Maybe it was a Hate-Crime

Great Debates
41

Although I probably shouldn’t leap into the fray, I’ll throw in a couple of observations here.

I agree that Razorsharp is jumping to way too many conclusions here. He may or may not be right about the motivations of the muggers, or even the motivations of the press, but since nothing has been said about any statements made by the muggers during the assault, no one can possibly say. And do we have a smoking gun in the form of a memo or qoute from some media outlet regarding a policy of not reporting facts that might implicate blacks in hate crimes? Nope. Not that we’ve been shown.

I don’t know about the demographics of the Southwest section of D.C., but since large areas of D.C. have a high minority population, if Souter got mugged in one of those areas, the fact that his assailants were black wouldn’t be proof of diddly squat. They were black, he was available. Quite possibly the end of the story. Beating the crap out of someone just for the hell of it is not exactly unheard of among certain young men of any racial or ethnic background.

I consider Razorsharp’s assumptions to be unsubstantiated. That doesn’t mean that I have not perceived what seems to be a certain tendency in my own local paper to charactrerize white on black crimes as hate crimes. Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t. If I knew how to access information regarding the relative frequency of white on black crime vs. black on white crime, (adjusted for population distribution and the economic backgrounds of the people involved, since I suspect that most muggers are not in command of vast fortunes) I might be in a position to start analyzing the situation for myself.

As it is, who knows? In situations where we don’t have someone hung up on a tree and lit on fire, or conveniently spray-painted with a racial epithet (note: spray-painted, not "dung smeared. I don’t want to get into the Tawana Brawley thing), or at least some allegations of (racial/ethnic/religious/gender/sexual orientation) name calling, I say we have no information to go on. Not nearly enough data to get a hot steaming debate going, and not a good way to fight ignorance.

(BTW – I am not assuming a global state of ignorance on anyone’s part here. Just saying that we are ignorant of most of the facts on the OP’s subject, so it is not a debate.) :frowning:

Definitely an MPMSIMS or Pit thread, I think.

42

No, I provided two examples illustrating both sides of the equation.

In the Souter assault, the media did not disclose the race of the perpetrators.

In the church burning instances, the media fabricated the race of the alleged perpetrators.

What more substantive proof do you need, an admission?

43

What? No, of course not–there never were any arguments in that OP. Have you considered the panache you’d get by changing your name to hammersharp?

Consider that Washington, DC is 60% African American, it WAS a safe bet that the attackers were black. It’s also not newsworthy that they were black. If Clarence Thomas got attacked in North Dakota, it wouldn’t be newsworthy that his attackers were white.

You’d really do your position more good if you’d argue with intellectual rigor rather than with a spiderweb castle of assumptions and projections.

Daniel

44

Just beat me to the punch, Daniel. When jogging in a minority area, if you are mugged it just might be by a minority. I think it’s a simple matter of poor judgment on Souter’s part as to where to jog after dark. I doubt very much that his position had anything to do with it, I would wager that not one American in 10 would recognize Souter by sight. The whole episode begs the question as to why such important people are not assigned bodyguards. Fortunately, he’s fine and hopefully will use a bit more discretion on his jogging routine.

45

As a gay guy who lives in the DC burbs, I can confidently say that a lot of this speculation is purest horseshit:

A. Souter may or may not be gay, but the area he was assaulted at, 4th and N SW, is not a known gay cruising spot. Now if he had been jumped at P Street Beach. . .

B. Souter’s assailants likely were black, but that’s unsurprising in DC, a majority black city. The nighborhood he was jogging in adjoins a very rough area of the city, so it’s plausible that he got jacked by a couple of muggers from S. Capitol.

46

Ergo, there is a vast, left-wing, nationwide liberal media conspiricy afoot so pervasive that it operates from Washington, DC to the Mississippi delta.

Geez guys, what more proof do you need?

47

Now, we get to the proof of the brainwashing perpetrated against the populace.

Just mention the generic term “hate crime” to the average individual, and he or she will, as a Pavlovian reflex, envision a white persecuting a minority.

But, according to FBI crime statistics, minorities, in relation to their numbers within the general population, are several times more likely to victimize whites in what could be described as hate crimes.

Such a conditioned response within a general population could have no other origins than from media portrayal.

For the media to portray a societal pathology that is contrary to reality, is an indicator of subservience to an agenda.

48

While I agree that the major media tend to be biased towards minorities, that is rather weak proof; if white criminals choose random targets and minority criminals choose random targets, there will be more minority-on-white crimes than white-on-minority crimes, relative to population.

49

You seriously beleive that if Justice Thomas were attacked by a group of whites in ND, that no mention of the racial component of the incident would be raised by the media?

50

Some outlets are reporting that thetwo assailants were black. However, take a look at that report:

In other words, it’s not being reported as a hate crime because investigators have told the press it was a random mugging and not a hate crime. To report otherwise would be to make up facts. If it isn’t being investigated as a hate crime, the race of the assailants is only tangientally relevant.

51

Not necessarily, since the various ethnic groups tend to live among their own kind.

That being noted, it only exacerbates the minority-on-white statistics.

52

It wasn’t?

