|
On June 08 2008 13:42 {88}iNcontroL wrote: ????
10 years for burning something that means "time to leave?" That is a fucking garbge situation.
hahahaha XD
incontrol i hope they discover how to prolong human life before you die xD
|
On June 09 2008 06:34 fight_or_flight wrote: This thread makes me sick. The sentence itself is bad enough (10 years for burning a cross!?!?), but the fact that people support it is the worst thing.
Hate crimes themselves are complete BS. You can't legislate (nor should you) what people think.
It is NOT legislating or attempting to control what people think. It is a set of legal guidelines to prevent and/or punish crimes based on prejudice. It is NOT ten years for burning a cross. Read the thread in it's entirety if you'd like to be enlightened as to the reasoning behind this sentence.
|
On June 09 2008 06:47 T-P-S wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2008 06:34 fight_or_flight wrote: This thread makes me sick. The sentence itself is bad enough (10 years for burning a cross!?!?), but the fact that people support it is the worst thing.
Hate crimes themselves are complete BS. You can't legislate (nor should you) what people think. It is NOT legislating or attempting to control what people think. It is a set of legal guidelines to prevent and/or punish crimes based on prejudice. It is NOT ten years for burning a cross. Read the thread in it's entirety if you'd like to be enlightened as to the reasoning behind this sentence. I know exactly what was about, he got 10 years in prison for threatening someone.
But don't worry, we will be the UK soon.
|
Everybody know that USA justice is completely fucked up anyway.
Theses guys just don't realize that when you sentence someone to 10 years you basically destroyd his life.
2,2 millions prisonners, means the biggest proportion in the whole world, including the worst dictatures: proportion is 700 / 100 000
Half of them is black. Quarter is latino.
So well...
|
On June 09 2008 06:51 fight_or_flight wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2008 06:47 T-P-S wrote:On June 09 2008 06:34 fight_or_flight wrote: This thread makes me sick. The sentence itself is bad enough (10 years for burning a cross!?!?), but the fact that people support it is the worst thing.
Hate crimes themselves are complete BS. You can't legislate (nor should you) what people think. It is NOT legislating or attempting to control what people think. It is a set of legal guidelines to prevent and/or punish crimes based on prejudice. It is NOT ten years for burning a cross. Read the thread in it's entirety if you'd like to be enlightened as to the reasoning behind this sentence. I know exactly what was about, he got 10 years in prison for threatening someone. But don't worry, we will be the UK soon.
What he meant was that nowhere was he charged with "burning a cross". Or even with commiting a hate crime. He was charged with:
- using fire during the commission of a felony - interfering with the housing rights of another person - conspiring to interfere with civil rights - tampering with a witness
The only one that comes close is "conspiring to interfere with civil rights". And that is a blanket charge that can include many other things, including preventing Peace Officers from doing their job, or obstructing justice.
|
Haha. This is a good example of a hate crime right here. The judge's intent is obviously to damage this man because of his beliefs. No he didn't state explicitly that was the reason he gave him 10 years but it can be inferred.
|
On June 09 2008 06:51 fight_or_flight wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2008 06:47 T-P-S wrote:On June 09 2008 06:34 fight_or_flight wrote: This thread makes me sick. The sentence itself is bad enough (10 years for burning a cross!?!?), but the fact that people support it is the worst thing.
Hate crimes themselves are complete BS. You can't legislate (nor should you) what people think. It is NOT legislating or attempting to control what people think. It is a set of legal guidelines to prevent and/or punish crimes based on prejudice. It is NOT ten years for burning a cross. Read the thread in it's entirety if you'd like to be enlightened as to the reasoning behind this sentence. I know exactly what was about, he got 10 years in prison for threatening someone. But don't worry, we will be the UK soon.
Then you understand that the idea behind hate crimes is not to control people's thought.
What would you have done, then? Ignored it? asked him to stop, maybe not to hate black people so much? Or not to hate mixed couples because that white parent is a racial 'traitor'? There is a reason that the justice system does everything, and even if I don't completely support it, I don't think that this was an overreaction given the obvious history of his act. Additionally, there were other charges aside from the clear threat. The law can't justifiably ignore the small stuff.
On June 09 2008 06:53 Biff The Understudy wrote: Everybody know that USA justice is completely fucked up anyway.
Theses guys just don't realize that when you sentence someone to 10 years you basically destroyd his life.
2,2 millions prisonners, means the biggest proportion in the whole world, including the worst dictatures: proportion is 700 / 100 000
Half of them is black. Quarter is latino.
