One of the 3 Oklahoma thrill killers hates white people. How is this not a hate crime?

[Anonymous]

And why is there barely any media coverage on this? Seems to me if someone posts that they hate white people and then go and kills a random white person for no reason, that is a hate crime. If someone posted they hated gay people or black people, and then went and killed a random gay guy or African-American woman for the thrill of it, that would constitute a hate crime, no? Just wondering cause it seems like we should be outraged by hate crimes on the whole. And even white males can be subject of that but no one wants to talk about it. Why?

http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/21/black-teen-who-murdered-australian-jogger-posted-racist-tweets/#ixzz2chtAj4cJ

[Anonymous]

A. It might be.
B. The fact that a person is racist does not mean that it can be prosecuted as a hate crime. You have to prove the motive is hate.
C. The presence of an apparently white perpetrator will be a significant barrier toward proving the hate crime.

[Anonymous]

The 3rd dude is not white!

[Anonymous]

OP, stop being such a racist

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The 3rd dude is not white!

How do you know?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, stop being such a racist

How is the OP a racist? Seriously, can't see anything in there that sounds racist. And I'm not white!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A. It might be.
B. The fact that a person is racist does not mean that it can be prosecuted as a hate crime. You have to prove the motive is hate.
C. The presence of an apparently white perpetrator will be a significant barrier toward proving the hate crime.

Not quite. You can charge it under state or federal statutes if there's some evidence there, in the discretion of the prosecutor or US attorney.

You don't need "proof" to do that at thy point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The 3rd dude is not white!

The PP said 'apparently white'.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, stop being such a racist

Please don't throw around that term so easily. It's really offensive. Clearly the racist in this story is Edwards who tweeted that he hates white people. That defines a racist. Not someone who simply asks some honest questions about the possibility of double standards in society/the media.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, stop being such a racist

lol, sorry, I was being sarcastic

[takoma]

The legal concept of a hate crime was created to protect oppressed minorities. This murder may well have stemmed from racial hatred, but there is an imbalance between the status of whites in America and the status of blacks. It would be a terrible crime if a group of black men lynched a white man, but as a matter of historic fact, that is not something that has happened repeatedly, while white lynchings of blacks were once common in parts of the country.

I have no problem with these kids being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But it seems to me that bringing up hate crimes does lttle more than say that the hundreds of lynchings and other crimes against blacks over the years (or beatings and killings of gays) are somehow less horrible because blacks kill whites also.

All killings are bad, but certain types are a much greater problem in our society. Not that one killing is a greater sin than another, just that certain types are a quantitatively greater problem and merit specific legal remedies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A. It might be.
B. The fact that a person is racist does not mean that it can be prosecuted as a hate crime. You have to prove the motive is hate.
C. The presence of an apparently white perpetrator will be a significant barrier toward proving the hate crime.

Not quite. You can charge it under state or federal statutes if there's some evidence there, in the discretion of the prosecutor or US attorney.

You don't need "proof" to do that at thy point.

Well duh, you can pretty much charge anyone with anything, and then let the judge throw out the charge or let the prosecutor rack up a ton of not guilty verdicts on their record.

[Anonymous]

white lynchings of blacks were once common in parts of the country.

Current criminal code shouldn't be based upon what "once" happened.

[Anonymous]

takoma wrote:The legal concept of a hate crime was created to protect oppressed minorities. This murder may well have stemmed from racial hatred, but there is an imbalance between the status of whites in America and the status of blacks. It would be a terrible crime if a group of black men lynched a white man, but as a matter of historic fact, that is not something that has happened repeatedly, while white lynchings of blacks were once common in parts of the country.

I have no problem with these kids being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But it seems to me that bringing up hate crimes does lttle more than say that the hundreds of lynchings and other crimes against blacks over the years (or beatings and killings of gays) are somehow less horrible because blacks kill whites also.

All killings are bad, but certain types are a much greater problem in our society. Not that one killing is a greater sin than another, just that certain types are a quantitatively greater problem and merit specific legal remedies.

If you think that "hate crimes" are "a quantitatively greater problem" than standard issue street crime, you might want to refresh your study of crime statistics. Points for honesty, though, most people at least try to pretend that "hate crimes" are a neutral concept, instead of what they are, which is a very definite and left-wing political point of view written into the criminal law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

takoma wrote:The legal concept of a hate crime was created to protect oppressed minorities. This murder may well have stemmed from racial hatred, but there is an imbalance between the status of whites in America and the status of blacks. It would be a terrible crime if a group of black men lynched a white man, but as a matter of historic fact, that is not something that has happened repeatedly, while white lynchings of blacks were once common in parts of the country.

I have no problem with these kids being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But it seems to me that bringing up hate crimes does lttle more than say that the hundreds of lynchings and other crimes against blacks over the years (or beatings and killings of gays) are somehow less horrible because blacks kill whites also.

All killings are bad, but certain types are a much greater problem in our society. Not that one killing is a greater sin than another, just that certain types are a quantitatively greater problem and merit specific legal remedies.

If you think that "hate crimes" are "a quantitatively greater problem" than standard issue street crime, you might want to refresh your study of crime statistics. Points for honesty, though, most people at least try to pretend that "hate crimes" are a neutral concept, instead of what they are, which is a very definite and left-wing political point of view written into the criminal law.

That's only left leaning because lynchings are a right wing activity.