. In North Carolina, when you attack one of the chosen groups, specifically, specially protected by government, it's called "ethnic intimidation." And if you're white, no, you're not protected as much as anyone else.
Am I the only person that has a real problem with any "special" group of people being more protected than others? Why is the punishment more severe if you punch a black person in face than if you punch a white person in the face? If there truly were equal protection under the law, everyone would get the same punishment for committing a crime, no matter what color their skin was.
But even more importantly, in this report (and all press reports of this story), there's something that's really missing. Did you follow the link and notice it? In this case, the students were beat and claim they were called "terrorists." And yes, they were "Palestinians." But no press report actually asks if they are terrorists.
If you identify with the Palestinians, you are identifying with a group of people that has a long history of nothing but terrorism. At the same time, reports have recently been published of various different terrorist organizations that are planning on infiltrating the US with students on student visas. So were these "victims" actually terrorists? Know what? No one has asked that question. No one has asked the people who did the beating why they did it.
In fact, if these students were actually stopped in progress of committing a terrorist act, would these reports read ANY different? I don't think they would. An unbiased press might actually ask questions and seek answers. However, you won't find a reporter today in the major media that isn't trying to push their agenda on you, despite what the facts might be.
1
What's your point here? If they attacked someone, then they're violent criminals and should lose their freedom to attack anyone else. Is their status as football players clouding your judgment?
Posted by: Weapon of Mass Disturbance at January 25, 2007 02:36 PM (0eOeQ)
2
No, I'm simply asking questions. Why has no one asked WHY the attack occurred? Could they have "Attacked" in self-defense? Had the "victims" done something to threaten them? Heck, did the "victims" pull a gun on the "attackers?" Those are questions that the media seems to not want to bother to ask because these "victims" are a member of a special, protected, legally superior class of people: non-whites. And that's wrong.
Posted by: Ogre at January 25, 2007 02:38 PM (oifEm)
3
the problem with 'hate crimes' is that they are attempting to punish the idea behind the crime as well. i don't subscribe to racism, but prosecuting for hate crimes is actually a form of thought control. i imagine that might bother you. it should bother anyone who believes in the freedom of thought.
Posted by: michael at January 26, 2007 05:55 PM (tQnfF)
4
They're not just punishing thought, they're protecting certain people more than others. That's not equal protection.
Posted by: Ogre at January 26, 2007 10:07 PM (pHUVv)
5
There is no criminal offense known as "hate crime". The football players were charged with assault and ethnic intimidation. The prosecutor may or may not add a "hate crime specification" onto the indictments. The purpose for this is to explain the motive for teh crime to the jury, and if they are convicted, this speciication could elevate their sentence. Any time someone is attacked solely on the basis of their ethnicity, religion, gender, race or sexual orientation, it is generically called a hate crime because it arises out of hatred for the victim's ethnicity, religion, gender, race or sexual orientation. Prosecutors do not use this specification often because the standard of proof is set very high, barring a confession, or videotapes or books by the defendant, it is difficult to pretty well prove the defendant was a racist before the crime, and then committed the crime based on his racist beliefs.
Posted by: Rev. Jim Sutter at January 27, 2007 03:03 AM (YadGF)
6
And that makes it horrible, wrong, and completely and totally at odds with equal protection. When you start punishing people because of their personal thoughts, that's completely destroying the concept of blind justice.
Posted by: Ogre at January 27, 2007 12:51 PM (pHUVv)
7
What might help shed more light on this event is the fact that one of the Palestinian students was kicked off campus last year for provoking a fight. This year, local student athletes, who started the physical aspect of the altercation, used hand weapons (brass knuckles), and none of them were kicked off campus. I think there's more to this than just thought control. It should also be noted that it is a group of the college's students who have pushed the agenda of this being a "hate crime", not the police or the college administration. And one of the athletes is African American, and it seems they are ALL provocateurs, Palestinian and American alike. To ask "Why" is at the heart of this issue, but as far as the evidence is concerned, the Americans hit first. Words exchanged should not necessitate physical responses in a civilized society, and to say this is "thought control" may be a bit of a stretch. We have as much freedom of thought as we might need, however, your actions in the physical plane should be punishable if they involve assault and battery. And last semester, one of the Palestinian students was punished, and asked not to come back until he sought counseling and fulfilled certain legal requirements. It seems the system letting him back into this particular society may have been an oversight, as he clearly still has issues of aggressive behavior.
Posted by: Noel at January 27, 2007 05:27 PM (G2Uil)
8
You Americans, we are using your own laws and stupidity against you. Your stupid liberals are doing a good thing in helping us, to bad there binging there own self down to.
HA HA HA HA you Americans
Posted by: Ingrid Smillely at January 29, 2007 06:21 PM (Zwsx5)
9
Thanks for the additional information, Noel. I was just wondering why the press just refused to ask if the Palestinians had ever done anything wrong. According to the biased media, if you're Palestinian, it appears that you can literally do nothing wrong.
And Ingrid, thanks for stopping along!
Posted by: Ogre at January 29, 2007 10:38 PM (pHUVv)
10
One of the alleged attackers was black, so your theory of the non-whites being protected over the whites is a little flawed. Regardless of the situation, calling people terrorists, even if the fight was provoked, is uncalled for. And who carries brass knuckles?
Posted by: Sam at February 02, 2007 09:28 PM (7cMyd)
11
My point here was the it was the Palestinians who are protected more than Americans. And is it okay to call people terrorists who ARE terrorists?
I'm not saying they were in this situation, but my main point is that NO ONE ASKED. These "victims" could have been carrying bombs and were on their way to blow up a school bus and I honestly don't think this story would have been reported any differently.
Posted by: Ogre at February 02, 2007 11:14 PM (pHUVv)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
