Australian baseball player killed in OK by "bored" teens

[Grahambo]

Police seek 2 young suspects after World War II veteran beaten to death in parking lot | Fox News

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

But Marvin Gaye does cause girls to want to take their undies off. Mystical to say the least....


By the way, I was going to use the word "panties", but that word makes me uncomfortable. That and the word, "moist".

Marvin Gaye could be singing Chief Keef lyrics and still make girls want to take their panties off. It's all in the smooth voice and production with him (not saying his lyrics aren't good too).

 

[CTHindman]

I was better off before I read this thread. From age 3 to 10 I lived in a small town in MS (which could have been AL,GA,FL any number of states in the south). For most accounts, it was awesome. We had 20 acres with farm animal for pets. I still remember seeing a KKK "meeting" in a field. A bunch of red necks around a fire in sheets. Scared the hell out if me. I vowed never to be that ignorant.
Now fast forward 11 years. I lived in Pensacola FL attending the University of West Florida. I was car jacked and taken hostage at gun point outside of a Denny's at 12 o'clock at night. I was called "cracker" for over 30 minutes while I tried to figure a way out of the situation, which I did.
My carjacking was not considered hate motivated. If I would have been killed it would have not been a racially motivated murder. So, I do believe that a white man can be convicted of a hate crime more easily than a minority.
I believe murder is murder. I hate people that use murder or violence as chance to advance an agenda, no matter what their race is.

 

[magogian]

This writer must be racist:

Australian Christopher Lane was killed on Monday in Oklahoma by three teens, one of whom has said they were just “bored.” The right is complaining that the media is making nothing of the fact that two of the teens were black whereas Lane was white, as opposed to the massive alarm sounded in cases such as white (or white-ish) George Zimmerman killing black Trayvon Martin. And again the cry was heard that there is more “black-on-black” or “black-on-white” crime than “white-on-black,” and that young black men are in fact more of a problem than people like Zimmerman.

The numbers don’t lie: young black men do commit about 50% of the murders in the U.S. We don’t yet know whether the attack on Lane was racially motivated, nor can we know whether the three black boys who attacked a white boy on a Florida school bus recently would not have done the same to a black kid. (Critics took Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to task for not condemning the violence.) But hardly uncommon are cases such as the two black guys who doused a white 13-year-old with gasoline and lit him on fire, saying “You get what you deserve, white boy” (Kansas City, Mo.) or 20 black kids who beat up white Matthew Owens on his porch “for Trayvon” (Mobile, Ala.).

So, it’s just fake to pretend that the association of young black men with violence comes out of thin air. Young black men murder 14 times more than young white men. If the kinds of things I just mentioned were regularly done by whites, it’d be trumpeted as justification for being scared to death of them.

It’s not that black communities are in complete denial about these statistics — Stop the Violence events are a staple of high-crime areas. But let’s face it: black America isn’t nearly as indignant about black boys killing one another or whites as about the occasional white cop killing one black boy, even though the former wreaks much more havoc in black communities. There is no coordinated nationwide movement equivalent to the one Martin galvanized. There are no thoughtful films “exploring” black-on-black crime the way Fruitvale Station treats the death of Oscar Grant, a young black man who was killed by transit police in Oakland, Calif.

And recent example illustrates how many blacks feel about who is murdering whom. Two weeks ago, an NYPD cop killed 14-year-old Shaaliver Douse. Douse was in the process of shooting other people, and had been charged with shooting someone else in May — and yet his aunt compared him to Martin. In her mind, the main sin was the white cop’s.

Granted, it seems a lot easier to do something about the Zimmermans than the black thugs. Protest profiling and police departments institute new programs. But black thugs aren’t moved by protests, so it can seem like we’re just stuck with them.

But who’s to say what would happen if black America exerted even half of the emotional fervor and brainpower it does over cases like Martin’s to thinking about how to keep black boys from going wrong? Annette John-Hall had some wise words on this last year. What kind of self-image do we have to assume we can only change others, but not ourselves?