So well...
I don't agree with our mainstream control policies, but this isn't an event that you can just shrug off as screwed-up U.S. justice. This was an entirely legitimate case, for the reasons already brought up on previous pages, and because the escalation of a prejudicially-backed threat into violence has an abnormally high likelyhood. Especially in that part of the U.S. and especially according to well-documented history.
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
amazing how many didn't even read the original article and are just stuck with the title of the thread for information lol..
|
United States22883 Posts
On June 09 2008 07:05 T-P-S wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2008 06:51 fight_or_flight wrote:On June 09 2008 06:47 T-P-S wrote:On June 09 2008 06:34 fight_or_flight wrote: This thread makes me sick. The sentence itself is bad enough (10 years for burning a cross!?!?), but the fact that people support it is the worst thing.
Hate crimes themselves are complete BS. You can't legislate (nor should you) what people think. It is NOT legislating or attempting to control what people think. It is a set of legal guidelines to prevent and/or punish crimes based on prejudice. It is NOT ten years for burning a cross. Read the thread in it's entirety if you'd like to be enlightened as to the reasoning behind this sentence. I know exactly what was about, he got 10 years in prison for threatening someone. But don't worry, we will be the UK soon. Then you understand that the idea behind hate crimes is not to control people's thought. What would you have done, then? Ignored it? asked him to stop, maybe not to hate black people so much? Or not to hate mixed couples because that white parent is a racial 'traitor'? There is a reason that the justice system does everything, and even if I don't completely support it, I don't think that this was an overreaction given the obvious history of his act. Additionally, there were other charges aside from the clear threat. The law can't justifiably ignore the small stuff. Show nested quote +On June 09 2008 06:53 Biff The Understudy wrote: Everybody know that USA justice is completely fucked up anyway.
Theses guys just don't realize that when you sentence someone to 10 years you basically destroyd his life.
2,2 millions prisonners, means the biggest proportion in the whole world, including the worst dictatures: proportion is 700 / 100 000
Half of them is black. Quarter is latino.
So well...
I don't agree with our mainstream control policies, but this isn't an event that you can just shrug off as screwed-up U.S. justice. This was an entirely legitimate case, for the reasons already brought up on previous pages, and because the escalation of a prejudicially-backed threat into violence has an abnormally high likelyhood. Especially in that part of the U.S. and especially according to well-documented history. I think his point is that the punishment should not vary whether you commit a crime against someone because of the color of their skin or simply because you dislike their character. Motive should not be the driving factor behind criminal punishment, and hate crime legislation divides people even further. Bigotry is not a crime.
|
In all honesty, I don't even think someone would be taken to the police HQ for this in Britain ><!
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
Aye. Blymie would git an 'ol scabby-wanking fo' thinkin' he 'ad the tallywankas ta set foyah to formed timba in a mates paddie! Bollocks. T'ese days young chaps 'ave no spect.
|
United States22883 Posts
On June 09 2008 08:24 HamerD wrote: In all honesty, I don't even think someone would be taken to the police HQ for this in Britain ><! If this had happened in Britain, the two guys would've pulled out clubs and tried to attack the firefighters that came to the scene.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
nuttun loike a good 'ol scrap wit mah mates AYE? Foireboys lack the gumblewamblabas if you know wot I mean!
|
People don't seem to be understanding that the sentence is not for the "burning" it's for the thoughts and actions that go with the burning. I can understand if you are not from/live in the USA, but if you do you should know the meaning behind the burning. In this case it was basically a death threat, 10 years is totally justifiable.
|
On June 09 2008 08:45 sith wrote: People don't seem to be understanding that the sentence is not for the "burning" it's for the thoughts and actions that go with the burning. I can understand if you are not from/live in the USA, but if you do you should know the meaning behind the burning. In this case it was basically a death threat, 10 years is totally justifiable. I just have to ask you, do you really believe a (vague) death threat is deserving of 10 years in prison?
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
It wasn't JUST a death threat dude. It was the murdering of a cross and the vandalizing of a lawn.
|
United States22883 Posts
On June 09 2008 08:50 fight_or_flight wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2008 08:45 sith wrote: People don't seem to be understanding that the sentence is not for the "burning" it's for the thoughts and actions that go with the burning. I can understand if you are not from/live in the USA, but if you do you should know the meaning behind the burning. In this case it was basically a death threat, 10 years is totally justifiable. I just have to ask you, do you really believe a (vague) death threat is deserving of 10 years in prison? Don't forget arson and vandalism.
