This is the reason there is a DEATH PENALTY
 

Shit like this justifies the death penalty.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002Oct14.html

that story makes my blood boil, never trust a criminal with your life.

I agree... I hate popups.

All the victims were white, the killers were black.

They refuse to classify it a "hate crime". Nice.

Now if it was the other way around... if it were two white guys and 5 Hassidic Jews, they would be making movies about it and Sting would write a song.

Thats some funny shit in your sig:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

haha, i think i'm gonna make some more and have it show a random one. that'll be a kickass sig!

:)

* Larry Gene Bell *

People like that make sure we still have a death penalty.


What a shitbag !

Let's not forget that in Illinois, among the cases that could be reviewed with new DNA techniques, it turned out that MORE THAN HALF the associated death penalties had to be reversed. What about some of the poor fucks on death row whose cases can't be reviewed because DNA wasn't a factor?

I used to be very pro-death penalty, but after Illinois, I not only had to rethink the death penalty but my trust in the entire justice system.

I agree that these two, if they are found guilty, ought to get the death penalty. However, Herr Labret, aside from the meaningless rhetoric that you've thrown in here, any evidence in this specific case that these two idiots did this BECAUSE the people were white?

This does not take away from the point of this thread--really heinous acts, IF FOUND TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED BY THE DEFENDANT beyond a reasonable doubt and through a fair/impartial truthfinding system, should be punished by death.

The cases you cite, although sympathetic, are cases where there were serious issues with the evidence and/or the adjudication system.

Herr? Oh, look at the little lefty try and paint me the nazi using words that he doesnt know how to use properly. Typical.

Herr can translate into any of the following. Lord, Master, Mister, Gentleman, Boss, Governor. Which is it? I prefer Lord or Master.

You are right, they selected their victims without regard to race. uh huh, you just keep trying to tell yourself that. If I beat the fuck out of a black guy do I need to shout "******" every 5 seconds during the beating in order for it to be a hate crime? Pull your head out of your ass and go back to paraphrasing board chats. Make sure and mention I called you a delusional little girl.

So following this rationale, you agree that the recent decision by the LA County District attorney NOT to charge 3 defendants of hate crimes against the gays they brutally beat up was WRONG?

I'm curious, what evidence would you require [outside of the race of the victims] to establish or at least claim that the crime was hate-based? Assuming that racial epithets were not used.

"If I beat the fuck out of a black guy do I need to shout "******" every 5 seconds ..."

If you're beating the hell out of a random black guy you found on the street BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT HE'S BLACK and for no other reason, it's a hate crime.

You're right about the German, however. I should have just said Bubba.

Assuming that the defendant has more than 2 brain cells and DOES NOT ADMIT that he beat of the victim because of his race. I ask you the same question I did to Labret--Outside of the race of the victim, and assuming there's no epithets used, how do we know the defendant chose his victims because of race? or gender? or sexual orientation? or other grounds hate crime laws protect under?

Well, if James Earl Whosits has been boasting to his friends that he's going to "Go find him a [???] and mess them up", which has often been the situation, then you've got a case. I'm not sure that the use of epithets in the course of the fight itself are even evidence, because a lot of things get said in the heat of battle, so to speak.

And how exactly do you plan on proving that I beat him for being black without me yelling racial slurs?

You cannot.

Bubba? First you insinuate I am a nazi and now you insinuate I am a redneck. Judging from all of em, content god, and your statements, originality is not your strong point. How do you even equate a 1930s era national socialist to an uneducated American? How are they even remotely similar. Tell me.

Come on, at least give me something to work with here.

That would make sense. Background evidence.

Normally, motive is not an element of a crime but in hate crimes it becomes an element.

Of course, direct evidence would be epithets, hate paraphenalia... but its usually not that easy.

I believe that while comments like yours are well intended you're reasoning isn't complete. Comments like this fail to consider that the reason why crimes against certains groups are quick to be deemed (albeit sometimes wrongfully) as hate crimes and others not, is because certains groups have a rich legacy of crimes against others solely on the basis of race.

For instance, one can think of numerous cases where whites have brutalized blacks without any apparent motive other than race. Blacks don't share that legacy of burning whites alive on stakes, or having 5 black officers brutalizing one white victim and the list goes on.

This is why your reasoning falls short and it also explains why crimes against so called minority groups are sometimes investigated as possible hate crimes.

