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.
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.
Originally Posted by mycolorfulheart
me too. I don't even know what to say...
Healing Women - Please help.
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.
Originally Posted by mycolorfulheart


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?



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.
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.
Originally Posted by CottonCandyCurls
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?
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.
Originally Posted by CottonCandyCurls
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?
Originally Posted by tantrum
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.
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.
Originally Posted by CottonCandyCurls
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?
Originally Posted by tantrum
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.
Originally Posted by CottonCandyCurls
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.
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.
Originally Posted by CottonCandyCurls
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?
Originally Posted by tantrum
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.
Originally Posted by CottonCandyCurls
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

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?
Originally Posted by tantrum
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.
Originally Posted by CottonCandyCurls
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
Originally Posted by scrills
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?
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


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.
Originally Posted by CottonCandyCurls
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
Originally Posted by scrills
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?
Originally Posted by CottonCandyCurls
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.

Trending Topics


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 09:07 PM.


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