Not a hate crime

[atlas3025]

I assume that means the victim is not gay.

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/08/05/disturbing-video-13-year-old-florida-boy-brutally-beaten-school-bus-driver-refuses

[Spots]

Driver was propbably scared of being slandered and sued for inappropriate touching if he tried to break it up. Welcome to the new America

Tapatalk ate my spelling.

[Garufa]

I assume that means the victim is not gay.

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/08/05/disturbing-video-13-year-old-florida-boy-brutally-beaten-school-bus-driver-refuses

 

No, the victim is white, his attackers were not...

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/07/florida-school-bus-beatdown-goes-unnoticed-by-self-styled-civil-rights/

 

What does gay have to do with it?

Edited August 7, 2013 by Garufa

[atlas3025]

No, the victim is white, his attackers were not...
 
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/07/florida-school-bus-beatdown-goes-unnoticed-by-self-styled-civil-rights/
 
What does gay have to do with it?

Because its only a hate crime for a white to be attacked when they happen to be gay.

[vontar]

Keep that in mind if you ever need to play the victim card.

[atlas3025]

Keep that in mind if you ever need to play the victim card.

 

That's a great point. 

[Caster]

Everyone knows its not a hate crime for blacks to attack whites.

[c.a.willard]

Or its not a hate crime because it wasn't motivated by race.  it was motivated by the victim snitching on one of the attackers for trying to sell him marijuana.  I really get tired of seeing every interracial crime claimed by one side or the other as a hate crime. 

[E4 No More]

Or its not a hate crime because it wasn't motivated by race.  it was motivated by the victim snitching on one of the attackers for trying to sell him marijuana.  I really get tired of seeing every interracial crime claimed by one side or the other as a hate crime. 

Video doesn't have audio, so how do you know that it WASN'T motivated by race? If they are shouting racial slurs while beating the kid then it is racially motivated.

[Guest nra37922]

Or its not a hate crime because it wasn't motivated by race.  it was motivated by the victim snitching on one of the attackers for trying to sell him marijuana.  I really get tired of seeing every interracial crime claimed by one side or the other as a hate crime. 

True enough but in this age of race hypersensitivity this is to be expected.   Racial hustling/politics is BIG business and pays for a lot of fancy cars and homes.  IMHO, if the 13 year old Caucasian kid had lit up the African-American kids and popped a few rounds into their asses that would have made the news and gotten Jesse and Al to speak out..

Edited August 9, 2013 by nra37922

[c.a.willard]

Video doesn't have audio, so how do you know that it WASN'T motivated by race? If they are shouting racial slurs while beating the kid then it is racially motivated.

 

1st because i read an article about it the other day before i ever say the video

 

2nd because i make it a point to at least do a little bit of digging on a subject before jumping to conclusions.

 

Heres the text from one of the articles, I dont remember where i found the one the other day that specifically referenced marijuana.

 

GULFPORT, Florida – A brutal attack on a Florida school bus was caught on camera.

Three students stomped a 13-year-old-boy on the bus after he told school officials that one of the attackers had previously tried to sell him drugs.

The attackers broke the boy’s arm and stole his money.

John Moody, 64, immediately called for help from dispatch. The school district’s policy is that the driver is not required to intervene.

“I wanted to help him so bad,” Moody said.

The three boys involved were arrested on aggravated battery charges.

Moody retired two weeks after the beating.

 

http://www.khou.com/video/featured-videos/School-bus-beating-caught-on-tape-218423271.html

 

 

 

Way to assume the 3 black kids were shouting racial slurs with no audio in the video though. 

[E4 No More]

1st because i read an article about it the other day before i ever say the video

 

2nd because i make it a point to at least do a little bit of digging on a subject before jumping to conclusions.

 

Heres the text from one of the articles, I dont remember where i found the one the other day that specifically referenced marijuana.

 

GULFPORT, Florida – A brutal attack on a Florida school bus was caught on camera.

Three students stomped a 13-year-old-boy on the bus after he told school officials that one of the attackers had previously tried to sell him drugs.

The attackers broke the boy’s arm and stole his money.

John Moody, 64, immediately called for help from dispatch. The school district’s policy is that the driver is not required to intervene.

“I wanted to help him so bad,” Moody said.

The three boys involved were arrested on aggravated battery charges.

Moody retired two weeks after the beating.