For the time being, though, it’s time for the media to stop proudly emblazoning the race of white cops who kill black boys while cagily describing black teens as, say, “from the grittier part of town,” as has been the case regarding Lane’s killers. The media needs to be as honest with black people as we need to be with ourselves. No group gets ahead by turning away from its real problems.

Don’t Ignore Race in Christopher Lane’s Murder | TIME.com

 

[Voltaire]

This writer must be racist:


Don’t Ignore Race in Christopher Lane’s Murder | TIME.com

I'm always comforted when I see someone like this author serve as a voice of reason in commenting on topics like this and not doing the easy thing resorting to some biased hysterics. Avoiding the truth (or at least avoiding some very basic facts about a subject like this) is indeed never constructive in the long run.

 

[kmoose]

What does Obama have to do with every random act of violence in the country? Do you want him to apologize for every white kid killed by black kids?

I think what people are saying is that Obama should have NOTHING to do with any one particular criminal case in the country, unless he is directly involved in the situation. But Obama chose to interject his thoughts into the GZ case, in what many people feel was an attempt to sway public opinion. Once he did that, he opened himself up to criticism for "cherry picking" where and when he chose to interject his thoughts. I think it is a valid criticism of Obama, but also one that has no bearing on anything other than Obama's choice to speak out regarding Trayvon Martin.

 

[Cackalacky]

So much sheer idiocy in this thread. Sometimes I wonder if certain posters are just trolls created by the Right or Left to make their side look ridiculous. This is the only sentence I find interesting and worthy of discussion.



To the bolded, I think this is far more complex than a blanket stat can cover... for reasons alluded to throughout this thread, but let me back up a second. Hate crimes legislate against what you are thinking/your motivations for committing a crime. This is an incredibly interesting law... because short of someone saying exactly what their motivations were and/or documenting them in some way (like yelling "DIE BLACKIE DIE!" as you kill someone and witnesses attesting to this fact) I don't see how you can prove that a crime is a hate crime. And even if you can, why is murdering someone because you're a general sociopath "less" of a crime than murdering someone because you're a racist/sexist/homophobic sociopath? Shouldn't a murder be a murder?

Now, starting with the bolded... "biased against" can be interpretted a number of ways:
1) That Blacks are victims of hate crimes more often than others.
2) That Blacks are convicted of hate crimes more often than others due to bias.

So now let's look at the stats you pulled out earlier... 58% of hate crimes are committed by Latinos or Whites. For starters, this doesn't say who they were committed against... gays, black, Asians? Whites vs. Latinos? Latinos vs. Whites? And why were Whites & Latinos coupled together in your statistics? That seems very... odd.

But moving on, the United States is somewhere around 82% Latino/Hispanic/White and 13% Black. So Blacks are being convicted for hate crimes at a far greater rate (1.4) than the Latino/Hispanic/White blob (.7).

So if you meant #1 it is refuted by the numbers you provided. If you meant #2, it could be supported by the numbers you provided... but you'd need more corroborating evidence to suggest that there is bias in the convictions. Right now all your data shows is that Blacks are convicted of hate crimes at a rate twice that of the Latino/White blob... which means they're either committing more hate crimes OR unfairly being prosecuted.

Lax, we are dancing around the same point I think but coming from different angles.
84% of white murders are committed by whites. 93% of black murders are committed by blacks. To me that does make "a murder a murder." So the vast majority of murders are intraracial. You seem to be hinting at that as well and the numbers bear that out.

Regarding #1: I highlighted a number that 70% of hate crimes are anti-black bias. To me that seems that of all the hate crimes reported, 70% were anti-black, no matter who perpetrated it. That does seem ridiculously high, and that can be debatable. I will give you that. But there is a reason the legislation was inacted in the first place (as most legislation usually is). All of us here are smart enough to understand the reasoning behind it. Is it valid today? That is also a debate worth having, but reported incidents are higher for blacks and that is fairly well understood.