I don't know whether the current case is a hate crime. I haven't heard the case and I don't know all of the facts, but I think comments like yours are far too quick to judge. If it was a hate crime it was also clearly a robbery also. The robbery part is evident but the racial link is not, yet.

First of all, neither All of Em or Content God have anything to do with this.

As far as this "discussion" goes, you leap in with an assumption that this is a hate crime because the victims were white and the accused are black, complete with your speculation from left field that if it was a two white guy against Jews it would become the cause dujour.

IMHO, it is mostly the Nazis and Bubbas of the world who are quick to jump on the "hate crimes" thing when it's black on white crime. A lot of things come into play when a hate crime is charged. Prior utterances and actions, for one thing. As I said in response to pimplink, I don't think the utterances during the altercation in your example prove much by themselves.

Those guys are sick.
All that is on the news here is the trial.
(live in Wichita)
I know I would have a hard time not giving them
some swift judgement with a firing squad..

Ohhhh I see, it all makes sense now. It only applies to white people.

Tell me something I didnt already know Sharpton.


This is like the argument that black people cannot be racist. Holds no water, I am not buying it.

I don't buy that for a moment. I will grant you that there have been far more ORGANIZED and systematic assults on black people by whites, I doubt very seriously that blacks are any more or less likely to engage in this sort of moronic behavior than whites.

What got to me was when one of the victims was pleading with them and they just went down the line...coldly, almost machine like.... POP [someone's life] POP [another person's life] POP [another life] POP [another person's life]

Basically for some chump change. I mean, I can understand the nonchalance and cold determination if these were criminals being executed, or terrorists being executed... but the ability to coldly take away an innocent person's life... its the most disappointing part of this story.

Oh, fuck ... did I just agree with [Labret] ? Is my ACLU membership safe :D

I didn't read the posts till now.
I listen to the trial on the raido a lot,
and I do not believe it is a hate crime,
It just happen to be unluck white people.
We will better know when the living female
tells her whole story, and what the brothers said durning
the crime.

But either way I believe they should have a swift death, hate crime or no hate crime...It is still a Very bad and sick crime...

Exactly PIMPLINK

I love the ACLU. No joke. Well, most of the time anyway.

To 'not buy' my argument would be to deny a simple reality. This is NOT like saying blacks cannot be racist. Blacks CAN be racist. I don't understand what that has to do with my post.

I tend to agree with this. Without knowing all of the evidence, this is clearly the most obvious conclusion to draw. I think that if it was at all race related, the perpetrators chose a group of white kids because they probably figured white kids would have more money on them than a group of black kids. But speculating at this point would be futile.

:Graucho Seriously. I like it too. Give her my 2 thumbs up too!! hehehehe

Did you make that button?

Who can I contact get some of those made?

Bobo, your post rather patronizingly assumes that black people are somehow exempt from human emotion, which is sometimes irrational. I read your post as saying black people don't, or are incapable of committing, hate crimes. The history of race relations is irrelevant to a discussion of hate crimes.

Same here. At least, for the most part, they are consistent. They represented the Skokie Nazis despite a HUGE outcry from many of the ACLU's financial backers and own lawyers.

Nowhere did I say that whites are more inclined than anybody else. Where is this coming from?

What are you talking about? I specifically said that crimes by blacks are sometimes wrongfully dismissed as NON hate crimes when in fact they ARE hate crimes. You're not making any sense. you're certainly not interpreting what was clearly stated in my post.

It may very well be WRONG for everybody to assume that when a white guy kills some blacks that he is a racist. I'm simply explaining to you why this happens.

This reminds me of that famously stupid remark by Spike Lee that blacks are INCAPABLE of being racist. While he tried to explain that by saying that racism is the inherent use of institutional forces to bring to bear hate based on irrational bases like race, I don't buy it. He reasoned that since blacks do not control instiutions then their hate does not have teeth and cannot be compared with white racist hate.

Yeah, how many times do I have to reiterate that blacks CAN be racist. I never mentioned anywhere that they couldn't. Why are you talking abot whether people can or cannot be racist. Everybody can be. What the hell are you making a point out of this?

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/newrep...id=10034987615

and I quote

No, you didn't clearly state it. After re-re-reading your post I can see how you inferred it, but on initial reading I took your comments differenty.

HAHAHA! Click on that link everybody. There is no message in that link. I've never uttered those words in my life. Nice try Labret! LOL