 

http://www.khou.com/video/featured-videos/School-bus-beating-caught-on-tape-218423271.html

 

 

 

Way to assume the 3 black kids were shouting racial slurs with no audio in the video though. 

1st, I read the article too before I saw the video. Apparently, you assume that reporters tell the whole story when they rarely do for various reasons.

2nd, without audio how did you "dig" into a story. Did you go down there and investigate?

 

I didn't "assume" anything; you did. Go back and read what I wrote.

[TMF]

"Snitches get stitches." I don't think this was a case of "crackers get stitches." Of course, if the races were reversed, this would be hate crime. The term "hate crime" should be retired.

[c.a.willard]

1st, I read the article too before I saw the video. Apparently, you assume that reporters tell the whole story when they rarely do for various reasons.

2nd, without audio how did you "dig" into a story. Did you go down there and investigate?

 

I didn't "assume" anything; you did. Go back and read what I wrote

I did reread what you said.  From the way is written it implied that you thought that the 3 black kids were shouting racial slurs while beating the kid. 

 

As far as assumptions i try to avoid them but there are some logical assumptions i used in comming to in my opinion that it wasn't racially motivated.   The biggest was there was no evidence whatsoever in the article to suggest the attack was racially motivated. 

 

I also make the logical assumption that certain websites are more likely to put different spin on things.  If there was a black on white racial motivation behind the attack you can typically count on it being mentioned in some of the far right news outlet.  Just like you can count on white on black crime being written about as a hate crime on some of the far left leaning publications.  It wasn't, not even the most far right publications are putting anything out that would offer evidence of racial motivation.  Outside of the title of a few of them that is.

[E4 No More]

I did reread what you said.  From the way is written it implied that you thought that the 3 black kids were shouting racial slurs while beating the kid. 

 

As far as assumptions i try to avoid them but there are some logical assumptions i used in comming to in my opinion that it wasn't racially motivated.   The biggest was there was no evidence whatsoever in the article to suggest the attack was racially motivated. 

 

I also make the logical assumption that certain websites are more likely to put different spin on things.  If there was a black on white racial motivation behind the attack you can typically count on it being mentioned in some of the far right news outlet.  Just like you can count on white on black crime being written about as a hate crime on some of the far left leaning publications.  It wasn't, not even the most far right publications are putting anything out that would offer evidence of racial motivation.  Outside of the title of a few of them that is.

I prefaced the statement with "If" meaning in the hypthetical. I don't know; I wasn't there. If the races were reveresed and they'd said the "N-word" while kicking the kids butt then they would be charged with a hate crime regardless of the fact that the reason for the beating was for snitching. You know, the double standards for whitie and all.

[atlas3025]

Williard,

 

For the record, my point was they would have called it a "hate crime" if it were the other way around, regardless of the facts. 

 

Personally, I believe either all assaults are hate crimes, or none of them are. 

 

EDIT:  I should really fix typos before I hit post.

Edited August 9, 2013 by atlas3025

[Guest nra37922]

Fair and equal treatment under the law period.   When any group is granted extra protection the whole process becomes tainted and corrupt.  Being PC has emasculated the country as a whole and the way things are going our grand-kids, and possibly earlier, could be the last generation.

Edited August 9, 2013 by nra37922

[E4 No More]

Fair and equal treatment under the law period.   When any group is granted extra protection the whole process becomes tainted and corrupt.  Being PC as emasculated the country as a whole and the way things are going our grand-kids, and possibly earlier, could be the last generation.

Now ya done it! The feminists are going to hunt you down for that one!

[Guest nra37922]

Now ya done it! The feminists are going to hunt you down for that one!

Since I don't really care about being PC anymore all I can say is 'Frick them and their woosie husbands/boyfriends/lesbian lovers/everyready powered toy or whatever else is floating their boat.'   Good people of all races are scared s-hitless to stand up and put an end to this BS, so EMASCULATED by PC is correct...

[Wheelgunner]

 

For the record, my point was they would have called it a "hate crime" if it were the other way around, regardless of the facts. 

 

Personally, I believe either all assaults are hate crimes, or none of them are. 

 

This whole concept of "hate crime" is just as absurd as "gun violence" or "domestic violence."  The conduct (violence against a person) is already against the law.  There's no need to tack on some politically motivated category in order to create a new crime... unless the federal government is looking for a way to assert itself in matters that should have absolutely nothing to do with federal law.