whole lot easier to prove), so...

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Farmer Jane

Note I didn't say Crips v. Bloods. I was talking specifically about race-based gangs. Reminds me: Ayran Brotherhood is also a race-based gang, created especially to fight off black and Hispanic gangs in prison.

If hate crimes laws exist, they should be prosecuted for that shit, too.

To a certain extent, but the Aryan Brotherhood is also allied with the Mexican Mafia(La Eme) against other Hispanic gangs.

Anyone generally speaking when black gangbangers get killed the killers are other black gangbangers and vice versa when it comes to Hispanics or "Esses" to use LA slang.

In fact, since you mentioned the Bloods and the Crips, it's worth noting that many of the members of both gangs are Latinos.

Real life is far more complicated than the movie Colors.

[Farmer Jane]

Originally Posted by Kobal2

I see what you mean, but I don't think they're getting a free pass based on their ethnicity.

I don't know if it's a 'free pass' so much as it is a 'we don't give a f---'. In states where hate crime laws have been enacted, should prison gang members get harsher sentences when they commit race-motivated crimes? Or for being a part of a certain race gang? I mean, you can be in jail, do something stupid and then get more time tacked on, right?

It's just that the facts that gangs are for the most part segregated along ethnic lines (mainly because the neighbourhoods they hail from are) ; and gang violence can erupt for a whole slew of reasons, makes it hard to determine whether a given action was racially motivated, or simply gang identity motivated, or "business", or something else.

I think the 'hate crimes' determination can be pretty subjective. I can really hate someone and then call them the n word while I'm punching them in the face, but it's possible I punched them in the face because they made me angry for cutting ahead of me in line or something. But if the 'n-word' is caught on tape, someone may mistake that punch as racially motivated.

I have seen kids get beat up for being part of the wrong 'crew' at school, and said 'crew' was race-based. One of my students gets picked on for being white (well, light-skinned - he's half Puerto Rican but is pale as a sheet). Actually, a couple do. I've also noticed that teachers get angry at the words 'beaner' and 'nigger' not the term 'whitewashed' or 'cracker'. My new boss (white, female) would definitely send a kid home if they called a black person the n-word, but no one has been sent home for calling anyone a cracker or saying they're going to 'beat that white boy's ass'. Ironically, most of the staff where I work is ethno-centric and insensitive to race issues. They've just been conditioned that the n-word is the worst thing ever.

When you start questioning people's motives, it gets more and more subjective. Sure, it's part of the police's job to question motives, but how do we really know that xyz crime occurred just because abc person doesn't like blacks/whites/gays/women/etc.? The burden of proof has to be strict.

Sometimes it's very obvious. Matthew Shepard's case was obvious.* Treyvon Martin's case isn't as obvious (er, well...depends who you ask).

Also, imho of course, I think it deepens racial tensions. The OP posted about a crime that occurred with a black mayor in charge, and there was also discussion of Black Panthers and the Obama administration and etc. The Youtube videos of violent mobs and voter intimidation is disturbing. So it's very easy to say, "Well, of course you don't think so, you're black!" or "You have white privilege!" or ______.

I really don't think that many people care about black on black crime or black v. Hispanic crime or whathaveyou. I don't think people care if a Vietnamese gang beats up a Latino kid. They're thugs anyway, right? But when a white person is involved - be they the victim or the perpetrator - I think people care. And that really, really sucks.


*To me. The MS case was a defining moment in my growing-up years.

[Farmer Jane]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

To a certain extent, but the Aryan Brotherhood is also allied with the Mexican Mafia(La Eme) against other Hispanic gangs.

Sure, but that's not how they started (that I know of).

In fact, since you mentioned the Bloods and the Crips, it's worth noting that many of the members of both gangs are Latinos.

I know. That's why I was kind of excluding them.

Real life is far more complicated than the movie Colors.

I've never seen it.

[Acsenray]

I don't know about the specific statutes involved here, but the original conception of a hate crime has to do with the fact that a particular crime was intended to have the effect of intimidating an entire race of people in an effort to dissuade them from exercise their constitutional rights and living freely in society, not just the one person who was victimized. That's why in 1965, a white person burning a cross on the lawn of a black family in rural Alabama would have been a hate crime, but not vice versa. Simply showing that racism was somehow implicated somewhere in the course the crime shouldn't be enough.

[Chen019]

Originally Posted by Oldeb

Can you not find a real case? Cause this isn't one.

Seriously. Despite what Fox tells you this was not a big deal.

The "whistleblower" for this story was J. Christian Adams, a W. Bush political appointee and GOP activist

Bartle Bull was a civil rights attoney and he said it was the most blatant example of voter intimidation he'd ever seen.

There are numerous examples of black hate crimes being downplayed or ignored in the media. And I think it comes back in part to the explanation I gave above. Blacks are seen as societal victims of white oppression, so aren't given moral agency to be judged by the same standards as whites.

[Oldeb]

Originally Posted by Chen019

Bartle Bull was a civil rights attoney and he said it was the most blatant example of voter intimidation he'd ever seen.

Media Matters on Bartle's Bull. Would you care to point out what's incorrect in that link or any of the previous six cites I've provided on this case?

There are numerous examples of black hate crimes being downplayed or ignored in the media.

And yet the best you can do is one lone New Black Panther Party member who wasn't even charged.

In 2010 there were 6,628 criminal incidents classified as hate crimes. That's just over 18 per day. Very, very few of those received national coverage. Of those that did most received little attention from the general public. Do you have any evidence that there was a statistical bias in under-reporting hate crimes committed by Blacks versus those committed by others?