Huh?
If there’s evidence that the attack was motivated by the victim’s ethnicity (or sexuality, religion, etc.), then it would be appropriate to charge the attackers with a hate crime. If there isn’t, then it wouldn’t be.
There. I touched it. Now what?
Barely touched it. Please respond to her initial question.
What the hell is wrong with people to do this to another person?
Okay, could somebody *else * help me out here? How is what I said not a direct answer to the question?
So, two terms you need to spend some time reading up on: “strawman” and “hate crime.” You haven’t used either term correctly so far in this thread.
Hmmm. Idk, one swift boot straight to the temple seems like it has the potential to cause some critical damage, at least from anyone in the double-digit age range and/or triple digit weight range. But either way, it’s good you came out ok. It was a fucked up thing to have happen, to you or to anyone.
She posed the question that if it were 18 whites attacking 1 black would that have been assumed to be a hate crime? You did not address that. Perhaps you were confusing it with another post. If not, touch that question.
People would, without a doubt, rush to judge that it was racially motivated if not an outright hate crime.
Do we need to explore the reasons why that might be the case given the historical context? Or are we to assume we live in a post racial society where none of that is a factor anymore?
I’m not willing to dismiss the possibility that this attack was racially motivated. But given the odds, I’m thinking gang or mob mentality related violence is more likely. I’m willing to change my mind if evidence is presented for race based motive.
Yes. Even without the passcode, they can be wiped and restored to factory new condition. They get bought from thieves by fences here, then shipped to foreign countries where the authorities (and phone companies) don’t care that they were stolen, and sold to end-users for much cheaper than actual factory-new ones. Needless to say, the thieves in the US receive only pennies on the dollar of the phone’s actual retail value, but they think “hey, ten bucks is ten bucks…”
Actually “assumed to be a hate crime” is your invention. It appears nowhere in the question. Go ahead. Read it again. Here I’ll quote it to make it easier.
She straight up asks* if *it’s a hate crime, and I (correctly) pointed out that the hypothetical doesn’t have enough information to make that determination.
Here, how about this: John is walking down the street with a 100-dollar bill in his wallet. Five minutes later the bill is in David’s pocket. Robbery? Remember, you can only answer “yes” or “no”.
I think the point in Two Many Cats’ post is that there’s a double standard: If eighteen white assailants pounce on a black victim and beat him up, there’s an immediate knee-jerk reaction that it’s a “hate crime, no doubt about it. Racism is alive and well in America.”
Whereas if eighteen black assailants pounce on a white guy and beat him up, suddenly it’s a calm, measured response, a call for restraint: “We can’t jump to conclusions until all the facts are in; it’s insufficient data at the moment. Let’s wait for all the evidence.”
No, she asked if the tables were turned would this be assumed to be a hate crime. You’re purposely obfuscating the proposed scenario. BTW, you’re story really isn’t analogous because it wasn’t recorded on video. Or maybe John owed all 18 money.
There’s something little discussed today. Yes indeed, there is white privilege in this society, and white people benefit from it. But there is something also called white guilt, that some innocent whites will suffer because of. This situation needs to be addressed.
Not just that. The OP of this thread gets directly insulted. If it’s a white kid wearing a hat you’d see 5+ threads of 20+ pages full of righteous fury and indignation with several of the bloodthirsty advocating violence.
Yeah, at this point I can pretty safely stop giving you the benefit of the doubt. Buh-bye.
Well then we differ on opinions of hate. Violence for the sake of violence doesn’t come from love and it’s not an emotionally neutral event. It’s hate in my book.
Hate crime has a specific meaning, that requires more than “hate plus crime.”
You can have all kinds of hate with a crime and it wouldn’t necessarily be what law enforcement considers a hate crime.
You and Cheesesteak likely don’t differ much on the definition of hate. Where you differ is that Cheesesteak understands the definition of “hate crime,” and you do not.
“Hate crime” does not mean, “Any crime where the perpetrator hates the victim.” “Hate crime” is a term of art with a specific legal definition, and cannot be understood just by looking at the lay definition of the word “hate.” Hate crimes refer to crimes that are motivated by racial, sexual, or religious bias, not just crimes where the perpetrator really, really doesn’t like the victim. This goes back to my previous question to you, which you erroneously dismissed as a strawman. It’s not a hate crime if I beat up someone for sleeping with my wife, even though I hate the victim. Similarly, it’s not a hate crime if a gang of ten people decide they’re going to beat the ever-living shit out of the next person they see, and that next person randomly happens to be a different ethnicity than the mob beating him up.
Yup, that was the impression I got in my case too, that they were all showing off for each other.
Yes, I think the people doing this hated the victim. He was not known to them and therefore an anonymous target. If you’re harming someone for the fun of it then by definition you hate them without a reason. Thus a hate crime.