Go Back   CurlTalk > Life > Politics

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-25-2008, 10:47 PM   #1
 
mycolorfulheart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 158
Default This is Heartbreaking

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081025/...dragging_death

A man was dragged to death in a small Texas town. The man was black and the killers were two white men, but the police are refusing to call it a hate crime. The killers are self-professed white supremacists. One of them has already served time for murder--you would think the district attorney would not be on his side, but it appears that he is.

I don't have words...I'm sending up some prayers for his family right now because that's all I can think to do.
mycolorfulheart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2008, 11:31 PM   #2
 
yagottaloveyacurls's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 12,146
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mycolorfulheart View Post
I don't have words...I'm sending up some prayers for his family right now because that's all I can think to do.
me too. I don't even know what to say...
__________________
Healing Women - Please help.
yagottaloveyacurls is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2008, 01:13 AM   #3
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 145
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mycolorfulheart View Post
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081025/...dragging_death

A man was dragged to death in a small Texas town. The man was black and the killers were two white men, but the police are refusing to call it a hate crime. The killers are self-professed white supremacists. One of them has already served time for murder--you would think the district attorney would not be on his side, but it appears that he is.


I don't have words...I'm sending up some prayers for his family right now because that's all I can think to do.


This is really, really sad, depressing, and tragic. I read that one of them served time for murder already for killing his friend, but I didn't read/hear that they were white supremacists. The article says they were friends for years, I thought, and that all three of them had friends who were "white/black".

I don't really know what to say here. I feel saddened.
__________________
Last Relaxer: October 2007
Transition Period: 1 Year
Final Big Chop: October 2008
Hair Type: 4A/3B/3A/4B WTH?



MissCurlyCue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2008, 08:27 AM   #4
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,980
Default

Just terrible.
curlylew66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2008, 08:24 PM   #5
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 344
Default

That is a truly an awful way to die but from the article it looks like they are still investigating what actually happened, like if it was crime and if it was racially motivated. I'd withhold some judgment until all the information is out on the table. Though I'm black I'm not a fan of hate crime legislation. Why you would get separate sentencing because the victim is disabled or gay or black or whatever, doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
CottonCandyCurls is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2008, 08:58 PM   #6
 
battinlash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,742
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CottonCandyCurls View Post
Why you would get separate sentencing because the victim is disabled or gay or black or whatever, doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
It's because hate crimes violate the basic principles of the Constitution, and thus are more damaging to society. Plus, motive is extremely important when considering the sentence for a crime. For example, think of the difference between a teenage boy spray-painting a meaningless design on a public wall, and another boy spray-painting a swastika and racist epitaphs. Which one hurts the community more? Which boy would you consider more dangerous to society?
battinlash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2008, 09:35 PM   #7
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 344
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tantrum View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by CottonCandyCurls View Post
Why you would get separate sentencing because the victim is disabled or gay or black or whatever, doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
It's because hate crimes violate the basic principles of the Constitution, and thus are more damaging to society. Plus, motive is extremely important when considering the sentence for a crime. For example, think of the difference between a teenage boy spray-painting a meaningless design on a public wall, and another boy spray-painting a swastika and racist epitaphs. Which one hurts the community more? Which boy would you consider more dangerous to society?
Actually I hate crime legislation violates the basic principles of the constitution. Are we reading the same document? Where is the equality in this? I'm sorry but your example is way too thought policey for me. Is this the new law of deciding sentences on public feeling and sentiment. And who would be in charge of determining what is a hate crime? So if I killed a black man and I hate black people would that be a hate crime? Do I deserve a longer sentence than a white person who kills a black person but has shown no prejudice towards blacks. How would we know that he doesn't actually hate black people but is better at keeping his thoughts to himself. This is seriously getting into topsy turvy territory. And wouldn't hate crime legislation impinge on people's first amendment rights, say Freedom of Speech. Really? If anyone has a serious defense of hate crime laws I'd like to hear it, but I'm not convinced in the slightest.
CottonCandyCurls is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2008, 09:43 PM   #8
 