I don't think it is, but I don't really care that much because the guy was an idiot. I know that's the wrong attitude to have, and in most of my posts on TL I love playing the devil's advocate asshole, but this time it's just bleh.
I think it's the photos that do it for me.
|
Pfff...
Guys, you go to jail 10 years when you kill someone or rape a girl, not when you burn a fucking cross.
Ok, this is a hate crime, it's very serious and it's normal the guy goes to jail. 2, 3 years. 10 is just insane. The guy will get out and be completely mad.
Think how long 10 years is. You are 27? Imagine going to jail until 37. Just imagine what it implies and how it would fuck your life.
Again... 700 prisonners for 100 000 inhabitants in US... 56 for 100 000 in Norway. Sorry but something is wrong there.
|
And for the black kid who got put in jail for punching the white kid under "attempted murder." That case is known as the Jenna 6. Look it up, it's a travesty of justice. The Supreme Court appeal is supposed to come up this year (?? not positive on that).
Some food for thought.
some better food for thought would be you actually reading about this. It was six black kids, attacking an innocent white kid with malicious intent because they were pissed about being left out of and getting into fights at a party 3 days before....which the white boy (Barker) wasn't even involved in. He was attacked to the point of unconciousness and then still beaten beyond that. Don't write it off as something as simple as a sucker punch; whether or not they had the intent to kill him they certainly could have easily with 6 people attacking someone who had been knocked out. Forget race issues, that is just inexcusable in itself.
Before this even happened, something (nobody seems to really know one way or the other) happened at a convience store where a shotgun was introduced in a meeting between 3 of the group of six that attacked Barker and a white individual as well. The three black men got firearm theft (possible if they took it away from the white guy they were involved with, but still bullshit) and charged with 2nd degree robbery and conspiracy to commit. The robbery charges are bullshit, as the gun wasn't even theirs to begin with, and I don't know how you can honestly charge anybody with theft of a weapon if you took it by disarming somone in an sct of self-defense. The other side of this scenario seems to suggest that the white guy walked in on them robbing the place and got his gun in attempt to prevent it or protect himself; either way there isn't anything beyond testimony of two eyewitnesses to prove it either way.
The "black kid" (Mychal Bell, 17 at the time, legally an adult in Louisiana) you are referring to didn't even get thrown in jail on the sentence imposed for the battery charge he got. It was appealed on the grounds that the sentence was too severe for a juvenile tried as an adult, and was later relegated to 18 months probation. He was then found in violation of if because he had a previous record (no shit huh?) of battery and 2 counts of criminal property damage and put in juvie for it. The governor of the state stated he would be retried as a juvenile instead of an adult. His defense attorneys tried to get a double jeopardy motion for him as he was being tried for the same crime (*THIS* I don't get. Why would they try to prevent him possibly getting a lesser sentence for the same crime when tried as a juvenile, instead they want to keep his 22 year sentence as an adult? Seriously WTF?). The judge denied it (I'll agree that this is bullshit here, double jeopardy clause is very real even if they want to use it stupidly like this), but before he was even tried again, he entered a plea bargain agreement; pleading guilty to battery (lesser than aggravated battery) and getting a 18 months sentence in juvenile hall. All appeals were dropped as part of the agreement.
This Mychal Bell, at least, was not innocent. He had a prior criminal record, even a prior charge for the very crime he commited against Barker. Interesting to note, since this incident is so racially charged, is that out of 150 people called to jury duty for Bell's proceedings, only 50 showed up, and not one of them was black. Blacks make up 10% of the Jena community, so at 5 of them should have been present for the jury pool by those numbers.
Another thing, one of the black men involved and convicted got charge on ANOTHER assault charge after moving away to different area in Texas. Think on that for a minute.
IMO it doesnt matter if they are black are not, at two of them have shown they are just pathologically violent. And from the description of the Barker incident, they got off easy. They could have easily killed him, and then not all the rappers and black actors and Al Sharptons in the world could have kept the white supremecist shit out of it, and more people would be dead. And yes, that judge was definitely biased.
racism is stupid. When will everybody realize that some people are just bad people, regardless of their skin? It doesn't have to turn into some damn giant thing about race relations.
|
On June 08 2008 14:56 MyLostTemple wrote: how do some of you NOT know why burning a cross is one of the most offensive and racist things you can possibly do. Have you heard of the KKK? Sorry if canada isnt as fucked up as the states :D
|
|
|
|