Regarding #2 I also think that blacks are much more likely to be convicted of crimes in general, including hate crimes. The laws are biased against them in my opinion, as well as others opinion.http://www.asca.net/system/assets/attachments/765/Racial_Disparities_in_the_American_Criminal_Justice_System.pdf.

As you and I both stated this is a complex issue and race places little part in murders in general. Regarding hate crimes, anti-black bias is prevalent and the value of the legislation enacted to stop it is debatable. But to end with I think both #1 and #2 are both valid and it is not an either or as you put it. The conviction rate does not imply the victim rate or vice versa. I hold that blacks are the targets of hate crimes more than other races, and also are convicted of crimes in general at a higher rate than other races (and this is for many reasons). Extrapolating the hate crime committing rates as you did is not as simple as you made it out to be. Socioeconmoic issues, access to lawyers etc. are some of the reasons you cant take the committing percentage, divide it the population and come up with an accurate conviction rate.

 

[Cackalacky]

I think what people are saying is that Obama should have NOTHING to do with any one particular criminal case in the country, unless he is directly involved in the situation. But Obama chose to interject his thoughts into the GZ case, in what many people feel was an attempt to sway public opinion. Once he did that, he opened himself up to criticism for "cherry picking" where and when he chose to interject his thoughts. I think it is a valid criticism of Obama, but also one that has no bearing on anything other than Obama's choice to speak out regarding Trayvon Martin.

Agree, this is not the TM case, this is a case where the perpetrators are in custody and it is a fairly simple process of justice playing out. Obama should not have waded into the TM case , but its childish IMO to criticize him for this though.

 

[ACamp1900]

I want to know why Obama gave the order...

 

[irishpat183]

I'm saying that people who would imitate Chief Keef or other wannabe gangstas and go out and kill would go out and kill regardless. No one goes from choirboy to killer because Chief Keef said "Hit 'em with that cobra, now that boy slumped ova". Just like Doom didn't cause the Columbine shootings and metal doesn't make people kill.

No one is saying that...but kids that are already little punks are likely to buy into that behaivor because they want to "fit in".

And these three teens were NOT choir boys prior to this.

 

[irishpat183]

Marvin Gaye could be singing Chief Keef lyrics and still make girls want to take their panties off. It's all in the smooth voice and production with him (not saying his lyrics aren't good too).

Who the hell is "Chief Keef"?!?!?

 

[irishpat183]

I was better off before I read this thread. From age 3 to 10 I lived in a small town in MS (which could have been AL,GA,FL any number of states in the south). For most accounts, it was awesome. We had 20 acres with farm animal for pets. I still remember seeing a KKK "meeting" in a field. A bunch of red necks around a fire in sheets. Scared the hell out if me. I vowed never to be that ignorant.
Now fast forward 11 years. I lived in Pensacola FL attending the University of West Florida. I was car jacked and taken hostage at gun point outside of a Denny's at 12 o'clock at night. I was called "cracker" for over 30 minutes while I tried to figure a way out of the situation, which I did.
My carjacking was not considered hate motivated. If I would have been killed it would have not been a racially motivated murder. So, I do believe that a white man can be convicted of a hate crime more easily than a minority.
I believe murder is murder. I hate people that use murder or violence as chance to advance an agenda, no matter what their race is.

Which is why "hate crime" legislation must be done away with. Isn't ALL murder bad and hateful at the end of the day?

 

[Wild Bill]

Who the hell is "Chief Keef"?!?!?

He's a low-life rapper from Chicago.

 

[irishpat183]

I think what people are saying is that Obama should have NOTHING to do with any one particular criminal case in the country, unless he is directly involved in the situation. But Obama chose to interject his thoughts into the GZ case, in what many people feel was an attempt to sway public opinion. Once he did that, he opened himself up to criticism for "cherry picking" where and when he chose to interject his thoughts. I think it is a valid criticism of Obama, but also one that has no bearing on anything other than Obama's choice to speak out regarding Trayvon Martin.