LikeAustralia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,694
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CottonCandyCurls View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by tantrum View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by CottonCandyCurls View Post
Why you would get separate sentencing because the victim is disabled or gay or black or whatever, doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
It's because hate crimes violate the basic principles of the Constitution, and thus are more damaging to society. Plus, motive is extremely important when considering the sentence for a crime. For example, think of the difference between a teenage boy spray-painting a meaningless design on a public wall, and another boy spray-painting a swastika and racist epitaphs. Which one hurts the community more? Which boy would you consider more dangerous to society?
Actually I hate crime legislation violates the basic principles of the constitution. Are we reading the same document? Where is the equality in this? I'm sorry but your example is way too thought policey for me. Is this the new law of deciding sentences on public feeling and sentiment. And who would be in charge of determining what is a hate crime? So if I killed a black man and I hate black people would that be a hate crime? Do I deserve a longer sentence than a white person who kills a black person but has shown no prejudice towards blacks. How would we know that he doesn't actually hate black people but is better at keeping his thoughts to himself. This is seriously getting into topsy turvy territory. And wouldn't hate crime legislation impinge on people's first amendment rights, say Freedom of Speech. Really? If anyone has a serious defense of hate crime laws I'd like to hear it, but I'm not convinced in the slightest.
The issue here is that, generally, hate crimes are done to prove a point. People who hate are usually vocal about their hatred. There is very little that is quiet about it. They do things to show their opinion/scare people. Planning a murder or committing a violent act with the intent of scaring an entire group or exerting authority over a group that another group they feel are inferior is different than just about any other type of crime.

First amendment rights give you the right to speak/write/publish. They do not give the right to otherwise break the law. Part of investigating a crime is figuring out the intent. A crime of passion is prosecuted differently than a planned, orchestrated attack.
__________________
Not Cindy or Sindy or Syndey or any other such abomination.
It's Sydney, like Australia.
Formerly known as SydneyCurl.
LikeAustralia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2008, 10:06 AM   #9
 
scrills's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 4,280
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CottonCandyCurls View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by tantrum View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by CottonCandyCurls View Post
Why you would get separate sentencing because the victim is disabled or gay or black or whatever, doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
It's because hate crimes violate the basic principles of the Constitution, and thus are more damaging to society. Plus, motive is extremely important when considering the sentence for a crime. For example, think of the difference between a teenage boy spray-painting a meaningless design on a public wall, and another boy spray-painting a swastika and racist epitaphs. Which one hurts the community more? Which boy would you consider more dangerous to society?
Actually I hate crime legislation violates the basic principles of the constitution. Are we reading the same document? Where is the equality in this? I'm sorry but your example is way too thought policey for me. Is this the new law of deciding sentences on public feeling and sentiment. And who would be in charge of determining what is a hate crime? So if I killed a black man and I hate black people would that be a hate crime? Do I deserve a longer sentence than a white person who kills a black person but has shown no prejudice towards blacks. How would we know that he doesn't actually hate black people but is better at keeping his thoughts to himself. This is seriously getting into topsy turvy territory. And wouldn't hate crime legislation impinge on people's first amendment rights, say Freedom of Speech. Really? If anyone has a serious defense of hate crime laws I'd like to hear it, but I'm not convinced in the slightest.
you are forgetting that where your rights end, someone elses begin. Just like you can't scream FIRE in a crowded place, you can't go around saying everything that pops into your head especially if it could incites panic, fear, or violence. Sorry
scrills is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2008, 10:23 AM   #10
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 344
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scrills View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by CottonCandyCurls View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by tantrum View Post

