I’m going to give you a serious response: we don’t know about every crime, racist or otherwise. Had you or someone else raised a Pit thread similar to this one and it were spotted, I’m confident that there would have been a similar response.
I think he is referring to the Jana Six from LA. From what I remember, the punishment the teenagers got was more in line with the assault they did than what the two white teenagers mentioned in the OP got.
Not quite. The Jena 6 were, despite being minors and despite doing nothing more than white kids had been doing to them, had the entire adult play book thrown at them.
So, as usual when our coterie of resident Right-Tards opens their mouth it is to kick themselves in their own teeth.
White and killing a mexican = kids will be kids, run along now.
Blacks beating up a white kid = conspiracy to murder, no soup for you for 22 years.
Chauncey Bailey was a black man and its been all over the papers out here as a major scandal. The man who ordered his assassination is going on trial for his murder ( as well as many other things ) and faces life in prison. It looks very likely he’ll be convicted, based at least on the publicly available evidence. His organization is virtually defunct. I think your outrage on this one is entirely off the rails.
As for your other rants, really what’s the relevance? You have no idea if the OP is a “liberal” who doesn’t openly condemn every attack you mentioned. Regardless, is not the incident mentioned by the OP worth ranting about? If not, why not? And if so, then why castigate him for a “thought crime” that you really would have no idea whether he committed?
And if these guys beat to death someone who employed an illegal immigrant would you say the same ? How about someone guilty of littering ?
I wasn’t really commenting on that one way or another. I was responding to Sage Rat’s statement that there’s some sort of legal gray area here because the victim was an illegal immigrant. There, of course, isn’t.
ITT: the poor disadvantaged white man.:rolleyes:
Nothing new. LonesomePolecat is Pat Buchanan without the connections.
Compared with LonesomePolecat, Pat Buchanan is the epitome of moderation and reasonableness.
Honestly, I can’t get too worked up about this. It doesn’t appear that the facts are quite as cut-and-dried as the headline makes them out to be.
Of course, Lonesome Polecat is still a fucking idiot, and it appears that Sage Rat is too. One I’m totally unsurprised by; one I’m totally surprised by. I’ll let you guess which is which.
And Devaughndre Broussard, the man who did the actual killing, has already pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter and been sentenced to 25 years in prison.
I was about to take issue with the last line of the OP, because what hate crimes really are are thought crimes. I’m also anti-illegal immigration and think if we were tougher on it we would then be able to support more legal immigration.
But seriously, a tu quoque when someone’s beaten to death? Words fail. Because it’s “apparently” legal in some Roy Bean sense to kill someone (because there’s apparently no law against killing an illegal immigrant,) then it’s just peachy to do that and we should all support it? Really really?
I was pointing out that racism need not be called into the discussion to explain the result. That it’s murder and a murder result is what should be expected is in fact the very first thing I said. Just because it takes more text to say one thing than another doesn’t mean that there’s a preference for the thing which took more text. I can spend a whole book explaining the perceived benefits of communism, and that still doesn’t make me a communist sympathizer. It just makes me someone who has the ability to write about various subjects.
Fair enough, then. It’s still weird that you think it may not be murder in the eyes of the law because the victim was an illegal; vigilantism is outlawed for very good reason.
Apart from anything else, I guess with 90% certainty that the killers did not ask to see the victim’s green card before beating the shit out of him.
So, you expect that the same result would have occured if the victim were, say, Canadian?
If Canadians had a habit of breaking the law, sure. Or are you saying that only people of Mexican race can habitually be law breakers?
Your post reminded me of the TV program I saw a few months back where some groups on the border were hassling apparent immigrants on the street demanding to see their immigration papers. They refused. Now, I think that in an odd sense if they were illegal immigrants it was deserved because they shouldn’t be here in the country in the first place (in the same way that vigilantism is usually deserved if the accused is guilty of the crime, this threads murder excepted of course.)
But since the “immigrants” refused to show their papers, there’s no way to tell if they were illegal or not. Heck, if I were a legal immigrant (or was born in the USA but grew up in a place where I got a Hispanic accent,) I wouldn’t feel like proving it to those yahoos, either.
What the fuck is this supposed to mean?
Of course you were there and saw all the testimony and evidence, right?:dubious:
“Defense lawyers argued that Ramirez’s death was a street brawl gone wrong that was not motivated by racial bias. They also suggested that Ramirez was responsible for triggering the second confrontation.”
The jury more or less agreed with this.
I don’t think the fact that Mexicans are more likely to attempt to cross the border illegally than Canadians is in dispute. However, do you really thing a bunch of thugs would accost a white (or even black) stranger on the street due to their residency status? I highly doubt these kids knew that the victim was an illegal.
I can’t think of any other situation in which somebody can be investigated for a crime without probable cause (even though we’re not talking about law enforcement officials here), so why would illegal immigrants be any different?