Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hate crime and I hope all involved are charged as such.

Hate crime? The victim was black. Are you suggesting the kids doing the attack were white? Then than would change things, yes. But in my monitor, they appear to be black teens. Is that not the case?

possible anti-gay.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a bunch of suburban white kids started attacking a stranger in front of a Hilton in DC, and a white teenage girl went so far as to spit a victim who was knocked out, the first thing everyone would do was ask why these kids did what they did and assume the victim did something to provoke an attack by kids, especially young women.

But I guess because they're young black kids, no one cares to explore their motives, what provoked them to do what they did, etc.

What an absolutely preposterous suggestion.

There is no possible set of circumstances, none, zip, zero, nada, and no possible motive of any kind, that could ever, in any way, justify this mob attack either legally or morally. Even where there is a justification, such as self defense, the use of force in response to a threat must be reasonable and proportionate. Not even a village idiot, let alone a rational person, could posit circumstances where the base animal brutality in the video was justified. To suggest that some idiopathic internalized feeling of oppression could excuse the mob violence in question is contemptible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hate crime and I hope all involved are charged as such.

Hate crime? The victim was black. Are you suggesting the kids doing the attack were white? Then than would change things, yes. But in my monitor, they appear to be black teens. Is that not the case?

possible anti-gay.

Anonymous wrote:If a bunch of suburban white kids started attacking a stranger in front of a Hilton in DC, and a white teenage girl went so far as to spit a victim who was knocked out, the first thing everyone would do was ask why these kids did what they did and assume the victim did something to provoke an attack by kids, especially young women.

But I guess because they're young black kids, no one cares to explore their motives, what provoked them to do what they did, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hate crime and I hope all involved are charged as such.

Hate crime? The victim was black. Are you suggesting the kids doing the attack were white? Then than would change things, yes. But in my monitor, they appear to be black teens. Is that not the case?

Anonymous wrote:https://twitter.com/coric_fox5dc/status/1154334650325708802?s=21

Seems attacks like this are becoming slightly more common. Not saying it’s an epidemic but they are happening

Anonymous wrote:Hate crime and I hope all involved are charged as such.

Anonymous wrote:Hate crime and I hope all involved are charged as such.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a bunch of suburban white kids started attacking a stranger in front of a Hilton in DC, and a white teenage girl went so far as to spit a victim who was knocked out, the first thing everyone would do was ask why these kids did what they did and assume the victim did something to provoke an attack by kids, especially young women.

But I guess because they're young black kids, no one cares to explore their motives, what provoked them to do what they did, etc.

I absolutely agree that black kids and teens are scrutinized completely different than white ones, assessed as older, not given the benefit of the doubt, punished more harshly. However, I don’t think you are at all right in your hypothetical case of white teens doing similar and it not be considered shocking and horrific. This is so far over the line of brutality that it couldn’t be shrugged off in any circumstance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a bunch of suburban white kids started attacking a stranger in front of a Hilton in DC, and a white teenage girl went so far as to spit a victim who was knocked out, the first thing everyone would do was ask why these kids did what they did and assume the victim did something to provoke an attack by kids, especially young women.

But I guess because they're young black kids, no one cares to explore their motives, what provoked them to do what they did, etc.

I absolutely agree that black kids and teens are scrutinized completely different than white ones, assessed as older, not given the benefit of the doubt, punished more harshly. However, I don’t think you are at all right in your hypothetical case of white teens doing similar and it not be considered shocking and horrific. This is so far over the line of brutality that it couldn’t be shrugged off in any circumstance.

I wasn't saying that at all. If 14 year old Becky from Bethesda spit in someone's face as they were lying unconscious after getting beat by a bunch of 13-14 white kids, including girls, from Walt Whitman and it was caught on video the first thing people would do was question what their motives where and what the victim had done to provoke the attack.

The kids are on camera saying, "that's him!" before beating him. My point is why are their motives not even being theoretically discussed at all? If these were young white kids that did this, motive and provocation would have been the first thing that was discussed.

The attack of course is horrible and inexcusable, in case that needed to be said.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a bunch of suburban white kids started attacking a stranger in front of a Hilton in DC, and a white teenage girl went so far as to spit a victim who was knocked out, the first thing everyone would do was ask why these kids did what they did and assume the victim did something to provoke an attack by kids, especially young women.

