Posted on 11/06/2007 10:17:20 AM PST by como_1996
Here’s another example of a hate crime and not a hate crime, and the reason why.
When a white person assaults (or even wins an argument with) a black person, it’s automatically a hate crime instead of a fist fight.
When 6 black men beat down a white person while shouting “Kill Whitey”, it’s not a hate crime, because they “lack the power to enforce their hatred”.
Now a person can go to jail when there is no assault. Just your words put you in jail. It didn’t take long from the time when “hate crime” laws were passed to get to this. Now the liberals are happy because that’s what they wanted in the first place.
Um, no, that's not a hate crime,,,that's just poor angry black youths with no dad in the home, it's not their fault, they are a victim of society, if they were paid reparations this would not have happened....../sarcasm OFF.....
It’s pathetic isn’t it?
Besides, the left would tell you that the 4 rapists “lacked the power to enforce their hatred and bigotry” and therefore could not even be racist, let alone commit a hate crime.
oops
Somebody tell me what the difference is!?!
You are right.
In most states, you need "an imminent threat of physical harm that is reasonable from the circumstances" (or something similar).
Pointing to a tattoo does nothing to make a reasonable person think that a weapon will be imminently produced and used...
Only liberal psychosis can make that leap. "He's pale, and has politically incorrect body modifications! He must be about to attack, because a person with a high melanin content is nearby! Run! Aiiigghh!"
Taunting someone and pointing to your White Power/SS tattoo, can amount to an “an imminent threat” against black, especially if he’s outnumbered by like-minded thugs. It sure sounds like the potential start of an attack - you know the idiot is working himself and his buds up to the attack.
Personally, I don’t like the hate crime part, but I might support assault.
The sinful nature of mankind as a whole.
You sound like an f’ing liberal on this one. I have been taunted by folks from other races. Calling the cops to say that they hurt my feelings was the last thing on my mind.
Is it not taught at home? I mean the ugly individuals that spouted those ugly words to my mother and younger sister are they not products of their own environment? It starts from tame condescending remarks: do you speak english? to the uglier: gook, chink, jap and go back where you came from. These neanderthals need an island all to themselves, where they can project on the one functioning brain cell that they have left./Just Asking - seoul62........
That only applies to the rights of the state governments to say things not the people themselves.................................
Eminatin pnumbras and all that...........
That effectively means "If you have no job, no assets, and no money, then maybe you qualify. If you have a job, then tough, get a loan and pay your own". they do not care if you go bankrupt
Yes, by fallen, sinful parents. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Doesn't excuse the behavior of course. We are all called to repent of whatever sins beset us.
No, not really. It seems far more like taunting to me. From my experience, if one is about to get into a brawl, one does not get prepped by pointing to tattoos. One looks for weapons or advantageous locations, or gets in the targets face, or starts yelling and making a spectacle... pointing to tattoos seems far more like showing off and mockery than creating an imminent threat of physical harm... but then again, in our ever-more-wussified culture, I guess mocking by a non-PC person is tantamount to a criminal act. *sigh*
especially if he’s outnumbered by like-minded thugs.
Sure, that can change things... but nothing like that was mentioned in the article... and there's the pesky little fact that he was never actually attacked, so it sure seems like the imminent part is out.
It sure sounds like the potential start of an attack - you know the idiot is working himself and his buds up to the attack.
Ah, yes, the age old "you know he wanted to" assumption, that has no basis in reality, only in fear and hyperbole. Great basis for a legal claim, that. (Sadly, it works on far too many juries, who feel rather than think their way through issues.)
And, as I said before, you don’t need a physical attack for it to be an assault.
My only disagreement is with the “hate crimes” part; I don’t believe in criminalizing thought. I’m perfectly willing to let a jury resolve the assault question.
“Police Say Man’s Verbal Assaults Amounted to a Hate Crime.” was not the title at the source.
Please do not alter titles of any published material. Just use the original title.
Thanks.
Hate is not against the law. Hate speech is not against the law. See US Constitution, Amendment 1.
Oh, I forgot, hate crimes supercede the constitution.
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.