Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 10/4/2002 1:18:21 PM EST
According to the news the shooting began about 40 seconds into the (bank robbery)(murder spree). So should these guys be charged with hate crimes? The guys charged are all Hispanic, and those they killed were not. hmmmm. probably politically incorrect or insensitive of me.
Link Posted: 10/4/2002 4:16:09 PM EST
You're not paying attention....... It's only a HATE CRIME if the perp is white. As for the Nebraska killings, since they were done by hispanics it is considered a "cultural expression" and not cold blooded murder. Now you have been informed......feel better?
Link Posted: 10/4/2002 4:29:16 PM EST
Can anyone provide evidence of ANY 'minority'that has been charged with a hate crime againta White? A box of 855 to the first one to find it.
Link Posted: 10/4/2002 4:40:37 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/4/2002 4:42:24 PM EST
Do I win!!![:D]
Link Posted: 10/4/2002 4:43:38 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/4/2002 4:48:49 PM EST by 1_153_370_371_407]
Wisconsin v. Mitchell on June 11, 1993 [url]http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/wisconsin.html[/url]
Wisconsin v. Mitchell -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No. 92-515 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 508 U.S. 476 Argued April 21, 1993 Decided June 11, 1993 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Syllabus Pursuant to a Wisconsin statute, respondent Mitchell's sentence for aggravated battery was enhanced because he intentionally selected his victim on account of the victim's race. The State Court of Appeals rejected his challenge to the law's constitutionality, but the State Supreme Court reversed. Relying on R. A. V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 476, it held that the statute violates the First Amendment by punishing what the legislature has deemed to be offensive thought and rejected the State's contention that the law punishes only the conduct of intentional victim selection. It also found that the statute was unconstitutionally overbroad because the evidentiary use of a defendant's prior speech would have a chilling effect on those who fear they may be prosecuted for offenses subject to penalty enhancement. Finally, it distinguished antidiscrimination laws, which have long been held constitutional, on the ground that they prohibit objective acts of discrimination, whereas the state statute punishes the subjective mental process.
View Quote
On the evening of October 7, 1989, a group of young black men and boys, including Mitchell, gathered at an apartment [480] complex in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Several members of the group discussed a scene from the motion picture "Mississippi Burning," in which a white man beat a young black boy who was praying. The group moved outside and Mitchell asked them: " 'Do you all feel hyped up to move on some white people?' " Brief for Petitioner 4. Shortly thereafter, a young white boy approached the group on the opposite side of the street where they were standing. As the boy walked by, Mitchell said: " 'You all want to fuck somebody up? There goes a white boy; go get him.' " Id., at 4-5. Mitchell counted to three and pointed in the boy's direction. The group ran towards the boy, beat him severely, and stole his tennis shoes. The boy was rendered unconscious and remained in a coma for four days.
View Quote
For the foregoing reasons, we hold that Mitchell's First Amendment rights were not violated by the application of the Wisconsin penalty-enhancement provision in sentencing him. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. It is so ordered.
View Quote
Link Posted: 10/4/2002 4:44:13 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/4/2002 5:10:39 PM EST
I was actually looking for a capital crime. RememberReginals Denny(sp?)-I knowitwasn't acapitalcrime,butfor crying out loud. I'm notsure Free Rebulic in a valid source.
Link Posted: 10/4/2002 5:15:30 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/4/2002 5:33:32 PM EST by AR_XVDOG]
I remember hearing a lawyer on a radio talk show saying there were no [red]Federal[/red] hate crime Statutes that apply to minorities, that hate crimes can only be charged against white's because they are the dominant race. I could not get what I heard verified or dismissed though I tried different avenues, so I can't say if his statement is true or not. .
Link Posted: 10/4/2002 5:45:06 PM EST
Originally Posted By Only_Hits_Count: Can anyone provide evidence of ANY 'minority'that has been charged with a hate crime againta White? A box of 855 to the first one to find it.
View Quote
Key word "charged". You did not say capital crime, civil, felony, misdemeanor or splinter under his fingernail. Free Rebublic not valid! --- Hey, its on the internet man! It must be true. [:)] Oh well, it's your contest, your rules, I think I win. Damn Texans [}:D]
Link Posted: 10/4/2002 8:24:33 PM EST
cretescreeder: [b] I[/b] knew whatI was [b]thinking[/b] when I wrote the question.[:\] You can collect @ Hunapalooza if ya want. "...that hate crimes can only be charged against white's because they are the dominant race. " Hay, this Whiteboy is a minority in this town!I'm being opressed!!! By th eway- the Republic link didn't work for me. Tried it several times. Anyone have any others?
Top Top