When "Neighborhood Watch" Gets Out of Hand

[Rupert Pupkin]

Some courageous young men decided to get justice for Trayvon. I hope these fine young men don't get in trouble for their courageous act.

"While Mr. Watts (78 year old man) was down the boys kicked him, over and over, shouting, "[Get] that white [man]. This is for Trayvon ... Trayvon lives, white [man]. Kill that white [man]," according to a police report."

http://www.toledoblade.com/Police-Fi...-E-Toledo.html

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Some courageous young men decided to get justice for Trayvon. I hope these fine young men don't get in trouble for their courageous act.

"While Mr. Watts (78 year old man) was down the boys kicked him, over and over, shouting, "[Get] that white [man]. This is for Trayvon ... Trayvon lives, white [man]. Kill that white [man]," according to a police report."

http://www.toledoblade.com/Police-Fi...-E-Toledo.html

These kids are clearly all class.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Shelby Steele, who happens to be black, wrote an interesting article about the Trayvon Martin case. He says, "The absurdity of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton is that they want to make a movement out of an anomaly. Black teenagers today are afraid of other black teenagers, not whites."


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...134926300.html

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Some courageous young men decided to get justice for Trayvon. I hope these fine young men don't get in trouble for their courageous act.

"While Mr. Watts (78 year old man) was down the boys kicked him, over and over, shouting, "[Get] that white [man]. This is for Trayvon ... Trayvon lives, white [man]. Kill that white [man]," according to a police report."

http://www.toledoblade.com/Police-Fi...-E-Toledo.html

Not to sound like a broken record about spreading a wide net when reading about a story, but this is an example of when a story is only found on right-wing sites (or left-wing, for that matter), and does not eventually get picked up by the mass media, there may be a reason for it:

http://www.toledoblade.com/Police-Fi...aggerated.html

[herkhorse]

Holy Crap is that Morty!!!???!!!

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Not to sound like a broken record about spreading a wide net when reading about a story, but this is an example of when a story is only found on right-wing sites (or left-wing, for that matter), and does not eventually get picked up by the mass media, there may be a reason for it:

http://www.toledoblade.com/Police-Fi...aggerated.html

I didn't know the Toledoblade was a right-wing site. The story was from the Toledoblade and the change to the story was also from the Toledoblade.

The guys who committed the robbery were dangerous guys. One of them was wanted for an unrelated shooting.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Not to sound like a broken record about spreading a wide net when reading about a story, but this is an example of when a story is only found on right-wing sites (or left-wing, for that matter), and does not eventually get picked up by the mass media, there may be a reason for it:

http://www.toledoblade.com/Police-Fi...aggerated.html

Sorry, couldn't resist..

[Rupert Pupkin]

The Washington Post is reporting that Zimmerman is going to be charged, possibly as early as this afternoon.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...oAT_print.html

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Some courageous young men decided to get justice for Trayvon. I hope these fine young men don't get in trouble for their courageous act.

"While Mr. Watts (78 year old man) was down the boys kicked him, over and over, shouting, "[Get] that white [man]. This is for Trayvon ... Trayvon lives, white [man]. Kill that white [man]," according to a police report."

http://www.toledoblade.com/Police-Fi...-E-Toledo.html

Obviously these are thugs using this case as an excuse to commit violence and they should be charged as such, however this has nothing to do with the Trayvon case and it must be remembered that street thugs come in all colors. After Dr King was murdered, the streets of many cities burned, this violence was criminal but hardly reflected on Dr Kings life and his murder. There will always be an element that is looking for any excuse to "justify" their violent nature...black, while or yellow.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Some courageous young men decided to get justice for Trayvon. I hope these fine young men don't get in trouble for their courageous act.

"While Mr. Watts (78 year old man) was down the boys kicked him, over and over, shouting, "[Get] that white [man]. This is for Trayvon ... Trayvon lives, white [man]. Kill that white [man]," according to a police report."

http://www.toledoblade.com/Police-Fi...-E-Toledo.html

Sounds like a hate crime to me.. Let's see how they treat it.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

Sounds like a hate crime to me.. Let's see how they treat it.

another reason why they made a mistake ever suggesting hate crime legislation. crimes and how they're handled shouldn't be a case of keeping things 'even'. one for one, two for two, etc. 'oh, this group has more charged than that, that's not fair' type stuff.

crime is crime, there shouldn't be more weight because of a perceived reason for the crime.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Danzig

another reason why they made a mistake ever suggesting hate crime legislation. crimes and how they're handled shouldn't be a case of keeping things 'even'. one for one, two for two, etc. 'oh, this group has more charged than that, that's not fair' type stuff.

crime is crime, there shouldn't be more weight because of a perceived reason for the crime.

Tend to agree! Federal involvement is sometimes necessary to keep things fair but fairness is seldom legislated.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

another reason why they made a mistake ever suggesting hate crime legislation. crimes and how they're handled shouldn't be a case of keeping things 'even'. one for one, two for two, etc. 'oh, this group has more charged than that, that's not fair' type stuff.

crime is crime, there shouldn't be more weight because of a perceived reason for the crime.

Absolutely agree 100%. A crime is a crime is a crime.. I can live with a crime against a certain age group (Children, Seniors) having stricter punishments though.

[bigrun]

Zimmerman taken into custody few minutes ago...location unknown...DA on at 6 pm...

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

another reason why they made a mistake ever suggesting hate crime legislation. crimes and how they're handled shouldn't be a case of keeping things 'even'. one for one, two for two, etc. 'oh, this group has more charged than that, that's not fair' type stuff.

crime is crime, there shouldn't be more weight because of a perceived reason for the crime.

I think the reason we have "hate crime" laws is because we as a society want to send a strong signal that we will not tolerate people being attacked simply for being black, white, Latino, Asian, Jewish, gay, or whatever.

