4 Arrested In FB Video Torturing Of A Mentally Challenged Man

[A Theist]

Bullshit! There was no fucking lie told. Sure. They admitted that it was a hate crime but they skirted the issue of what made it a hate crime, namely, a racially motivated attack by four black people against a mentally challenged white person. That's the issue I was getting at!

What are you even talking about? Just about everybody said they either didn't see it or did and heard the perps say racist shit, making it likely racially motivated. Those who didn't weren't asked to be clearer about it. I called it a hate crime from the moment I entered this thread. I didn't say racially motivated because I figured you didn't need it fucking spelled out for you.

Yeah, sure. You called it a hate crime. But go ahead and feel free to spell it out anyway. Was it racially motivated? Not "likely" racially motivated, but "clearly" racially motivated.

[Amarok]

Here's another one: if they said nothing about the kid's race, and were saying "fuck disabled people," I'd call that a hate crime against disabled people. A hate crime is just that: violence motivated against a group, including the disabled.

and I'm agreeing with you it's still a hate crime

[Catholic_Lady]

I'll say it: it was a hate crime because it was racially motivated. No one said "fuck disabled people" but they did say "fuck white people". If the tables were turned, and it was white kids torturing a disabled black kid, saying "fuck black people," I'd be saying the same thing.

Even though I'm not one for labelling everything a "hate crime", I agree.

Be consistent. I don't know why when a white person is attacked with the attackers literally saying "fuck white people", there are people questioning it like "well is is a hate crime though? I'm not sure of the motivation".

Nobody would be reacting like that if it was a person of any other race, it would be (not incorrectly) "this is racism, this is hate crime". To spin it and make it about "they might have been attacking his disability instead" is just disingenuous.

We live in a world where bleeding-heart SJWs will (without any hard evidence) take up for a well-known Muslim Youtube prankster claiming he was "kicked off a plane for speaking Arabic", and look silly when proven wrong... and then in the same breath downplay racial motivation on a recorded documented case of torture to the tune of "fuck white people". Amazing.

PS if what I said doesn't apply, let it fly. I'm talking about nobody in particular, if it's not people on here it'll be the mainstream media.

This^

[Amarok]

What are you even talking about? Just about everybody said they either didn't see it or did and heard the perps say racist shit, making it likely racially motivated. Those who didn't weren't asked to be clearer about it. I called it a hate crime from the moment I entered this thread. I didn't say racially motivated because I figured you didn't need it fucking spelled out for you.

Yeah, sure. You called it a hate crime. But go ahead and feel free to spell it out anyway. Was it racially motivated?

IT DOES NOT FUCKING MATTER

Jesus your obsessed

---

Even though I'm not one for labelling everything a "hate crime", I agree.

Be consistent. I don't know why when a white person is attacked with the attackers literally saying "fuck white people", there are people questioning it like "well is is a hate crime though? I'm not sure of the motivation".

Nobody would be reacting like that if it was a person of any other race, it would be (not incorrectly) "this is racism, this is hate crime". To spin it and make it about "they might have been attacking his disability instead" is just disingenuous.

We live in a world where bleeding-heart SJWs will (without any hard evidence) take up for a well-known Muslim Youtube prankster claiming he was "kicked off a plane for speaking Arabic", and look silly when proven wrong... and then in the same breath downplay racial motivation on a recorded documented case of torture to the tune of "fuck white people". Amazing.

PS if what I said doesn't apply, let it fly. I'm talking about nobody in particular, if it's not people on here it'll be the mainstream media.

This^

This was already addressed

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Holy shit.

[Thumpalumpacus]

AT, you're clearly spoiling for a fight. Why is that?

[SteelCurtain]

Pool logic:

If I can find an example of one idiot on Twitter, I can extrapolate that to be the argument of everyone I want to debate!

[Amarok]

Holy shit.

and this proves what?

1. she's right there is no reverse racism there is just racism

2.were talking feelings not just words I have (and yes the words were racist) but were also talking the crimes overall goal

3. Shes also right there is more to racism then just skin color  I'm sure Pal and his Inferior Superior idea would attest  though I don't totally agree with him I think it's still to broad he still has a point

[Seraphina]

I realize that "get charged with a hate crime" is a buzz phrase that get bandied about a lot but "hate crime" is a legal term. For a hate crime enhancement, a prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed because of the victim's race or sexual orientation, etc which can be difficult to prove.

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/res...rimes.html

Everybody in this thread seems to be saying that the crime that was broadcast in this Facebook live video was wicked, any way you slice it. But, frankly, most of the arguing in this thread seems to be of the "I despise hate crimes more than you" nature. Not much different than pounding sand, in my opinion.

[Amarok]

Pool logic:

If I can find an example of one idiot on Twitter, I can extrapolate  that to be the argument of everyone I want to debate!

Should we try and find her opposite

Thou she's somewhat right as I said above but yes over all not too bright