First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next  Last
Dem on CNN: Not sure if race based kidnapping and torture was hate crime
48613 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 1/5/17

keiichimorisato988 wrote:

i have some choice word i would love to say, but i fear that i would be banned from the forums, so i won't. regardless, this is clearly a hate crime, but people are unwilling to call it such because the victim is white, which isn't unusual, as black people tend to get away with hate crimes against white people all the time. i can say the most vile things ever, so long as i direct them at a white person, Facebook and Twitter will allow the post to be. but if a white person were to make the same statements directed towards black people (or any other minority) then the account would be permanently banned from the service.


THEY CHARGED THEM WITH HATE CRIMES. With federal hate crime charges sure to follow. DO ANY OF YOU READ THE THREAD OR CHECK FOR UPDATES BEFORE POSTING?
12131 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 1/5/17

rawratl wrote:


Amyas_Leigh wrote:


rawratl wrote:

Huh? They charged them with hate crimes. Can you even read?


They did but they sure took their time dragging their feet about it, saying it 'wasn't motivated by race' and other bull.


Common procedure for law enforcement to interview everyone and get all their facts straight before they make such statements.


I would also like to add that in this case charges were leveled pretty fucking fast. Police have up to 30 days after an arrest to charge a suspect, and they usually seem to do it closer to the deadline from my observation. This took, what? A day? Less? What wouldn't be "dragging their feet"?
24143 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Winter Park, FL
Offline
Posted 1/5/17 , edited 1/5/17

rawratl wrote:


keiichimorisato988 wrote:

i have some choice word i would love to say, but i fear that i would be banned from the forums, so i won't. regardless, this is clearly a hate crime, but people are unwilling to call it such because the victim is white, which isn't unusual, as black people tend to get away with hate crimes against white people all the time. i can say the most vile things ever, so long as i direct them at a white person, Facebook and Twitter will allow the post to be. but if a white person were to make the same statements directed towards black people (or any other minority) then the account would be permanently banned from the service.


THEY CHARGED THEM WITH HATE CRIMES. With federal hate crime charges sure to follow. DO ANY OF YOU READ THE THREAD OR CHECK FOR UPDATES BEFORE POSTING?


i wasn't talking about what they were charged with by the police, i was talking about media opinion and their reluctance to call it a hate crime.
Posted 1/5/17

rawratl wrote:


THEY CHARGED THEM WITH HATE CRIMES. With federal hate crime charges sure to follow. DO ANY OF YOU READ THE THREAD OR CHECK FOR UPDATES BEFORE POSTING?


We're talking about people like Don 'What they did wasn't evil, they were badly home trained' Lemon and the nutjob quoted in the OP. Also the whole Obama admin saying 'its not a hate crime' even after they were charged. Like, really?

48613 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 1/5/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


rawratl wrote:


THEY CHARGED THEM WITH HATE CRIMES. With federal hate crime charges sure to follow. DO ANY OF YOU READ THE THREAD OR CHECK FOR UPDATES BEFORE POSTING?


We're talking about people like Don 'What they did wasn't evil, they were badly home trained' Lemon and the nutjob quoted in the OP. Also the whole Obama admin saying 'its not a hate crime' even after they were charged. Like, really?



He didn't say it wasn't a hate crime, he said he didn't know what the DoJ was doing in terms of federal charges.
23044 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 1/5/17

rawratl wrote:


Rujikin wrote:

If the races were reversed and they did 1/10th of what actually happened to this poor man cities would be burning from all of the riots. They are literally saying its ok to be racist as long as your black. These people are saying this and the PD doesn't care:

"FUCK WHITE PEOPLE. BITCH YOU VOTED TRUMP. FUCK YOU WHITIES. WHITE PEOPLE LIKE YOU RUINED THIS COUNTRY. FUCK WHITE PEOPLE, FUCK ALL YOU WHITES"

"Race was not the motive. Also neither was politics. It was just dumb teens." -Chicago PD


Huh? They charged them with hate crimes. Can you even read?


