It looks like the story was updated because of the link that’s sandwiched in it. Following the “update” link it gets even more interesting. The editor appears to be playing PC cover up, which is really sad.
Now, one show (Oreilly) decided to pick up on the story and try to get to the bottom of what’s going on. If he’d shut up long enough to let people answer maybe we’ll get some answers. But to his credit it wont remained buried anymore. It’s now getting national attention no thanks to the crowd that threw Zimmerman to the wolves “while it was being investigated”.
Ive seen this quite a bit. Since the history of racism in this country is White on Color, it is considered acceptable that any Color on White is nothing more then deserved because of the past.
Color on Color is (for the most part) pathetically ignored as well.
I was a medic in East Los Angeles, and Watts. The gang wars there was basically hispanic vs black, with whites getting in the crossfire, rather then being the target.
Allow me to repeat my question since you didn’t bother answering it. Do you have any evidence or rational justification for how and why democrats would use hate crime legislation to gain more support, or scare minorities? If anything, Democrats, in recent years, have been pushed to support such legislation by their own constituency, often at the expense of independent conservative voters. “Playing the race card” would have hardly been effective as a means of picking up new voters.
Similar to why the Black Panther voter intimidation case was dropped. The reason is that the idea of hate crimes was introduced with white oppressors in mind. Blacks are seen as victims who have no moral agency to discriminate or be hateful against white oppressors.
I don’t know what might qualify as evidence. New legislation would, vocal support for existing laws does and whaling by the Sharpton types would make me happy if I was a black person who had any existing idea that the Republicans were out to make my life worse.
It may not get Dems many new voters but as I mentioned above there are “get out the vote” benefits too.
I do agree that Democrats walk a fine line between the cost and the benefit.
As an actual Black person, it does little for me or the other Black people I know. For the vast majority of people, hate crimes legislation is not on their radar. It rarely comes up during debates or stump speeches, and it’s used in very few cases that get national exposure. Regardless of how the “Sharpton types” might spin it.
I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but can you explain what you mean by “Sharpton types”?
Then please link to a few situations where Dems have used such tactics.
As I said before, hate crimes legislation is only a wedge issue insomuch as the GOP takes the task (every time) of having to defend criminals, racists, and homophobes on a regular basis. Their willingness to be on the opposite side of every issue regardless of it’s rectitude is what turns off minorities. Not the tepid response or action of the Democrats.
However, as was long ago demonstrated to the OP, blacks get charged with “Hate Crimes” proportionately more often than whites do.
Claiming that we have such laws, (one more crack cocaine example of laws harming blacks disproportionately to others), hardly seems like a really good way to either get votes or “get out the vote.”
I’ll go with brickbacon, I would like to see actual campaign messages, (or even PSAs), promoted by Democrats that rely–or even allude to–hate crime laws.
By benefit of the doubt, do you mean that there is an acceptable criticism of Sharpton and those like him. If so, rather than poison the well, I’d like to hear that criticism from an actual Black person.
He, like any other person, is not perfect, and therefore open to valid criticism. That said, using a clearly loaded term like, “Sharpton types” tends to imply many things you may not intend it to.
Furthermore, I am not sure why it should matter what I think about just because I am Black. Especially since I didn’t bring him up in the first place. I don’t really think about him, or hear much of what he says. The only time I hear his name is when someone else brings him up to make a specious claim about him or what they think he stands for.
But is he said/she said ‘probable cause’ for the police to charge with a hate crime? The story you linked said, “The next day, rumors circulated…” or something. Sure, the fact that the mayor is black isn’t helpful here. The fact that it’s Mobile, Alabama makes me think it was likely racially-charged.
But these were teenagers that beat up this guy. I’ve seen kids go off on adults before. A kid may say, “F— you, cracker!” and lay in on a teacher, but the kid is using that as an added insult. It’s not the main reason for his crime.
But to answer the question: I’d venture to guess that black kids aren’t often charged with hate crimes because it’s not politically expedient. But I think a black kid (or kids) beating up a white person makes for a better story. I mean, white people picking on black folks? That’s so [del]1920s[/del] [del]1930s[/del] [del]1940s[/del] [del]1950s[/del] been done before!
This is the main reason why I oppose hate crimes legislation. After Matthew Shepard, I completely supported it. But now I think it just makes people think that the law will be applied unfairly. It’s too subjective.
Errr yes ?
They’re criminal gangs. They beef over territory for who gets to sling drugs, pimp girls, run grifts and similar bullshit. That’s what they do. It’s all in the game though, isn’t it ? Or would you assert that when a Crip runs a drive-by on a Blood it’s just gangs being gangs, but when a Crip stomps on a goon wearing MS-13 ink it’s a race-motivated hate crime ?
(Not that the Bloods & Crips are exclusively black or MS-13 exclusively Latino, but assume the individuals in that hypothetical are for the purpose of discussion)
I think dngnb8’s point was that people don’t care when brown people shoot brown people, even when it is racially motivated.
In some places, gang crime is about race. LA is a great example. I’m not sure why you’re arguing that just because someone is already a criminal, it means they should be immune from hate crime laws.
Sureños is multi-ethnic(ish), but come on. How many African American kids have Sur 13 tattooed on them? Prison gangs are also typically race-motivated. But do we care? Typically, no.
Do kids in race-based gangs get prosecuted for hate crimes? If the law says they should I’d hope so, but I doubt it.
Note I didn’t say Crips v. Bloods. I was talking specifically about race-based gangs. Reminds me: Ayran Brotherhood is also a race-based gang, created especially to fight off black and Hispanic gangs in prison.
If hate crimes laws exist, they should be prosecuted for that shit, too.
I see what you mean, but I don’t think they’re getting a free pass based on their ethnicity. It’s just that the facts that gangs *are *for the most part segregated along ethnic lines (mainly because the neighbourhoods they hail from are) ; and gang violence can erupt for a whole slew of reasons, makes it hard to determine whether a given action was racially motivated, or simply gang identity motivated, or “business”, or something else. Even harder than your average “this is a hate crime” call I mean.
There’s also the fact that, as far as I’m aware, gang affiliation is an even more aggravating factor than racial prejudice when it comes to sentencing (not to mention a whole lot easier to prove), so…
To a certain extent, but the Aryan Brotherhood is also allied with the Mexican Mafia(La Eme) against other Hispanic gangs.
Anyone generally speaking when black gangbangers get killed the killers are other black gangbangers and vice versa when it comes to Hispanics or “Esses” to use LA slang.
In fact, since you mentioned the Bloods and the Crips, it’s worth noting that many of the members of both gangs are Latinos.
Real life is far more complicated than the movie Colors.