Home› Main Category› Personal Defense
shush
Posts: 6,259 Senior Member
Is he dead because;
He was a Muslim?
He looked white?
He was there?
Muslim man who fled the horrors of ISIS for Texas is gunned down by four men as he took photos of his first snowfall.
''Authorities are probing the possibility he was the victim of a hate crime''
But what kind?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2983772/Muslim-man-gunned-taking-pictures-snowfall-outside-new-home-fleeing-America-escape-horrors-Islamic-State.html
''In a detailed account of the incident posted on Facebook by Alia Salem, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Dallas and Fort Worth area, described the attack.
Salem writes that Ahmed took cover behind a pickup truck when a group of five or six young African Americans opened fire.
A bullet pierced through the truck and struck Al-Jumaili in the chest, Salem said.''
Just a quick thought.
shush
Posts: 6,259 Senior Member
Is he dead because;
He was a Muslim?
He looked white?
He was there?
Muslim man who fled the horrors of ISIS for Texas is gunned down by four men as he took photos of his first snowfall.
''Authorities are probing the possibility he was the victim of a hate crime''
But what kind?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2983772/Muslim-man-gunned-taking-pictures-snowfall-outside-new-home-fleeing-America-escape-horrors-Islamic-State.html
''In a detailed account of the incident posted on Facebook by Alia Salem, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Dallas and Fort Worth area, described the attack.
Salem writes that Ahmed took cover behind a pickup truck when a group of five or six young African Americans opened fire.
A bullet pierced through the truck and struck Al-Jumaili in the chest, Salem said.''
Replies
George Carlin
1. The Muslim was the victim.
And
2. The Muslim was the victim.
This is why claims of racism are so often overstated. Now we just had this idiotic frat at U of Okie that was chanting a racist slur, and that was genuine and wrong.
But most of the time, crime is one of opportunity and the motive is to steal or rape or whatever, and the race of the person is not a factor.
Problem I see is that when there is genuine racial crime, it often gets swept into the trash and wrongfully ignored because of all the false race-crime accusations for non-racist behavior.
Mostly the figment of a progressive activist's imagination.
I am not fully versed on the triple murder in Chapel Hill, NC where a white male murdered 3 muslims (1 male and 2 female) but I know the murderer hated a lot more of the people in that community. He had threatened several others who where white males and a female. The murder happened to finally occur of the 3 muslims but it could have been the next person who parked wrong might have been a young white male.
The term Hate Crime is thrown around much to easy ... defacing a mosque or synagogue or temple is a Hate Crime. Beating of white students by black students who are walking in a parking lot after a high school basketball is a Hate crime but let's see that make the papers. "Hate Crime" is used by race baiters and tends to cause some bias in judgment. Justice is suppose to be blind which was not true in years ago when is was bias against the minorities ... now the tables have turned and any time the race(or other protected group) card can be played they scream "Hate Crime" so they can get special attention and make sure the world hears how terrible that group has been oppressed and targeted because of some trait. POLICTICAL BS!
- George Orwell
Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
-- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, German writer and politician
Sorry NC, but I have to disagree. Defacing a Mosque, Synagogue, Temple or Church is EXACTLY the same as defacing my garage. It's vandalism, nothing more. A beating of anybody, by anybody else is just a beating, regardless of the race of either the beaters or the beaten. Attaching the motivation of choice to the crime as a way of punishing somebody more than they might have been otherwise is silly.
The reason I say these aren't hate crimes is because doing so attaches more significance to a given crime solely due to the criminal's motivation. In other words, the criminal is being punished for his/her thoughts, rather than their actions alone.
I don't mean to bust your balls, but I see no way for our government or justice system to be able to discern the difference fairly or effectively.
George Carlin
Well, as you know, the case is too often misstated, mostly for political reasons, but there are genuine racist crimes, such as attacking Jews or Christians or Muslims just because they are of that faith. Attacking either blacks or whites for that reason, or Asians, or Hispanics, or whatever, for that reason alone.
It does happen. Problem is, "made up" racist crimes overshadow genuine racism and muddy the waters.
No but the reason someone is killed can and sometimes does play into his/her/or in this case, their, sentencing.
Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
:that:
Well said. :up:
Ethnicity should play no part in the charges; the charges should be based on the crime committed. Now if you want to enhance sentences for the depravity of the crime, I'd be all for that. For example, the murder of a child should put the criminal at the head of the line on death row once they are convicted, and the death sentence should be the only one sentence(judgement) available for that crime. See how that works?
― Douglas Adams
But, I think the core of the argument that to enhance convictions based on the race/creed of the murdered is to consider the overwhelming totality of the circumstances. Even then you teeter on the moral/legal conundrum.
