Judge much? Soo, myself and bellbird and others who are calling it a hate crime are racists? LOL, classic!

 

 

What grounds do you have to call it a hate crime?

Yeah, calling anything a hate crime based solely on skin color is racist regardless of the situation.

 

So are you looking for some sort of revenge?

 

No one said a thing about just skin color. Quite putting words in people's mouths.

 

You had a group of people who happened to be the same race beat a guy who was not of that race. The "group" part is what you are failing to see. I know that I have quoted you on the "one vs one", which it was not.

 

It's not being racist calling it a hate crime.

Yeah, calling anything a hate crime based solely on skin color is racist regardless of the situation.

 

So are you looking for some sort of revenge?

 

You didn't seem to be calling out posters as racist in the Church burning thread that were calling those hate crimes....How come? Is there even any concrete evidence (outside of speculation) that the perpetrators were white?

 

And I think without a doubt those Church burnings are hate crimes and driven by race. There's no evidence to support that, outside of basic logic, but I guess that makes me racist. :idunno:

No one said a thing about just skin color. Quite putting words in people's mouths.

 

You had a group of people who happened to be the same race beat a guy who was not of that race. The "group" part is what you are failing to see. I know that I have quoted you on the "one vs one", which it was not.

 

It's not being racist calling it a hate crime.

 

 

I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth. Other than skin color, there is no reason to believe that this is a hate crime.

What grounds do you have to call it a hate crime?

 

What grounds do you have saying it's not?

 

Maybe my experience in working in a career over there that I am very familiar with these type of events. Maybe it's my training. Maybe it's me knowing officers Noe who was punched by a thug and taking to him. Maybe it was the Facebook rant of an officer who also said it was a hate crime.

 

Maybe others calling it a hate crime are seeing it what it is and using their opinion? Giving your honest opinion is not being racist. Especially people who have never given any indications of being racists.

You didn't seem to be calling out posters as racist in the Church burning thread that were calling those hate crimes....How come? Is there even any concrete evidence (outside of speculation) that the perpetrators were white?

 

And I think without a doubt those Church burnings are hate crimes and driven by race. There's no evidence to support that, outside of basic logic, but I guess that makes me racist. :idunno:

 

 

My BGPing is pretty sporadic. I just happened to post in this thread and got into it.

What grounds do you have saying it's not?

 

Maybe my experience in working in a career over there that I am very familiar with these type of events. Maybe it's my training. Maybe it's me knowing officers Noe who was punched by a thug and taking to him. Maybe it was the Facebook rant of an officer who also said it was a hate crime.

 

Maybe others calling it a hate crime are seeing it what it is and using their opinion? Giving your honest opinion is not being racist. Especially people who have never given any indications of being racists.

 

All I have to go by is the video. From the video, I'm not prepared to call this a hate crime.

You didn't seem to be calling out posters as racist in the Church burning thread that were calling those hate crimes....How come? Is there even any concrete evidence (outside of speculation) that the perpetrators were white?

 

And I think without a doubt those Church burnings are hate crimes and driven by race. There's no evidence to support that, outside of basic logic, but I guess that makes me racist. :idunno:

 

 

If they're shown to have been arson, then they are absolutely hate crimes.

If they're shown to have been arson, then they are absolutely hate crimes.

 

So let me get this right... If it's shown that white people committed arson on black churches, it is absolutely a hate crime?

 

But it has been shown that a group of black people committed assault and battery against a white person, and that's not a hate crime?

 

What's the difference?

What are the requirements for a hate crime?

You didn't seem to be calling out posters as racist in the Church burning thread that were calling those hate crimes....How come? Is there even any concrete evidence (outside of speculation) that the perpetrators were white?

 

And I think without a doubt those Church burnings are hate crimes and driven by race. There's no evidence to support that, outside of basic logic, but I guess that makes me racist. :idunno:

 

Indeed! Some news channels were attempting to say that the church shooting was against Christians, I don't think any of us on here agreed with that at all. Some news channels were calling some of the 3-4 suspicious fires at black churches lately as being against Christians, I don't recall anyone on here agreeing with that either. I'm pretty sure we all said it was a hate crime against black people. But as was mentioned, we all didn't know the motives of the people responsible for the church fires, but no one said then that it was being racist against white people.

 

Funny how my employer near UC, who is black, says it was a hate crime too. I'll let him know he is a racist

What are the requirements for a hate crime?

 

Offenses involving actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin.— Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person—

(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if—

(i) death results from the offense; or

(ii) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

If they're shown to have been arson, then they are absolutely hate crimes.

 

So without even having concrete evidence of the race of the perpetrators those are absolutely hate crimes, but when we have video evidence of a group of black guys assaulting a white guy, if you claim it's a hate crime, you're racist?? That's completely illogical.

From an Ohio bar website...

 

Ohio law broadly defines hate crimes as criminal acts motivated by prejudice or intolerance and directed toward a member of a gender, racial, religious or social group.

So without even having concrete evidence of the race of the perpetrators those are absolutely hate crimes, but when we have video evidence of a group of black guys assaulting a white guy, if you claim it's a hate crime, you're racist?? That's completely illogical.

 

Setting a church on fire and getting into a fight are two completely different things.