I don't have any problem with "hate crime" laws. If the person's motive was obvious and the person obviously hates a certain group and assaults a member of this group (for that reason), then I have no problem with giving that person an even greater punishment.

What I do have a problem with is when the government totally overreaches and tries to turn something into a hate crime. A person should only be charged with a hate crime when it is obvious that they assaulted a person because they hate people in that group and the reason for the assault was because of that.

A case should only be looked into as a hate crime when it looks like an obvious "hate crime". When a group of skin-heads assaults a person of color, that is a "hate crime". The other day in West Hollywood, a group of guys in a car pulled up to a pedestrian and asked him if he was gay. When he affirmed that he was, they beat him up. That is a "hate crime". There was a case I referenced in another thread where a group of 7 black teens assaulted a Latino teen and shouted racial slurs at him. That looks like is an obvious "hate crime".

I think it is good to charge those people with a "hate crime". Send a message to people that we as a society are not going to tolerate this type of behavior. But as I said before, I think it should only be used for obvious cases. I don't think they should be looking into every single case that involves people of different ethnicities or sexual orientations as a "hate crime". Zimmerman obviously does not hate black people. He has many black friends. He mentors black youths. There is zero evidence that suggests a hate crime.

In my opinion, I think there should be "extreme probable cause" before they even consider looking into a crime as a possible "hate crime". Otherwise you end up with biased federal prosecutors going on fishing expeditions and being totally arbitrary in terms of which cases they will look into as "hate crimes".

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

Absolutely agree 100%. A crime is a crime is a crime.. I can live with a crime against a certain age group (Children, Seniors) having stricter punishments though.

i think the more severe the crime, the more punishment should be given. not sure that age should be a deciding factor. a gruesome murder is just that, regardless of the victims age.
but i just don't think that 'why' really matters. it's what was done that matters. why isn't always able to be proven anyway...and is any one reason why any better or worse than any other? or for no reason?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I think the reason we have "hate crime" laws is because we as a society want to send a strong signal that we will not tolerate people being attacked simply for being black, white, Latino, Asian, Jewish, gay, or whatever.

I don't have any problem with "hate crime" laws. If the person's motive was obvious and the person obviously hates a certain group and assaults a member of this group (for that reason), then I have no problem with giving that person an even greater punishment.
What I do have a problem with is when the government totally overreaches and tries to turn something into a hate crime. A person should only be charged with a hate crime when it is obvious that they assaulted a person because they hate people in that group and the reason for the assault was because of that.

A case should only be looked into as a hate crime when it looks like an obvious "hate crime". When a group of skin-heads assaults a person of color, that is a "hate crime". The other day in West Hollywood, a group of guys in a car pulled up to a pedestrian and asked him if he was gay. When he affirmed that he was, they beat him up. That is a "hate crime". There was a case I referenced in another thread where a group of 7 black teens assaulted a Latino teen and shouted racial slurs at him. That looks like is an obvious "hate crime".

I think it is good to charge those people with a "hate crime". Send a message to people that we as a society are not going to tolerate this type of behavior. But as I said before, I think it should only be used for obvious cases. I don't think they should be looking into every single case that involves people of different ethnicities or sexual orientations as a "hate crime". Zimmerman obviously does not hate black people. He has many black friends. He mentors black youths. There is zero evidence that suggests a hate crime.

In my opinion, I think there should be "extreme probable cause" before they even consider looking into a crime as a possible "hate crime". Otherwise you end up with biased federal prosecutors going on fishing expeditions and being totally arbitrary in terms of which cases they will look into as "hate crimes".

i disagree. the crime shouldn't get less of a sentence because it had a different motive. how do you explain to the parents of a victim that the perpetrator got 10 years, when someone else might have gotten 15-but it was a different victim? or a different motive? motive doesn't matter, it's the crime.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i disagree. the crime shouldn't get less of a sentence because it had a different motive. how do you explain to the parents of a victim that the perpetrator got 10 years, when someone else might have gotten 15-but it was a different victim? or a different motive? motive doesn't matter, it's the crime.

Your point is valid. I'm not saying that I think you are wrong. I'm just saying that I can see the rationale behind "hate crime" legislation and I don't have a problem with it. I don't know if there is necessarily a need for "hate crime" laws. But if these laws can act as a deterrent (I don't know if they do or not), then that would be a good thing.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The guys who committed the robbery were dangerous guys. One of them was wanted for an unrelated shooting.

So dangerous they didn't take his wallet or credit cards. The two kids who were charged with robbery stole the old guy's bag of pork rinds. A third was so dangerous he was charged with disorderly conduct.

What's your opinion on the Tulsa shooters? Hate crime or not?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

So dangerous they didn't take his wallet or credit cards. The two kids who were charged with robbery stole the old guy's bag of pork rinds. A third was so dangerous he was charged with disorderly conduct.

What's your opinion on the Tulsa shooters? Hate crime or not?

I think it would be totally justified to investigate Tulsa as a hate crime. The perpetrator had rants with racial slurs on his Facebook page. It is extremely likely that the only reason he shot these people were because they were black. Apparently the suspect had a lot of hatred for black people because his father was killed by a black guy.

When there is strong evidence of a hate crime, such as in the Tulsa case, then I think it is fine to investigate it as a hate crime. I just don't like the prosecutors going on fishing expeditions in cases where there is no evidence of a hate crime.

With regard to that other case, I'm not sure I understand your logic. These guys beat up and robbed a 78 year old man. You are saying that they only stole his bag of pork and that makes them less dangerous than if they would have stolen his wallet? By the way, the only reason they didn't take his wallet was because they got scared and ran away when a neighbor yelled at them.