Comments on: White Against Black Crime

By: gene

gene — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 00:00:39 +0000

why is it when a minority is subjected to a hurendous crime,the media and the village people yell,hate crime!!!and you have nation wide outcry and demands from the race hustlers for swift justice!and yet,when a white couple or for that matter,any white person is subjected to the same type of crimes,all you can here from the world of news media and the race hstlers are………………play the song for the white devils,silance is golden!p.s who came up with the kook,klutz,klowns idea?

By: Jon

Jon — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 23:12:48 +0000

Be careful KMA, you look like your agreeing with a left wing euro weenie here (AKA Preston!)

I was one of those at one time I think – those where the times

My point Preston, is that it is automatically thought that a burning can is nothing more that a vandal act whereas a buring cross is racist.

I agree that that is what history dictates us to think, and you are answering my point perfectly by suggesting the same fact.

So how do we move on? If a burning cross is to be an effigy for a racist attack, then every burning cross the police encounter will be more important than a burning trash can.

And then in spirals.

We will never get past the point of a racist or non racist attack.
Every attack will be one of the two, but the fact they have had to be screened by either makes it a little strange.

What is the trash can was full of magazines of naked black women?

What if the cross was nothing more than a support stick for a white scarecrow the farmer just wanted to get rid of.

You see my point?

The instant response to consider something ‘racist’ is holding us back from actually understanding the true intention of such crime.
And i’m sorry to say it, but the left wing attitude to this is a bloody nightmare!

Jonny

By: kma

kma — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 15:35:47 +0000

We have what we call the reasonable man standard in the US. Would a reasonable man think a burning trash can was a racist act? Would a reasonable man, more specifically, a reasonable black man think a burning cross on his lawn was a racist act?

By: Preston

Preston — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 10:46:29 +0000

I don’t think I’ve suggested that a prosecutor and judge could treat the burning of a trash can as harshly as a cross if it was indeed found to be an act of unusual cruelty or intimidation.

I’m not a lawyer but I don’t believe I am proposing anything new. As it stands charges and sentencing vary based on the circumstances of the crime. In fact I am just suggesting that this continues rather than adding on addition ‘hate crimes’ charges.

By: Jonny

Jonny — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:46:00 +0000

Not quite Preston. Not sure where you live but the emphasis where I live is squared soley on the shoulders of those whos actions ‘may’ be construde as racist simply because the offended party is in a racial minority.
The race card gets called too quickly in my opinion.
I am not allowed to have an arguement with a man of differing race without somebody questioning whether the basis of the argument is racist.
This is what I am getting at. A simple can of garbage on Robbies lawn may appear to be a non descript item to you, but what if Robbie had a connection with someone being killed by a garbage truck (god forbid)?
Without knowing the history behind a reason for any specific crime, you have just fallen into the trap of ‘assuming’ that a burning cross is a racist act, whereas a garbage can isn’t.

Thats the problem we will continue to have if we think of any crimes being so different from each other based on the fact that some are ‘obviously’ racist.

Jonny

By: Preston

Preston — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 10:49:24 +0000

We will never have a society free from racisim if people keep on making a distinction between different acts of criminality. Jonny- I trust you mean making a distinction based on race because otherwise it happens every day. In any case, this makes no sense to me. If I send a letter to my neighbor that says "You're stupid" I doubt that the law would blink. If I send a letter that says "You better watch out or I'll kill you" I'm likely to have a restraining order pretty quickly. That is the essential difference in message in burning a cross compared to any other random object. Luckily, the law attempts to distinguish between the two.

By: Jonny

Jonny — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 09:36:35 +0000

If I burn a garbage can on Robbieâ€™s lawn I should be arrested for any number of crimes. If I burn a cross on the lawn of, say, an African American who has been registering voters there is an entirely different set of connotations and intimidation

I too disagree with this.
We will never have a society free from racisim if people keep on making a distinction between different acts of criminality.
Burning a bin on Robbies lawn is as bad as burning a cross on a black mans lawn. Both are criminal and both show signs that the basis for the attack is hatred of the one you do it to.

The only difference is when it is decided that the reason for commiting an offense is not one of hatred or revenge.
But that should be all encompassing of ALL crime regardless of race.

Jonny

By: adam

adam — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 13:49:12 +0000

“judging people solely by the color of their skin is bigotry.”
then i would say i more often encounter black bigots than white ones.

while historically bigotry by blacks may have been easier to justify, quite the opposite seems to be suggested by modern statistics. “… In 90 percent of those crimes, black offenders attacked white victims,” seems to be based as much on a higher likilihood of violence as it is “soley on skin color”. doesn’ that mean that acting on ones awareness of the facts is not bigotry but an informed, inteligent, & safe discrimination?