|
|
#11
11-24-2005, 03:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
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. 
|
|
#12
11-25-2005, 04:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#13
11-25-2005, 04:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#14
11-25-2005, 05:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#15
11-25-2005, 05:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
|
|
#16
11-25-2005, 05:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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?
|
|
#17
11-25-2005, 05:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#18
11-25-2005, 05:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
|
|
#19
11-25-2005, 05:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#20
11-25-2005, 09:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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).
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
