Posted on 02/11/2005 8:12:55 PM PST by WKB
Well, the Klan did terrorize blacks.
I just meant that in a response to the "He's too old now."
Of course they did. As gangs do to other groups today. Should we find every gang member whether or not they just joined their group and charge them with every crime committed by other group members whether or not they were involved? By your standard, it's going to be quite easy to do it. Rule of law? Heck, we can't let the rule of law get in the way. We've got too many people to prosecute!! You're going to be locking up a whole lot of people that way, unfairly at that. But heck, as you said, even though there's no evidence that you have personally seen and even though you are not on the jury to be able to see that evidence let's just go off what the media reports and make 'the rest of his fleeting life should be made miserable, just to prepare him for hell.'
Yep, that's justice alright....
I didn't say that.
I meant it in the context of responding to those who felt someone who commited a crime years ago is too old to be prosecuted.
And you have a point that I am fully taking to heart.
Hyperbole?
Tell that to Emmett Till, the 4 girls in the church, and Medgar Evers.
BTW, Tim McVeigh was a Klansman. I suppose blowing up the Murrah Bldg. wasn't a terrorist attack?
Eric Rudolph was a Klansman, too. he set off almost as many explosions as una-bomber Ted Koszynski
"As gangs do to other groups today. Should we find every gang member whether or not they just joined their group and charge them with every crime committed by other group members whether or not they were involved?"
___________________________
We already do, its called RICO and its been around for almost 30 years.
That's the big government 'conservative' spirit!!!
Not surprisingly, RICO ultimately came to be the ultimate weapon that federal prosecutors could use against individuals and business owners who decidedly were not part of "organized crime," but the provisions of the law are so powerful that a RICO indictment almost guarantees a conviction of some sort. (And, surprise, surprise, the ACLU itself dropped its official aversion to RICO after pro-abortion groups successfully used the civil portion of RICO to win huge monetary judgments from groups protesting abortion.)
Washington Is a Sledgehammer; We Are Nails
But there are plenty of documented incidents where RICO has been misused and not under the original intent. But we all know 'conservatives' don't care
I wans't saying I was for it or against it, just that its already there.
Oh but you did say it. Right here in Post 8
I meant it in the context of responding to those who felt someone who commited a crime years ago is too old to be prosecuted.
So in the next sentence you admit you said it but in a different context? Tell us dear. How exactly should we take it if that is the only statement you made in that post without seeing any of the evidence or knowing the full details of the crime?
And you have a point that I am fully taking to heart.
That's more than evident and it's clouded your judgement on two wrongs don't make a right. If he is convicted fairly in criminal court, he should face the fullest punishment available to the courts. But to dismiss his alibi out of hand because you may not like him and he belonged to a group that neither of us agree with is not only foolish, it is wrong.
Like the Nazi officer at the war crimes trial; "I neffer killed anyvun, I vas only giffing orders!"
As far as whether this guy is guilty or not, that is up to the jury, but he was charged before and let off with a hung jury. This means they had, and stil have, some evidence against him. I remember the trial, I was alive then and a grown man at the time. I remember reading the evidence and it seemed pretty solid. However, he was released and now is up for trial again. If hes guilty he should pay no matter how old, if not he should be aquitted.
As for the clan, anyone who thinks they were just a bunch of good old boys not doing any harm simply doesn't know what they are talking about, and that includes you.
To answer this question: Yes, we should. Anyone who joins a group whose intent is to terrorise using any means necessary to get the job done is as guilty as any other person in the group, because by joining you are giving support to these unlawful activities.
There is a precedent for this in the laws that charge anyone involved in a felony that results in the death of a person with murder.
By the way you sound like a democrat and liberal to me. Only a liberal would think the clan or anyone who joined is just a group of people having a good time with white sheets. They didn't do any of the things they were accused of back in the day did they? Just a bunch of democrats exercising their free speech and their rights to bunch down churches and hang blacks at will and rape black girls with no consequences. Nothing wrong with that as long as it was just some Dems having fun, right?
The clan was, and is, a low life group that was used to terrorise blacks and whites alike so that they would "stay in their place." We all know this and those of us from the south should be the first to admit it.
I know exactly what it was. Of course some like to blame the South for all the racism issues don't you now? BTW, where exactly are the headquarters for the Klan? And contrary to the SPLC and your distorted view of history, it was not a war zone where none were safe.
I don't think any of the civil rights workers killed themselves. I think they were killed by men that hate. Of course we couldn't find any racially based murders north of the old Confederacy could we? Nope, history books tell us all racially motivated crimes happen South of Virginia. No, they only have bus riots in Boston in the mid 1970s and if that could have been washed over I imagine that would be as well. I never said they were 'fun loving idiots' just idiots. Racist morons that I despise probably more than you ever could for more than a few reasons.
As far as whether this guy is guilty or not, that is up to the jury, but he was charged before and let off with a hung jury. This means they had, and stil have, some evidence against him. I remember the trial, I was alive then and a grown man at the time. I remember reading the evidence and it seemed pretty solid. However, he was released and now is up for trial again. If hes guilty he should pay no matter how old, if not he should be aquitted.
And my point was that he should have a trial by jury and not assumed guilty before innocent. The poster I was responding to did exactly that. But of course with certain individuals convicted of a crime it's easier to do that than live by the rule of law and allow him a fair trial. And if you bothered looking at my statement I said if he was convicted he should face the fullest extent of the law no matter how old he is.
As for the clan, anyone who thinks they were just a bunch of good old boys not doing any harm simply doesn't know what they are talking about, and that includes you.
Matter of fact, I didn't say that either. But good try putting words in my mouth. Those that committed actual crimes in this organization, as in any other organization, no matter how distasteful their beliefs may be, should be charged, given their fair trial, and if convicted, have the punishment meted out. It seems some however would choose to drop the fair trial and assume he is guilty. And anyone that may belong to an organization that has distasteful views should apparently be thrown in jail for good measure just in case. No matter if they actually committed the crime or not.
I am not defending the position of the Klan. I hate the Klan for their racist views, for their ignorance, and for their misusage of flags that I hold dear to my heritage. What I am defending is the rule of law that some choose to forget when they deem the charged guilty without seeing the evidence. Personally, if he is guilty of murder, I don't care how old he is. There is one punishment for premeditated murder in my mind and one only. The death penalty
LOL! You couldn't win, for losing. ;o)
"We were in Mississippi for Christmas in 1961 and my father took home movies of blacks and whites playing baseball together and everyone in NY was shocked to see them."
No doubt they were shocked. I remember how the media
portrayed us at that time, even though I was a child.
That's an aspect of Mississippi that is inconvenient
for some to recognize. And, it's the Mississippi
that I grew up in. Most of the new stories bore little
resemblance to every day life.
Posted by dixiechick2000 to razorback-bert
On News/Activism ^ 02/12/2005 4:10:04 PM PST · 58 of 57 ^
Dang! I hate when that happens.
Talk of "protecting our Southern heritage" is just a smoke screen for racism. Most "heritage" groups, including the League of the South and the Conservative Citizens Council, are both segregationist and secessionist. The Sons of Confederate Veterans has been influenced greatly by those groups and is pretty close to being white supremacist, too. So, I urge people not to be deceived by the kind of implied racism one sees on threads like this one. You are hearing from people who want to deprive their fellow citizens of their rights, but are being less strident at FR than they are elsewhere.
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.