Not a racially aggravated attack
 

Life for 'white man' murder trio

These people shouted that they 'Killed the white man' after breaking every bone in this guys face, by booting him in the head continuously, still though apparently there is no racial motivation in this attack, I guess you can't be racist against white people according to the British courts, the left are as bad if not worse than the far right.

Mack

Re: Not a racially aggravated attack
 

I guess the sticking point was that during their rampage they attacked people of all ethnicities.

What difference does it really make? They got life.

Re: Not a racially aggravated attack
 

A US court would have also likely ruled it was not racially motivated. In New York a little while ago, there were two incidients that occured within a week or two of each other.

A black kid and his friends go into a white neighboorhood in Queens with the intention of steeling a car (he admitted this) and is beaten by a group of white kids. Both the black and white kids involved are common street thugs, and this was nothing more than one group of idiots fighting with another, but it was called a hate crime. The mayor showed up and said that there is "no tollerance for hate crimes"

A week or two later, in Westchester, a black man goes on rampage and screams that he will kill a white woman because she is white, and proceeds to kill her. It is not considered a hate crime, and the case was largely ignored by the media.

Re: Not a racially aggravated attack
 

[ QUOTE ]
I guess the sticking point was that during their rampage they attacked people of all ethnicities.

What difference does it really make? They got life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Nicky

The difference is a guaranteed 30 years instead of a guaranteed 15 years minimum sentence.

Mack

Re: Not a racially aggravated attack
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess the sticking point was that during their rampage they attacked people of all ethnicities.

What difference does it really make? They got life.

[/ QUOTE ]

.

The difference is a guaranteed 30 years instead of a guaranteed 15 years minimum sentence.

Mack

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. However, I think the point about them not soley targetting white people (or even non-Asians) stands.

Also what exactly does this have to do with the left? It was the police that decided not to treat the crime as racially motivated; last I check tehy weren't exactly a bastion of socialism.

Re: Not a racially aggravated attack
 

[ QUOTE ]
Fair enough. However, I think the point about them not soley targetting white people (or even non-Asians) stands.

Also what exactly does this have to do with the left? It was the police that decided not to treat the crime as racially motivated; last I check tehy weren't exactly a bastion of socialism.


[/ QUOTE ]

They are terrified of being accused of racism, they should make sure these sick bastards never see the light of day again, I would say exactly the same if the position was reversed, people who have no respect for other peoples lives are a threat to public safety.

Mack

Re: Not a racially aggravated attack
 

Looks like par for the course in the US-Canada-UK axis of leftism. Here's an example of hiring practices which are racially fair -- not.

The use of the word "Asian" for these dudes seems out of place. I thought the term was made popular as a politically correct move to obscure the fact that Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, etc. were often mistakenly interchanged and to spare their feelings for calling them all Chinese. Now it looks like calling someone an Arab is becoming taboo, too. How about if we used the term "Asian" to refer to Israelis? I wonder how that would fly in PC circles!? [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

Re: Not a racially aggravated attack
 

[ QUOTE ]

A week or two later, in Westchester, a black man goes on rampage and screams that he will kill a white woman because she is white, and proceeds to kill her. It is not considered a hate crime, and the case was largely ignored by the media.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF are you talking about? I live in Westchester. This was FRONT PAGE news. And there were follow up stories.

Re: Not a racially aggravated attack
 

These guys are clearly dispicable human beings, but your original statement was about the racial motivation of the attack, not the length of the sentence.

It has been shown that they were basically on a non-racially discriminate violent rampage and as a result they have been convicted of murder, not a racial murder. The family of the victim seem happy with that, but not with the length of the sentence (they think it should be longer due to it being unprovoked).

Sure, some of the statements quoted contained racist views, but their actions are louder than their bravado words and they were indiscriminate in their violence.

Re: Not a racially aggravated attack
 

8 years ago my bosses son and 4 of his friends were sent down for 5 years each for robbing an off-licence of £35, that's £1.40 per year, as they had a (1) stick which they never used or threatened to use it was armed robbery, I have no sympathy for these idiots. However when I see people like this getting what I consider light treatment by the system, I have to wonder if the sentence would be the same if 3 white guys had got pissed and beat an Asian chap to death for no reason, I am suspecting not.

Regards Mack

Re: Not a racially aggravated attack
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

A week or two later, in Westchester, a black man goes on rampage and screams that he will kill a white woman because she is white, and proceeds to kill her. It is not considered a hate crime, and the case was largely ignored by the media.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF are you talking about? I live in Westchester. This was FRONT PAGE news. And there were follow up stories.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only in the local papers. The queens attack got national coverage.

