We had a group of young men, all African or Hispanic-Americans, between the age of 11 and 19 attack a series of people in the Tacoma area. One of there victims died. All of their victims were White but one. The police says that these crimes were NOT racially motivated. Similar crimes, but reversed (i.e. a group of white kids attacking minorities) are almost always declared to be racially motivated. What’s the difference? 
uhhh. Well, let’s see. White kids attacking minorities, as you said, are not always called racially motivated crimes. It depends on the motivation. Did they single the victims out because they were white, or becasue they were convienient. This is an easy one, just use your head.
I have used my head. The cops declared them to not be racially motivated before they knew who did it, or why.
Do you have a link or quote to any imformation on the case? right now we’re just going on your biased perceptions.
The real question is:
**What is the difference between racial and racist?[/n]
In my town, some guys went through the town one night slashing tires. They chose three blocks in three separate non-contiguous jewish neighborhoods. And yet, the Police Chief declared that the incident was not racially motivated because there were a couple of people with Hispanic surnames who lived on those blocks, and whose tires had also been slashed. As if the slashers could tell from the car who owned it.
For some reason, that bothered me. I don’t know why.
Wouldn’t it be religiously motivated or something? Or were they black jews?
But do you think people should be punished worse if they commit a crime because they are racist than if they were mere retrobates?
Hey guys I read about this yesterday. The perpertrators were not all minorities. They were a mixed group of kids, white, black and latino. I wonder now about the motivations of the OP. Here’s the story:
http://www.apbnews.com/newscenter/breakingnews/2000/08/30/thrill0830_01.html
got something against hispanics and blacks lawoot
**Not sure what you mean by this. Are you addressing the Jews-as-ethnic-group-or-religion issue? Also, I have no idea of the ethnic background of the perpetrators.
**No.
I just mean: are Jews a protected ethnic group? In nearby Boston, if a kid from Southie went to the North End and slashed some tires, I don’t think that would be labeled an Irish-on-Italian hate crite.
Remind me of a story, which is probably true if anecdotal.
In San Antonio, they had a policy that a certain percentage of government contracts had to go to minorities. Which, of course, meant blacks and hispanics (sorry, Izzy!). Well, there was this guy who had come over from Spain and started a construction company. You don’t get much more hispanic than being straight from Spain, but he wasn’t being rewarded any contracts based on his race, and he couldn’t get much sympathy from the Latin Americans – he had blonde hair and blue eyes even if his last name was Rodriguez.
So he appealed and appealed to have his business regarded as minority owned but had no luck in hispanic Texas. Finally he decided to take it to the Feds to get a less biased opinion, so he went to Washington D.C. to the appropriate office which handles affirmative action. He walked in and he knew he was instantly in trouble because everyone working in the office was black. Needless to say they took one look at this guy and wouldn’t help him either!
jmullaney,
There is no such thing in this country as a protected ethnic group. It makes no difference what ethnic group you attack, only what your motivation is. In your case it would depend on whether the Irish guy was out to get an Italian, or picked him at random.
Re your story: I heard of a Jewish guy whose father had been born in the Sudan, and who got into Harvard with borderline credentials by claiming to be an African-American.
Well considering tat lawoot got one of the basic facts wrong (all of the victims were white) I’ll give em the benefit of the doubt. I’ll hold off calling you a racist troll, and instead believe that you are simply someone who is ignorantly putting forth information you heard second hand. And it looks like you got the answer as to why it was not “racially motivated”
As for the talk between IzzyR and jmullaney, jews are a group that can be and is targeted for ethnicly based violence.
No I don’t. I just was going by the information that I had at the time. I had NOT heard that there were white kids in the group as well. Andthe press was originally saying that one of the victims was NOT white. Excuse me for not watching the news 24-7.
Oh, but I’m sure that I’ll still be flamed for being ignorant. oh, well.
Ftr, lawoot I looked around and can see no reason to assume you’re racist or that you have anything against blacks or latinos, I apologize for the assertion.
Basicly yeah. If you had taken the time to include a link in your first post none of this would have happened.
OK, I get it now. I really thought there was a list and that was why gays, for example, were trying to get on it. So why don’t gays just declare themselves an ethnic group? There’s no proof homosexuallity isn’t genetic, right?
So, as a relatively new poster, here’s my next question (as I hijack my own thread). How do you go about proving things that aren’t on the internet? I responded to the two-parter FoG thread (the infamous ‘what would it take…’) with a personal anecdote, and Satan flamed me, saying it was probably ‘an anti-christian urban myth’, and asked me to provide proof, links, etc. I realize that proof is a big thing here, but come on.
Bring along a refrence from outside of it and type it in. I’ve done that on numerous occasions when whatever information I was looking for wasn’t online.
When you start missing work to go to the library, you’ll know you have a problem 
“Flamed” you? You’ve obviously never seen Satan (or anyone else) flame someone. A flame does not consist of an assertion that you are “probably” wrong, a statement that you claims seem “unlikely”, and a polite request for you to back your claims up.
What? You think we should just accept your friend’s story of something which clearly violates the Constitution without a sliver of doubt? If you had the information (or rather, lack thereof) that we had, which would seem more plausible:
- A judge completely oversteppd his or her bounds, and everyone else ignores it and someone is charged with child abuse, yet spends only ten days in jail?
or - Someone going through a very stressful part of his life, and dealing with a situation in which everyone has their side to what really happened, told his friend his side of the story with his own biases quite intact, and his friend either relayed a misleading account, or altered the account in a misleading way (or a combination of both)?
If it’s anything havinhg to do with a court, there’s almost always a paper trail. In this case, you can find the guy’s docket number and give it to us. Not that I’m recommending this, mind you. Someone did a similar thing a while back and it turned out rather badly.