Exactly. I just don't have a way with words like you do. LOL

 

[irishpat183]

He's a low-life rapper from Chicago.

Thank you. I was lost on that one

 

[Cackalacky]

He's a low-life rapper from Chicago.

Are there hi-life rappers from Chicago?

 

[kmoose]

Are there hi-life rappers from Chicago?

He was elected President.................... twice!

 

[woolybug25]

I think what people are saying is that Obama should have NOTHING to do with any one particular criminal case in the country, unless he is directly involved in the situation. But Obama chose to interject his thoughts into the GZ case, in what many people feel was an attempt to sway public opinion. Once he did that, he opened himself up to criticism for "cherry picking" where and when he chose to interject his thoughts. I think it is a valid criticism of Obama, but also one that has no bearing on anything other than Obama's choice to speak out regarding Trayvon Martin.

The point that you and Pat keep ignoring (I do believe that you both are aware of it) is that the GZ case was one in which their was an argument of whether it was righteous or not. The President doesn't interject on every case of white on black crime. If he did, then your argument would be rational.

But the fact remains, it's irrational to expect comment in every race crime in this country because he interjected on one unique case. It would only make sense if they had the common tie of debate in its righteousness, which no on us debating on these crimes.

 

[Cackalacky]

The point that you and Pat keep ignoring (I do believe that you both are aware of it) is that the GZ case was one in which their was an argument of whether it was righteous or not. The President doesn't interject on every case of white on black crime. If he did, then your argument would be rational.

But the fact remains, it's irrational to expect comment in every race crime in this country because he interjected on one unique case. It would only make sense if they had the common tie of debate in its righteousness, which no on us debating on these crimes.

I would also add "to expect a response from civil rights leaders" as well. I was not expecting a response from JJ or the Rev.AS on this no more than I would the other 2 instances I provided on page 1.

 

[kmoose]

I would also add "to expect a response from civil rights leaders" as well. I was not expecting a response from JJ or the Rev.AS on this no more than I would the other 2 instances I provided on page 1.

Ah, but Jesse Jackson DID comment on this case. His take on it?

"Praying for the family of Chris Lane. This senseless violence is frowned upon and the justice system must prevail"

Frowned upon? Really?

 

[Woneone]

The point that you and Pat keep ignoring (I do believe that you both are aware of it) is that the GZ case was one in which their was an argument of whether it was righteous or not. The President doesn't interject on every case of white on black crime. If he did, then your argument would be rational.

But the fact remains, it's irrational to expect comment in every race crime in this country because he interjected on one unique case. It would only make sense if they had the common tie of debate in its righteousness, which no on us debating on these crimes.

I think the point you're trying to make is the problem itself.

The POTUS selected a case that divided America and made his statements. Obviously, no matter what he said, he was going to, in some ways, offend certain Americans.

Now, you have things like the story in this thread, as well as Arrest made in Spokane beating death of WWII vet - CNN.com, where 2 young African Americans beat a WWII vet and robbed him.

To expect a statement regarding each and every case? No. I don't think that's reasonable. But after bascially "taking a side" in the GZ/TM trial, adding even more fuel to the fire, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect some sort of statement discussing the issue as a whole.

Or, we can just wait for another "white" guy to shoot a black teenager for a statement.

 

[Woneone]

Ah, but Jesse Jackson DID comment on this case. His take on it?



Frowned upon? Really?

I frown upon my poop when I need to plunge.

 

[Cackalacky]

Ah, but Jesse Jackson DID comment on this case. His take on it?



Frowned upon? Really?