Re: Not a racially aggravated attack
 

[ QUOTE ]


The use of the word "Asian" for these dudes seems out of place. I thought the term was made popular as a politically correct move to obscure the fact that Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, etc. were often mistakenly interchanged and to spare their feelings for calling them all Chinese. Now it looks like calling someone an Arab is becoming taboo, too. How about if we used the term "Asian" to refer to Israelis? I wonder how that would fly in PC circles!? [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Er... For a start, these guys were not of Arab descent, so I don't know why you would want to call them Arabs (perhaps you are confusing "Arab" with "Muslim"). Secondly, there is more to Asia than East Asia. These guys were of South Asian/sub-continental descent, which the word Asian frequently refers to in the UK.

Re: Not a racially aggravated attack
 

The real question is why should "racially motivated" crimes be punished more severely then regular crimes? They should be punished for killing the guy, not for for hating the guy's race. IMO they deserve the more severe sentence regardles of their motive.

Re: Not a racially aggravated attack
 

I agree, and race would not be an issue in my mind at all in these matters if sites like this were not considered 100% legit while sites like this are considered racist, dangerous, extremist, and hateful.

Either they are both legit or both racist. The one-sidedness of race issues in mainstream media has got to stop IMO.

Re: Not a racially aggravated attack
 

[ QUOTE ]
The real question is why should "racially motivated" crimes be punished more severely then regular crimes? They should be punished for killing the guy, not for for hating the guy's race. IMO they deserve the more severe sentence regardles of their motive.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a good point and I agree in principle, I think maybe it's because racist attacks are unprovoked, also we've seen how these things can escalate if left unchecked.

Mack

Re: Not a racially aggravated attack
 

[ QUOTE ]
For a start, these guys were not of Arab descent

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure? The article says they're from Pakistan which is ethnically diverse and includes some Arabs. The guys sure look Arab to me, but if I'm wrong I'd still go with "Pakistanis" rather than "Asians". Just curious, would Mexicans be referred to as "North Americans" in the UK?

Re: Not a racially aggravated attack
 

"Just curious, would Mexicans be referred to as "North Americans" in the UK?"

No. I assure you though that term "Asians" when talking about British ethnic minorites generally refers to Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Indians. I doubt they are Pakistani Arabs, if such a thing exists, given that they were reported to have spoken in Urdu and don't have Arab names. The assertion that they "look Arab" is beyond absurd.

Re: Not a racially aggravated attack
 

[ QUOTE ]
I agree, and race would not be an issue in my mind at all in these matters if sites like this were not considered 100% legit while sites like this are considered racist, dangerous, extremist, and hateful.

Either they are both legit or both racist. The one-sidedness of race issues in mainstream media has got to stop IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no justification for hatred based solely on race man.

Mack

Re: Not a racially aggravated attack
 

[ QUOTE ]
The real question is why should "racially motivated" crimes be punished more severely then regular crimes? They should be punished for killing the guy, not for for hating the guy's race. IMO they deserve the more severe sentence regardles of their motive.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm always torn on this. On the one hand hate is hate and murder is murder regardless of racial motives, and it seems silly to distinguish; on the other hand, if you can have mitigating circumstances it seems reasonable that you can have aggravating circumstances. Twice the minimum sentence though, if that is the case, is clearly absurd.

Re: Not a racially aggravated attack
 

[ QUOTE ]
if you can have mitigating circumstances it seems reasonable that you can have aggravating circumstances.

[/ QUOTE ]

But mitigating circumstances don't get your charges changed to a lesser crime; they are taken into account at sentencing.

INTENT is often taken into account when determining charges (murder vs. manslaughter, eg) but MOTIVE is not (except for thought/hate crimes).

Re: Not a racially aggravated attack
 

[ QUOTE ]
There's no justification for hatred based solely on race man.


[/ QUOTE ]

Did I ever say there was? I imagine I said some things which require an assumption about hatred to reach such a conclusion, but that false assumption is your problem and not mine, dude.

Re: Not a racially aggravated attack
 

These laws are so stupid. If you murder someone, why should you get more jailtime just because you were yelling "n*gger" or "wh*tey" or "ch*nk" or "sp*c" or "f*g" while committing the act? You murdered someone. You should be punished to the maximum regardless. All these stupid laws do is shift the attention away from the fact that an innocent was murdered and stir up a bunch of [censored] that's really irrelevant to ther case at hand.

Re: Not a racially aggravated attack
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if you can have mitigating circumstances it seems reasonable that you can have aggravating circumstances.

[/ QUOTE ]

But mitigating circumstances don't get your charges changed to a lesser crime; they are taken into account at sentencing.