Three Jewish people killed at a Synagogue may have been motivated by their religion, but does it qualify as a full-blown hate crime? That versus wholesale slaughter of a people to eradicate them: Jewish people circa World War II?
That's why the heinous-ness is what should be taken into account for sentencing (and is) rather than race/religion/creed....leave those out entirely.
Mass war crimes may be different perhaps?
I didn't say that race-motivated crimes are more wrong that a "regular" crime. I simply stated that yes, there are "racist" crimes. Some white people hate blacks and enjoy brutalizing them. Some blacks feel the same about whites.
I do agree with you that the actions themselves are the crime, regardless of motivation. If a huge black thug (the "gentle giant" of Ferguson) beats the bejeezus out of me because he hates whitey or simply because he wants my wallet, I'm just as beaten up regardless. Unless, of course, the intended victim is actually me, and I have that little .357 snubby handy. But that's another topic.
Regardless... hate crimes do exist but the focus should be on the actual crime, not the motivation. We're in agreement on that.
I have a simplistic approach to your question. He is dead cos he took a bullet to the chest.
Jason, you make some excellent points. Great post!
Jerry
A crime motivated by a brash action in a moment of emotional outburst is not the same as a calculated attack on a person or persons due to race/religion/creed.
Using a lesser crime such as aggravated battery (or assault depending on statutory vernacular) where a white man finds his wife in bed with a black man and attacks him causing minor, but notable injury only due to the infidelity rage is FAR different from leaving the house with a bat and driving to a neighborhood specifically looking for black people to injuriously victimize.
There is a good chance one will never be repeated again and the other probably several times.
Given this aspect, perhaps I am a little jaded when it comes to using the motivation of hate as a factor in the length of a sentence. The persistently violent criminal does deserve more punitive attention than perhaps others who do not motivate their crimes with hatred.
Look at ISIS.
I don't make that call. All I'm saying is what happens in the real world right or wrong.
Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
There are methods and laws to deal with repeat offenders. Using a 'hate' enhancer is ridiculous for reasons already mentioned. The offender is charged for his/her first crime like a first-time offender should be, given the nature of the offense. Repeat offenders would receive 'enhancements' accordingly. 'Hate' legislation calls for examining an offender's thoughts, something a 'Blind' Justice system is singularly unprepared to do. Punish the crime, don't worry what the idiot was thinking about. Sayin'
George Carlin
At the end of the day, this ^ is sums it up just right.
Well said.
But one of the biggest hate crimes on record happened in Germany and Europe in the 30s and 40s. Now THAT was a hate crime, when Uncle Adopf and his scumbag buddies barbecued millions of people, mainly 6 million jews but there were other unfortunates they got as well, Poles, Gypsies, Freemasons, Catholics, you name it, anyone that didn't see the world through their sick, foggy glasses. It was truly a hate crime because everytime I hear about it or read some of the gruesome accounts of it, I hate the B..tards a little more. I think what, that one well placed bullet may have saved the world a lot of unnecessary grief. Think about it, you know Jews have been instrumental in medical research, Think medical version of Einstein, and for all we know, Hitler may have exterminated the cure for cancer.
Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
'The teenager and three others were looking for people who had shot at his girlfriend's apartment earlier in the night.
Police have charged the teenager with murder, and are investigating whether gang activity was involved.'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-31877923
'Dallas Police Senior Corporal DeMarquis Black confirmed to the BBC that a hate crime had been ruled out, but that the investigation was ongoing.
Police said that Nealon fired at least 15 shots from an assault rifle.'
It will be interesting to see whether the shooters of the Ferguson policemen will be charged with 'hate' crimes, in addition to attempted murder or assault with a deadly weapon.
There are plenty of differences in the examples you gave, differences in sentencing and difference in the crimes themselves. For example, planning to kill someone and following through with that is much different from killing someone in the heat of passion.
It's fine to infer motivation based on evidence. So far as "vandalism" is concerned, the motivation is all important. If you draw swastikas on a fence, that's one thing. If you draw them on a synagogue you can infer a deeper purpose behind the crime.
You have an unusually simplistic and unreal view of the criminal justice system. It's not supported by law or custom.
Ah yes, the little boy that cried wolf to many times syndrome.
Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
That's why most (all?) states have a separate sentencing phase of a trial - to keep the spectre of harsh punishment from influencing a jury as to guilt or innocence. Motive, alone, may rightly influence investigators to look at a variety of suspects, or help a prosecutor get an indictment. But it won't convict anyone in a fair trial, without hard facts to back it up, in the form of physical evidence or eyewitness testimony. It is not excluded from the sentencing phase, and may very well be a factor in the harshness of the punishment. So, why is it necessary to have a completely separate crime?
Hate crime legislation was passed for no other reason except to skirt double jeopardy and allow the federal government to try a person again for the same crime.