But I guess because they're young black kids, no one cares to explore their motives, what provoked them to do what they did, etc.

Oh come on. If a group of white kids attacked a black man and kicked him in the head and spit on him, you KNOW what the narrative would be.

The victim from what I read was black, so your analogy doesn't apply.

If a bunch of a 13-14 year old white kids yelled "that's him" and beat up a white man as he was walking into a hotel, and girls in the group spit on the victim as he was lying unconscious after almost getting killed, A LOT of people on this forum would assume the victim did some very heinous stuff do warrant such a savage attack. I think everyone knows what kinds of theoretical violations by the victim would be floated around by posters on here because they would at least give the children the benefit of the doubt and be puzzled by what would lead them to commit such a brutal attack on a man they identified by saying "that's him!"

For some reason this same benefit of the doubt and curiosity as to motives is not being extended to these very young black children. It's odd when you think of it, especially when it's not being extended by supposed "enlightened" and "liberal" white people on here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a bunch of suburban white kids started attacking a stranger in front of a Hilton in DC, and a white teenage girl went so far as to spit a victim who was knocked out, the first thing everyone would do was ask why these kids did what they did and assume the victim did something to provoke an attack by kids, especially young women.

But I guess because they're young black kids, no one cares to explore their motives, what provoked them to do what they did, etc.

No, whatever their race, whatever their motives, it does not matter. What matters is they beat the sh!t out of someone for absolutely no good reason. Are you saying that black kids get a pass because there might be a reason they beat the sh!t out of someone? What reason would be sufficient? What provocation would be an excuse for what they did? What was the good reason a bunch of young men shot a 10 yr old last summer? There is none.

I never said there was an excuse or it isn't horrible. I'm just making the point that if 13 year old white kids beat someone like this and young white girls spit on someone who was knocked out, the public would at least posit the question about whether or not the victim had done something horrible to one of the kids to lead them to act like this, even if the public conceded that the attack was horrific and uncalled for regardless of the provocation.

Sometimes it's what people don't say, rather than what they do say, that's very telling...

I think you must be a really clever troll. There are frequent reports of groups of DC kids engaging in completely unprovoked aggression on the metro and on the streets. Every so often it happens in my neighborhood. That's why people's minds don't immediately to to "oh, the guy being attacked by 15 teenagers must have done something to deserve it!" I say this as someone who is a confirmed SJW and is appalled how this incident is being used by the right wingers.

This is not a bunch of underprivileged kids smacking some random white lady on the back of the head or punching some random commuter in the face and running away. This is a group of co-ed 13-14 year olds yelling "that's him!" before almost beating someone to death, after which a 13-14 year old girl spits on the victim's unconscious body. That type of brutality is a far cry from the kind of attacks you're talking about.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a bunch of suburban white kids started attacking a stranger in front of a Hilton in DC, and a white teenage girl went so far as to spit a victim who was knocked out, the first thing everyone would do was ask why these kids did what they did and assume the victim did something to provoke an attack by kids, especially young women.

But I guess because they're young black kids, no one cares to explore their motives, what provoked them to do what they did, etc.

No, whatever their race, whatever their motives, it does not matter. What matters is they beat the sh!t out of someone for absolutely no good reason. Are you saying that black kids get a pass because there might be a reason they beat the sh!t out of someone? What reason would be sufficient? What provocation would be an excuse for what they did? What was the good reason a bunch of young men shot a 10 yr old last summer? There is none.

I never said there was an excuse or it isn't horrible. I'm just making the point that if 13 year old white kids beat someone like this and young white girls spit on someone who was knocked out, the public would at least posit the question about whether or not the victim had done something horrible to one of the kids to lead them to act like this, even if the public conceded that the attack was horrific and uncalled for regardless of the provocation.

Sometimes it's what people don't say, rather than what they do say, that's very telling...

I think you must be a really clever troll. There are frequent reports of groups of DC kids engaging in completely unprovoked aggression on the metro and on the streets. Every so often it happens in my neighborhood. That's why people's minds don't immediately to to "oh, the guy being attacked by 15 teenagers must have done something to deserve it!" I say this as someone who is a confirmed SJW and is appalled how this incident is being used by the right wingers.