[/ QUOTE ]

A good point.

Re: Not a racially aggravated attack
 

[ QUOTE ]
I agree, and race would not be an issue in my mind at all in these matters if sites like this were not considered 100% legit while sites like this are considered racist, dangerous, extremist, and hateful.

Either they are both legit or both racist. The one-sidedness of race issues in mainstream media has got to stop IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

The two organisations are completely different. While I am far from a fan of the ADL, and think its one of the most visible propnents of the false criticism of Israel=anti-semitism equation adn is largely a tool of right-wing Israeli interests, it doesn;t at least generally peddle the sort of blatantly racist conspiracy theories that the National Vanguard does about Jews for example. National Vanguard is openly anti-semitic.

Re: Not a racially aggravated attack
 

[ QUOTE ]
Did I ever say there was? I imagine I said some things which require an assumption about hatred to reach such a conclusion, but that false assumption is your problem and not mine, dude.


[/ QUOTE ]

Apologies, I was stating a fact, rather than making an assumption or accusation, sorry if I communicated it poorly, I have little time for the far right is all.

I hate the word 'dude' no idea why.

Regards Mack

Re: Not a racially aggravated attack
 

[ QUOTE ]
These laws are so stupid. If you murder someone, why should you get more jailtime just because you were yelling "n*gger" or "wh*tey" or "ch*nk" or "sp*c" or "f*g" while committing the act? You murdered someone. You should be punished to the maximum regardless. All these stupid laws do is shift the attention away from the fact that an innocent was murdered and stir up a bunch of [censored] that's really irrelevant to ther case at hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry I didn't make them are I agree they are absurd, the only way I can (vaguely) defend such laws, is by saying that racist crimes are motiveless random violence, can't you see why this is different to say, a murder in self-defence?

Mack

Re: Not a racially aggravated attack
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry I didn't make them are I agree they are absurd, the only way I can (vaguely) defend such laws, is by saying that racist crimes are motiveless random violence, can't you see why this is different to say, a murder in self-defence?

Mack

[/ QUOTE ]

Motiveless random violence is already illegal. We don't need specific laws for racially-motivated motiveless random violence. That's just silly.

Killing in self-defense is not murder. But this is semantics. It sounds like we're generally in agreement on this.

Re: Not a racially aggravated attack
 

No problem....maybe I read too much into your one-liner.

Re: Not a racially aggravated attack
 

Hate Crime is the stupidest thing I have heard of

All Murders are hate Crimes! I agree the Brits and Canada are too light on violent crime

Re: Not a racially aggravated attack
 

The two sites clearly share one common theme: advancement of the interests of the race sponsoring the site at the expense of the other race. The methods are different but so are the circumstances so that's only natural.

An example of the ADL's audacity...they are demanding a public apology for a private voice message that Michael Jackson left for an advisor of his. Needless to say Jacko did not give permission to release any of it but the advisor had a fall-out with the superstar and used the private recordings to get revenge.

Story here

To violate someone's confidence, then blackmail him, then demand a public apology for something that was intended for an audience of one is absolutely sickening to me, and hopefully to most people with a decent sense of morals.

Why doesn't anyone question what the advisor must have said to Jackson about the Jews to give him the confidence to make such statements in a message? You don't leave messages like that for someone with whom you've never discussed the topic before.

But this is a racially motivated attack.
 

Youth guilty of racist axe murder

I see one difference in the two cases, that being the colour of the victim. Retarded ideas like this are part of the problem, not the solution. Don't get me wrong these bastards should never see daylight again, but the same standard should apply to the maniacs in the link in the OP.

Mack

Re: But this is a racially motivated attack.
 

Fortunately, the people who decide these things don't just read articles about them to see if there is a difference. They actually listen to the evidence.

One difference here (just based on the articles) is that in one the racial epithets came before the attack. In the original the racial language came during the heat of the attack. In one there was a series of violent incidents against people of many races, in the other it was targetted to one individual.

Re: But this is a racially motivated attack.
 

But if a couple of Asian guys stamp on a white guys face and shout we killed the white man while laughing as they leave, it's okay. The double standards are amazing, justice is not being done in that case.

Mack

Re: Not a racially aggravated attack
 

[ QUOTE ]
WTF are you talking about? I live in Westchester. This was FRONT PAGE news. And there were follow up stories.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't live in Westchester and I never heard of this incident. That is what he was referring to. If the races were reverse, it would have probably received greater national coverage. Like the case in Texas where Mr. Byrd was horribly murdered. That received massive coverage, but when there was a revenge attack on the same place against a white guy, the national media ignored it.