The last thing I heard that was still up in the air, despite it being pretty obvious.
5477 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 1/5/17
I saw that they will officially be charged with a hate crime.
5477 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 1/5/17
Luckily the honor code among inmates is built on a loose sense of respect where criminals convicted for pedophilia, rape and torture are at the bottom of the totem pole.

A lot of STD dick awaits the two dudes
runec 
39010 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 1/5/17 , edited 1/5/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:
By that logic the Charleston church shooting wasn't a hate crime because Roof was politically motivated.


Roof wrote a 2400 page manifesto with subsections on each individual race. His motivations were pretty clear.

As for logic. Let me help you there with how logic actually works:

An event occurs. This event could be A or B. People take one of three positions:

1) Some people say it is A
2) Some people say it is B
3) Some people say they will wait until they have more information before proclaiming if it is A or B.

Following so far?

Now, here's the problem: You have taken a position. Let's say position #1. But you are declaring that anyone who does not take position #1 with you is taking position #2. Even if they actually took position #3.

See the problem yet? Lets apply this as a practical example:

You took position A. You are accusing Sanders of taking position B. Even though Sanders states she does not know if this is A or B. Then goes on to explain that if its purely politically motivated it cannot, legally speaking, be A. She is correct in this regard.

Lemon likewise takes the position #3.

You, however, cut out that part of Sander's quote. Taking only the snippet that fits your narrative in your usual efforts at generating pointless partisan threads that serve nothing and help no one.

Is that logic clear enough? -.-



9653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Palm Coast, Florida
Offline
Posted 1/5/17
I'm glad that they caught, they deserve whatever punishment they get, especially for harming a special needs person. (or any person in general)
Posted 1/5/17 , edited 1/5/17

runec wrote:

Roof wrote a 2400 page manifesto with subsections on each individual race.







And? He wanted to start a racewar because of his political views, therefore it was 'politically motivated'. I was just pointing out that by Rawratl's logic, that if something is 'politically motivated' it can't be a hate crime, then Roof's attack wouldn't be a hate crime.

As for the whole 'she didn't know if it was a hate crime' is just a plain lie. Anyone who watched the video can see what it is.
runec 
39010 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 1/5/17 , edited 1/5/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:
And? He wanted to start a racewar because of his political views, therefore it was 'politically motivated'. I was just pointing out that by Rawratl's logic, that if something is 'politically motivated' it can't be a hate crime, then Roof's attack wouldn't be a hate crime.


You were talking to me, not rawratl. And that is not the logic that was presented. Political and racial motivation are not mutually exclusive. The point being made was that political affiliation is not a protected class and thus cannot legally be a hate crime. If you had read the entirety of what Sanders said instead of snipping one bit out of context so you could rush right to a partisan uproar you would know that that is what she was talking about.

Stating that being attacked for your political affiliation does not legally constitute a hate crime does NOT mean that you are legally shielded from being charged with a hate crime if you had racial motivations as well. That's a silly argument to make and a silly argument to insist is being made.



Amyas_Leigh wrote:
As for the whole 'she didn't know if it was a hate crime' is just a plain lie. Anyone who watched the video can see what it is.


That makes even less sense. She's lying because she reserves judgement? Right after the anchor specifically says he can't say whether or not this is a hate crime because the Chicago PD has not yet said whether or not its a hate crime?

4837 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 1/5/17
Maybe CNN will blame Russian hackers for the torture?
Clearly blaming blacks would be racist.
Posted 1/5/17

runec wrote:



You were talking to me, not rawratl. And that is not the logic that was presented. Political and racial motivation are not mutually exclusive.







Oh all you cats look the same, no offense. Also exactly, that's what its like in reality.
As for 'taking quotes out of context' I put the link in the OP so nothing would be out of context.

runec 
39010 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 1/5/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:
Oh all you cats look the same, no offense. Also exactly, that's what its like in reality.
As for 'taking quotes out of context' I put the link in the OP so nothing would be out of context.


rawralt's cat is far more adorable than mine.

Also "I linked to the source so the bit I pasted out of context can't be out of context" is an equally silly argument. -.-



First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.