Of course, now that Razorsharp has been shown to be correct, it is a little harder to remain in denial, but let’s not pretend to have said “Oh yeah - we knew it all along.”

FWIW, Razorsharp is probably also correct that the only way this will be presented as a hate crime in the media is if Homebrew’s little gossip turns out to be correct, and Souter is really gay.

Regards,
Shodan

53

My guess is if a group of kids is out mugging people, they probably don’t even know who Souter is. Or what a supreme court justice is. My gut feeling is that this was 100% random.

54

That is, unless a black church happens to catch on fire. Then you can be assured that white racists are running rampant.

55

Pointing out a complete lack of facts does not equate to denial, nor does the later emergence of those facts make Razorsharp’s assertions factual at the time he made them.

One might equally say “if there is any reasonable cause to believe that it was a hate crime.” Tell me, does the average mugger in D.C. these days avidly follow the Supreme Court wig-room gossip? Do you have any particular reason to believe that this was a hate crime?

56

No, you’re still not getting it. It is now up to Razorsharp, or to you seeing as how you’ve picked up the imaginary cudgel too, to show how it matters one damn bit. What the hell makes this automatically, or even probably, a hate crime instead of a simple mugging attempt? Would it be less newsworthy if the kids had been white?

Here’s a thought for you to consider: If the victim hadn’t been famous, it wouldn’t have made the news either way. It’s sad that we have such a high crime rate that that’s true, but it’s true nonetheless, isn’t it?

Don’t let us down again, Shodan. Let’s have a good argument from you. If you want to bleat about the racist media, you’ll need an example. This isn’t one.

57

No–I believe we’d see exactly as much mention made as here, assuming that the robbery were a random mugging. See, I tend to value evidence above politically-motivated and shrill rumourmongering, which is what you’re engaging in. Even Athelas, that paragon of leftist brainwashing, agrees that you’re nowhere near intellectual rigor on this one.

Daniel

58

What a thread. So far most of the arguing has been devoted to whether anybody actually made an argument.

It takes more than a person of one race attacking a person of another race to make a hate crime, supposedly hate has to be the actual motive. If any evidence of that ever turns up, maybe this turkey will fly. Although of course we’d also need to know that the race of the assailants was deliberately covered up.

59

No, it wasn’t. The topic of this GD isn’t “Souter’s attackers are black”, and no one asserted that they weren’t black, only that the facts of the matter were not yet reliably known.

No, we didn’t know it all along. That was entirely the point.

Perhaps. Or if any actual evidence demonstrating that it was a hate crime turns up.

60

About what?

As LHoD points out, simple demographics make it a better then even bet that a crime committed in Washington, D.C., will be committed by a black person. Same where i live here in Baltimore. Like many other people in this thread, i’ve already stated that i won’t be surprised if the assailants were, in fact, black.

But this will still do nothing to prove your primary assertion, which is that the media systematically and deliberately covers up crimes committed by minorities against whites, while giving extended coverage of crimes committed by whites against minorities.

Well, i guess if this is the sort of “proof” that you believe is sufficient to demonstrate a nationwide media conspiracy, there’s really not much hope of shaking you out of your delusions.

Firstly, literally hundreds of different news outlets tell us that:

The only newspaper in the whole country that refers to the assailants as black is the Washington Times. Now, it is entirely possible that the Washington Times reporter managed to get someone from the police or Souter’s office to tell him about the assailants, and it is entirely possible that the assailants were indeed black.

But this possibility in no way constitutes proof of your underlying argument. Most American news outlets relied on the Associated Press wire service for their stories about the Souter assault. Thus, they were able to give their readers no more or no less than what the AP story reported. And, apparently, when the AP reporter went to find out about the case, there were no details given about the color of the assailants.

Furthermore, the police chief cited as the authority in the Washington Times story is paraphrased as saying that “The assault appeared to be part of an unsuccessful robbery attempt by two young men, both described initially only as black…” So, according to the same police chief who says that the assailants were black, this was a simple robbery, nothing more, nothing less.

Can you get it through your skull that the definition of a hate crime requires more than that the suspect and the victim be of different race or ethnicity? As the California Penal Code section that i quoted above shows, the race (or sexuality, religion, etc.) of the victim must be a “substantial factor” in causing the crime to be committed. And many other jurisdictions have similar wording that makes pretty clear what is and is not a hate crime.

Just to drum the points home again:

  1. So far, the only source we have telling us that the assailants were black is the Washington Times. Oh, and Razorsharp, who says that we can “safely bet” that this was the case.

  2. Even in the Washington Times story, the police source makes very clear that the apparent motive was simple robbery.

  3. Most of us in this thread are quite open to the possibility that the assailants were black. The simple fact of D.C. demographics makes the probability of this greater than 50%.

  4. The fact that most of the media have not mentioned the race/ethnicity of the assailants arises from no vast cover-up, but from the fact that most of the media didn’t have the information.

  5. Comparing this single case, where we have nothing but Razorsharp’s rampant speculation, with the Byrd case or the Carr case or the church-burning case (where we also have little but wild assertions from the OP), does not make for a media conspiracy, especially when there is absolutely no evidence that the assault on Souter was a hate crime.