I said "expect." The stuff that pat has been saying has been all over Fox news and other right wing media outlets since the crime was reported saying the exact same thing said in the first 5 posts of this thread. Both wooly and I posit it is irrational and IMO childish. But due to media pressure specifically calling out AC and JJ... well i am not surprised he made a comment, but if you think he is minimizing the actions by using frowned upon IDK what to tell you. Murders happen all the time and they are sad... so....

Are you expecting him to stand up and pursue this with the same vigor as the TM case? If not then what does it matter? It is sad all around. This line of thinking is pointless.

 

[kmoose]

Are you expecting him to stand up and pursue this with the same vigor as the TM case? If not then what does it matter? It is sad all around. This line of thinking is pointless.

I expect him to be consistent with his anti-violence message. If he only "condemns" violence when it is white on black violence, and merely "frowns upon" black on white violence, then why should I take anything he says seriously?

 

[Golden_Domer]

I said "expect." The stuff that pat has been saying has been all over Fox news and other right wing media outlets since the crime was reported saying the exact same thing said in the first 5 posts of this thread. Both wooly and I posit it is irrational and IMO childish. But due to media pressure specifically calling out AC and JJ... well i am not surprised he made a comment, but if you think he is minimizing the actions by using frowned upon IDK what to tell you. Murders happen all the time and they are sad... so....

Are you expecting him to stand up and pursue this with the same vigor as the TM case? If not then what does it matter? It is sad all around. This line of thinking is pointless.

Al Charlatan is the media. He hosts a nightly show on MSNBC. He used that as a conduit to advance his propaganda in the GZ case.

Should we expect the race hustlers to pursue this with the same vigor as the TM case? No, unless they find a way to make money from this.

 

[Cackalacky]

I expect him to be consistent with his anti-violence message. If he only "condemns" violence when it is white on black violence, and merely "frowns upon" black on white violence, then why should I take anything he says seriously?

He is a civil rights leader and makes no bones about wanting to get black people justice. Initially the TM case was a possible civil rights issue as the cops let Zimmerman go without arresting him after shooting an unarmed black person....this is different as the persons in question are in custody and will face justice. What is so hard to understand about that?

Then don't take him seriously if it conflicts with your perceived reality. That's your right.

 

[Cackalacky]

Al Charlatan is the media. He hosts a nightly show on MSNBC. He used that as a conduit to advance his propaganda in the GZ case.

Should we expect the race hustlers to pursue this with the same vigor as the TM case? No, unless they find a way to make money from this.

Propaganda in the media....no way... seriously? LOL.

 

[CanadianIrishFan306]

Oddly placed ad on my phone.

 

[Golden_Domer]

He is a civil rights leader and makes no bones about wanting to get black people justice. Initially the TM case was a possible civil rights issue as the cops let Zimmerman go without arresting him after shooting an unarmed black person....this is different as the persons in question are in custody and will face justice. What is so hard to understand about that?

Then don't take him seriously if it conflicts with your perceived reality. That's your right.

Do you think there should be a investigation to see if the perpetrators committed civil rights violations for shooting an unarmed white person?

 

[Cackalacky]

Do you think there should be a investigation to see if the perpetrators committed civil rights violations for shooting an unarmed white person?

Yes. Its called the trial. This is from the DOJ.
"The Criminal Section prosecutes cases involving the violent interference with liberties and rights defined in the Constitution or federal law. The rights of both citizens and non-citizens are protected. In general, it is the use of force, threats, or intimidation that characterize a federal criminal violation of an individual's civil rights.

Our cases often involve incidents that are invariably of intense public interest. While some violations may most appropriately be pursued by the federal Government, others can be addressed by either the federal Government or by state or local prosecutors. Our ultimate goal is to ensure that acts constituting federal criminal civil rights violations are sufficiently remedied, whether prosecuted federally or by local authorities."

This case clearly is within the scope of the local authorities.


I saw this as well and thought it was interesting.
FBI — 16 Sentenced in Amish Beard-Cutting Case