It's because hate crimes violate the basic principles of the Constitution, and thus are more damaging to society. Plus, motive is extremely important when considering the sentence for a crime. For example, think of the difference between a teenage boy spray-painting a meaningless design on a public wall, and another boy spray-painting a swastika and racist epitaphs. Which one hurts the community more? Which boy would you consider more dangerous to society?
Actually I hate crime legislation violates the basic principles of the constitution. Are we reading the same document? Where is the equality in this? I'm sorry but your example is way too thought policey for me. Is this the new law of deciding sentences on public feeling and sentiment. And who would be in charge of determining what is a hate crime? So if I killed a black man and I hate black people would that be a hate crime? Do I deserve a longer sentence than a white person who kills a black person but has shown no prejudice towards blacks. How would we know that he doesn't actually hate black people but is better at keeping his thoughts to himself. This is seriously getting into topsy turvy territory. And wouldn't hate crime legislation impinge on people's first amendment rights, say Freedom of Speech. Really? If anyone has a serious defense of hate crime laws I'd like to hear it, but I'm not convinced in the slightest.
you are forgetting that where your rights end, someone elses begin. Just like you can't scream FIRE in a crowded place, you can't go around saying everything that pops into your head especially if it could incites panic, fear, or violence. Sorry
But what would be deemed to incite panic, fear, or violence? And if that was the case why did the Supreme Court unanimously rule that burning a cross in front of someone's house is not a hate crime and is an infringment on the first amendment in R.A.V vs. St. Paul. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=505&invol=377

I have serious reservations about this type of legislation because I think it goes beyond motives into trying to control what people think. A pastor that thinks homosexuals are condemned to hell. Would that qualify as hate speech?
CottonCandyCurls is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2008, 10:57 AM   #11
 
Naya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 920
Default

This is ridiculous. People in small town USA middle of nowhere should be worried about job security not who has a better tan than who!! Argh!

It makes me sad to no end that there is even a need for a White supremacist group of anything still! In this day and age I would hope people would know better or be more advanced mentally. It saddens me to know that as a race of humans.. we've not progressed much further than where we were years ago.

We should be hugging trees and puppies and riding bikes and feeding hungry kids in 3rd world countries.. not killing each other because of something as stupid as skin tones.

Also what are the rules behind White supremacists and who they hate? Is it all Black people? Just African Americans? Africans from Africa? Afro-Latinos? A mix of the above? LOL. Not funny
__________________
BC: May 2008
Hair Type:
3C/4A mix I think
http://members.fotki.com/RizadaMinicana
Not Updated D:

Vegan-ish

Naya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2008, 11:27 AM   #12
 
LikeAustralia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,694
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CottonCandyCurls View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrills View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by CottonCandyCurls View Post

Actually I hate crime legislation violates the basic principles of the constitution. Are we reading the same document? Where is the equality in this? I'm sorry but your example is way too thought policey for me. Is this the new law of deciding sentences on public feeling and sentiment. And who would be in charge of determining what is a hate crime? So if I killed a black man and I hate black people would that be a hate crime? Do I deserve a longer sentence than a white person who kills a black person but has shown no prejudice towards blacks. How would we know that he doesn't actually hate black people but is better at keeping his thoughts to himself. This is seriously getting into topsy turvy territory. And wouldn't hate crime legislation impinge on people's first amendment rights, say Freedom of Speech. Really? If anyone has a serious defense of hate crime laws I'd like to hear it, but I'm not convinced in the slightest.
you are forgetting that where your rights end, someone elses begin. Just like you can't scream FIRE in a crowded place, you can't go around saying everything that pops into your head especially if it could incites panic, fear, or violence. Sorry
But what would be deemed to incite panic, fear, or violence? And if that was the case why did the Supreme Court unanimously rule that burning a cross in front of someone's house is not a hate crime and is an infringment on the first amendment in R.A.V vs. St. Paul. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=505&invol=377

I have serious reservations about this type of legislation because I think it goes beyond motives into trying to control what people think. A pastor that thinks homosexuals are condemned to hell. Would that qualify as hate speech?
It becomes hate speech when it is a directive to take ACTION or ACTIONS result from that type of speech. No, it is not illegal to say that. It IS illegal to hurt a person or a group of people because of their classification or affiliation.

A pastor who says something like that, is first of all, an idiot. However, it is "hate speech" if it becomes "KILL THE HOMOSEXUALS" or something to that effect.

You are seemingly forgetting that the law is meant to protect us, not "take away rights."
__________________
Not Cindy or Sindy or Syndey or any other such abomination.
It's Sydney, like Australia.
Formerly known as SydneyCurl.
LikeAustralia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2008, 11:28 PM   #13
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 2,617
Default

This is horrible and makes me sad
Yes, Still Paula is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Trending Topics[-]hide

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2011 NaturallyCurly.com