Not a racially aggravated attack

[mackthefork]

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

[nicky g]

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.

[tonypaladino]

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.

[mackthefork]

[ 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

[nicky g]

[ 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.

[mackthefork]

[ 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

[Darryl_P]

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]

[ 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.

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.

[mackthefork]

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