Posted on 02/02/2007 8:25:57 AM PST by dead
Some animals are equal, but...
There are far more black-on-white hate crimes than the other way around.
Anyone who says otherwise hasn't looked at the crime statistics.
Because they are basically cowards. You'll never see these jackholes picking a fair fight that they might lose.
Thank you dead,
beware: NY times has you on their black-list.
If it wasnt for you, I'd have to pickup my usual "SYDNEY Morning Herald" along with my bagel w/cream cheese and coffee this morning.
Isnt it poignant that it still had to take some rag from AUSTRALIA to read this.
Oh? How many Americans are even going to read, see or hear about this story? The MSM won't because their idea of freedom of speech and the press ONLY applies to their agenda.
|
Consultant Ned: You must build a giant catapult. To fire the greatest of projectiles at the sloths of Los Angeles.
Sir Arthur: What kind of projectile?
(Consultant Ned throws a portfolio/sack upon the roundtable)
Consultant Ned: This.
Sir Arthur: Are you suggesting we throw money at the problem?
Consultant Net: Precisely.
There is no authority to arrest somebody for not liking somebody else or even *saying that they don't like somebody else.*
While liberals and people seeking revenge, fantasize that **THINKING IS VIOLENT** because they must find, somehow, "violence" in all that they oppose --- in order to justify thought police state actions --- they have no Constitutional ground upon which to arrest what displeases them and theirs.
The point is, that one of the major ojections among our Founding Fathers (and their ancestors), which gave rise to our new country, was that in the old country, there was too much, and in the history of other countries, there was too much:
Abuse by government - wherein these governments arrested people and usually locked them away in some dungeon, because of what they were thinking, alleged or otherwise.
Our Founding Fathers were ardently opposed to Thought Police State Authority.
Now, because so much "hate crime" prosecution has resulted in a very great bias in fact and in the liberal media and in the public eye ... where so-called "minorities" have been the "victims," there have been occasions when "the white people" have been set upon by so-called "minorities," and some in the public want to enforce "hate crimes" prosecutions, in order to, putting it mildly, "reverse [the long overdue] discrimination."
Does not matter - their wishes to reverse things or get revenge - it is not Constitutional, and ALL "hate crimes" criminal statutes should be promptly revoked and torn up.
They are an abomination and grievous affront to our Constitution, which originally intended that our government(s) not get into the business of Thought Police Actions --- see the First Amendment!
Can you provide a specific reference in the USC to support this? Best as I am aware, it says we can't deprive one of life, liberty, or property without due process. No mention of a violent act. Care to provide a constitutional analysis?
Sadly, here in the US, all our big cities are going to become like LA. Millions of Latinos moving into the cities, into formerly black neighborhoods, taking low-skill jobs. Illegals make it worse because they take the low-end jobs and will work under the table if necessary.
Urban black culture has become so coarse and violent that mainstream whites (and others) will not hire young blacks. Their education is so non-existent as to make them unemployable. Their bad attitude doesn't help, either.
Blacks and Latinos fighting it out in the ghetto. Meanwhile, Asians are becoming the technocratic elite (at least here in CA), and whites are fleeing to the exurbs.
I am retiring very soon. And I am not going to live anywhere NEAR a big city. Between the race riots and the terror attacks, I'll take rural nowhere, thanks.
This is a classic example of my being tired and not getting down on paper what I meant to say, here and there.
I was referring to the distinction between what a person is thinking, during the commission of a violent act, and the violent act itself; a situation, I hope that you'll understand.
We may arrest for the violent act, and charge the perp for that, but we may not charge the perp (piling on charges) for his/her thinking.
It's one count, not two.
My apologies for writing hastily.
No problem, I just thought I had missed something. Keep the faith! ;-)
Be true to the 2nd amendment even in rural America.
Criminals are common to all groups.
The complete spelling actually made it to print (in an Australian paper).
Editorial policy based on complexion, hair texture, facial features.
Good grief, you still think that the Constitution has anything to do with how law is practiced in this country - get a clue!
So you would say we should make no distinction between an accidentally fatal shooting and premeditated murder?
The fact is, the motivation behind an act always has been and always will be relevant.
""I think the case will redefine how Americans look at hate crimes," Hutchinson says. "Traditionally, African-Americans were victims."
This is baloney. Since the introduction of hate crime laws the majority of perps have been black and the majority of victims white and latino. The media has always misrepresented the facts to play on white guilt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.