If Clarence Thomas was assaulted and there was reason to think that there was a racial motive, I’m sure that would be brought up in a news report.
Most serial killers apparently kill people within their own ethnic group and they’re always news. Matthew Sheppard’s murder was news. When you’re dealing with simple assault, it’s not likely to be news at all unless someone famous is involved. The thing with a debate as far as I understand it is that you’re supposed to have a proposition supposed by facts, not just make stuff up.
You know, given the content of your thread so far, I think semantic nit-picking is exactly the way you want to go.
More suppositions. You might also consider that interracial does not necessarily mean racist. And you still haven’t provided anything remotely resembling proof that this crime was even interracial, let alone racist, as you so candidly admit. This national press conspiracy you posit is particularly daft, considering that your own quote says (emphasis mine):
Now, either the 265 news outlets reporting this story (according to Google News) collaborated with mind-boggling efficiency to cover up the race of the assailants, or they just weren’t told. Given that we’ve been told they weren’t told, I’m going to assume they weren’t told, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. If you have any such evidence, ace. If not, this entire thread is pointless.
And still Razorsharp continues to insist that we indict the media’s depiction of hate crimes based on a bunch of unproven assertions about the attack of Souter.
And Razorsharp, in his “analysis” of the Bird Killing and the Carr Brothers’ murders, continues to make the erroneous assumption that every crime committed by a person of one race against a person of another race is a hate crime. Sorry, bud, but the criteria are more specific than that. In fact, most jurisdictions that recognize the concept of hate crimes have specific requirements for what constitutes such a crime.
For example, California Penal Code, Section 422.75, states:
It is clear from this that the victom’s race (or color, religion, sexual orientation, etc.) must an important cause of the crime, rather than just being incidental to it.
If i go out and beat up a black guy just because he’s black, that’s a hate crime. If i go out to commit a robbery, and the first person i find happens to be a black guy, that’s not a hate crime.
As i’ve said in a number of other threads on this message board, i actually don’t really like hate crime legislation. I think virtually all crimes against persons are, to some extent, “hate crimes,” and i think it is enough that we punish the act.
But, in analyzing the media’s coverage of these incidents, it’s not enough simply to compare a white-on-black crime with a black-on-white crime. You have to take into account the motivating factors in each crime, and Razorsharp has so far failed to make a case that the Bird and the Carr incidents are similar enough to warrant this sort of comparison.
More importantly, until you establish that Souter’s assailants were, in fact, “of a minority,” it’s extremely stupid to use you conjecture as a basis for making sweeping generalizations about media representation of hate crimes. Furthermore, at the moment it seems as though it’s not even the media you should be looking at, but the police. Just about every story i’ve seen so far about the assault contains the following sentence:
So it’s not like this is some media cover-up. The media can’t tell us about the assailants because they apparently don’t know anything about them. Maybe you should have considered that before launching into wild conspiracy theories.
Oh, very well. I meant those articles proved it to you despite the lack of one word or even hint about who the attackers were or what their motives might be.
For all I know it *was * a hate crime, but lacking evidence I would certainly not make any such assertion.
The pit might not be the place for your OP, as it’s not exactly a rant. But IMHO is more appropriate than GD, since there’s really no debate here. You assert that the attaack was a hate crime, others think there’s no evidence. I just don’t think, "Is, too!, “Is not!” rises to the level expected in this forum.
The beauty of Razorsharp’s thesis is that anyone who disagrees with him is obviously anoder deluded membeer of the populace who’s been “brainwashed” about the reporting of hate crimes. :rolleyes:
Remember, when making the tin-foil hat, the shiny side goes OUT.
It is entirely possible that Souter was assaulted, not because he is white, but because he is a Supreme Court justice, with a definite political slant. Which would make this a political crime, not a hate crime – equally indefensible, of course, but still a very different phenomenon.
Your Carr brothers example doesn’t work. No evidence that the Carrs hated white people. In fact, one of them had a long term relationship with a white woman. The Carrs were murdering scum, but not racist, murdering scum.
Anyway, what makes you think that the white folks who run the major media are any different from you, (aside from being smarter and having better credentials)?
Hey, that’s right! There never were any church burnings by white racists! That’s a verifiable fact!
Some reasons Souter may have been attacked:
1 Assailants wanted to rob him
2 Someone’s screwed-up idea of fun
3 Hi opal
4 Someone dissatisfied with one of his judicial rulings over the past few decades
5 Well-covered-up hate crime
With all the evidence in front of us, it’s obviously the fifth option. None of the others make sense!
Well, the only two news sources that have this piece of information in their stories about Souter are The Hindu and The Washington Times.
The Hindu states that its source for the story was PTI, which i can only assume is Press Trust of India, which seems to be a wire service for the south Asian nation.
Furthermore, the passage in The Hindu that describes the color of the assailants seems to be a direct copy of the Washington Times passage. Indeed, the whole Hindu article is nothing more than a series of paragraphs lifted almost verbatim from the Washington Times story.
Now, it may be that the assailants were indeed black. I won’t be particularly surprised if that turns out to have been the case. But you’ll have to forgive me for continuing to be a little skeptical when the only apparent first-hand source of this information is the Moonie paper.
Your sarcasm is duly noted. You and others participating in this topic seem to take umbrage with my prediction, and that’s all it is, a prediction, albeit a prediction based on the media’s past actions, that the media may just be hiding something that runs counter to the party line.
So, tell me, did you and the others take offense to the media’s prediction of white racists being responsible for the burning of black churches? Probably not, in fact, I’d say that some of you were actually dissappointed that the burnings turned out not to be perpetrated by white racists.
And I suppose that you believe that if two white brothers committed the same heinous acts against an equal number of blacks, that they wouldn’t be charged with a hate crime. Do you really believe that?
Well, well, well… looks like I turned out to be pretty smart afterall. Oh, I know. It was just a lucky guess, right?
Are you still banging this drum? Your assertions didn’t make any sense in this thread, and they still don’t.
Surely if there’s a massive liberal media conspiracy, you could come up with something a little more substantive than one questionable example. Indeed, there should be hundreds to choose from.
And no, we’re not offended by the idea that the assailants may be black. They may well be. It’s your wild extrapolation from that possibility to the global liberal media conspiracy that is in question here.
Yeah, as opposed to, say, CNN. Opps… wasn’t it CNN that fabricated a documentary for the purpose of maligning America’s military for using poison gas against deserters in Viet Nam?
Right about them being black? Sure (I assume - I haven’t checked). That wasn’t in dispute.
Right about the vast liberal media conspiracy? In your mind, maybe. You didn’t prove it in the other thread, and you haven’t offered any substantive proof here, only one questionable comparison and a lot of unsupported assertions.
