The hate crime you probably haven't heard of

I accept your surrender.

There's no surrender to accept. I'm not going to waste my time going in circles with a 14thGaramet.

Black, White, Asian, Welch, doesn't matter, the fact they weren't dragged out and shot immediately after their conviction is the real issue here, this kind of trash just needs to burn.

14thDoctor opened a serious can of whoopass on Muad.

He opened nothing. He's got his opinion and I've got mine. You'd have to be an idiot to think that these perps weren't thinking about race in the selection of their victims and in the acts they committed against them.

Eh...

I hate being in a position to seem like I'm defending these sub-human pieces of shit, because they don't deserve it.... but I don't see any reason to believe that this was racially motivated. The extremely heinous nature of what they did leads me to believe that 1 or more of them had done this sort of thing before and gotten away with it. Maybe I watch too many crime dramas, but who cuts off penises and boobs while raping someone with a chair leg? I think someone who had killed before and was looking for a bigger thrill.

If I were a cop there, I'd look back on some older unsolved murders. Black and white.

It's funny how a man can kill someone in self-defense, but because he happens to be half white and has a white name, and the person he shot was black, the lib-tard response is that it's such a horrible crime, and that it's obviously a hate crime. Then, when we have four people torture, rape, mutilate, and murder two other people, but in this case the victims happened to be white and the perpetrators happened to be black, the lib-tard response is that we should take a step back and actually consider if race was a factor or not. The contrast is just amazing.

Your lack of understanding the difference between the two cases is what amazes me. To draw any similarities between these two cases is beyond obtuse.

... Was there ever anyone who thought Zimmerman should've been charged with a hate crime? Yeah, he stalked down an unarmed kid, provoked an altercation and shot him dead, but I don't recall anyone ever advocating for hate crimes to apply. I think you're pulling that out of your ass.

And people wonder why.......

"One thing's sure: these people are dead — murdered — and somebody's responsible!"

I still think that obsessing over whether "racial hatred" is the motive for a crime is pointless.

And destructive.

By labeling something a "hate crime" I think it serves to act as a mitigating factor to many people. It blame shifts from the criminal to society at large. Promoting the idea that "if society was not racist, then they might not have committed such a crime".

Actions mean far more than motives except in self defense.

I've never liked the term hate crime. The crime committed here was obviously done with a great degree of malice towards the other person, but since there's no "proof" that it was in regards to the person's race, it isn't a "HATE CRIME."

Hate crime is that ironic law I pull out for the left when they whine about mandatory minimums.

It's funny how you totally don't understand why people were concerned about the Zimmerman case. It was a proxy for people's thoughts on gun control, not race. That element of it was there, but only as an add-on to the actual issue.

Maybe for white society, but I can tell you the gun issue was definitely not the forefront problem for most of my family.

I thought the "trigger issue" (no pun intended) for the Zimmerman case was racial profiling.

The idea that Zimmerman would not have thought Martin was "suspicious" if he was obviously a white teenager.

Like I said, there were also some racial aspects, gun rights and profiling don't meet any definition of hate crime.

I thought it was because a White-Jewish-Afro-Peruvian guy killed a kid for walking while black in a gated community.

Gul is just either surprisingly uninformed or lying.


Yay.

Will we as a nation ever solve this ongoing problem?

What a load of shit. The media and plenty of other parties were pushing the race issue right from the start, and frankly the race issue is the only reason it even went to trial. Your capacity for intellectual dishonesty is amazing.

Racial profiling <> hate crime.

So a half-white guy shoots a black guy, and it's the biggest racial hate crime of the century.

Yet five black people rape, torture and murder two white people, and race is not even supposed to be a factor.

It's no wonder that people don't take liberals seriously.;

Who beside Black Dove has labelled the Zimmerman case "the biggest racial hate crime of the century?"

Maybe not "of the century" but Al, Jesse, the NBP, and the NAACP have had a field day with it.

Call it what you want, but the need for it remains. I think racial terroism is probably more apt a term for it.

The truth is that prior to hate crimes legislation, local judges and juries saw it fit to nerf down charges and penalties of crimes committed against one certain race group when the perp was of a another certain race. This is why Dr. King and the civil rights leaders urged congress for this legislation as early as the 1950's.

That's exactly what happened. You don't like it? Well tough shit. Zimmerman stalked down an unarmed and scared kid, provoked an altercation and he shot him dead when he had the audacity to try and defend himself. And according to Florida law, it's now legal for a stalker to kill their victims if they decide to fight.

Good luck with that.

What was the kid defending himself against? Since you seem to know for sure that he was defending himself, you ought to have an answer for that.

And no, "Pudgy asshole following me" is not sufficient cause to act violently and self-defense. You need to do better than that or retract your bullshit claim.

Also, be sure to account for the fact that he was free and clear of whatever this threat was. So your "self defense" claim has to justify outrunning your "stalker" ( ) and then doubling back to confront him.

Following you down the street is not "stalking." Following you down the street while on the phone with the cops is also not stalking. You do not get to decide when and with whom you share a sidewalk.



...Or maybe you could make some chickenshit drive-by post full of false claims and then slink away rather than face up to it.

What trial did you watch? Not to poke holes, but:
1. stalking would imply a methodical, preplanned/continous effort to harrass someone over time. Not the case here.
2. did Zim know Trayvon was unarmed when he confronted him? When I have a gun I don't announce it with a bullhorn to the neighborhood. Doubting Trayvon would had he been carrying a gun, nor would he be expected to.
3. again I will ask: if Trayvon was scared why didn't he sprint home or call the police. Oh yes, his culture forbids that. Welcome to America, try to learn the culture if possible.
4. if Zim "provoked" an altercation then why was he so happy when the police (falsely) told him someone has a video of it? Because the rest of the sane world would believe he's in the right if they see the video?
5. why would Zim even have to "defend himself" from a scared kid running home? He'd have to catch the kid, and I'm guessing if you had a foot-race you wouldn't bet on Zim.