by white students on a city bus receive three years probation, community service and a $1000 fine. They claimed being attacked by white students on the bus but the video showed a very different story. A lot of people thought they should have gotten jail time as there was a possibility of them getting two years. The judge thought otherwise. And the two girls refused to apologize to anyone for lying - despite some of the UAlbany students who were forced to drop out of school following backlash prior to the video being released.
Link - (
New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
My guess is because the repercussions go far beyond the parties involved.
Conversely, why do some crimes need to have the extra designation of "hate crimes"? Some think it's necessary -- even helpful -- to have that distinction.
If I get in an argument with a gay guy and call him a "f--king f--g==t," I think I have violated his civil rights to be who he is.
But same thing has to happen if he calls me a "heterosexual m--f--er" or if a black woman calls me a "white mother--f===er"
If I get in an argument with a gay guy and call him a "f--king f--g==t," I think I have violated his civil rights to be who he is.
But same thing has to happen if he calls me a "heterosexual m--f--er" or if a black woman calls me a "white mother--f===er"
You get that just calling someone a name or slur is not a crime, right?
Quote:
It just has to be applied across the board to all peoples.
If I get in an argument with a gay guy and call him a "f--king f--g==t," I think I have violated his civil rights to be who he is.
But same thing has to happen if he calls me a "heterosexual m--f--er" or if a black woman calls me a "white mother--f===er"
You get that just calling someone a name or slur is not a crime, right?
It's not, and that's why Vanzett's post did not contain the word "crime".
Anyway, I think his point is that hate (whether it's just internal emotion or actual physical act) exists both ways. I would go further to say that only a hopelessly brain-washed bigot racist believes that's it only exists -- and therefore should only be specially designated and prosecuted -- one way but not the other.
Quote:
In comment 13502792 Vanzetti said:
Quote:
It just has to be applied across the board to all peoples.
If I get in an argument with a gay guy and call him a "f--king f--g==t," I think I have violated his civil rights to be who he is.
But same thing has to happen if he calls me a "heterosexual m--f--er" or if a black woman calls me a "white mother--f===er"
You get that just calling someone a name or slur is not a crime, right?
It's not, and that's why Vanzett's post did not contain the word "crime".
Anyway, I think his point is that hate (whether it's just internal emotion or actual physical act) exists both ways. I would go further to say that only a hopelessly brain-washed bigot racist believes that's it only exists -- and therefore should only be specially designated and prosecuted -- one way but not the other.
well, in a discussion of hate crimes he said it would violate their civil rights, which isnt correct and suggests he was referring to criminal deprivation of civil rights.
Because in society today if you're branded a racist or bigot the truth rarely matters. It's impossible to be proven innocent of the charge (like proving negation) and it's guilty until proven innocent so you see the conundrum.
It's worse than wearing a scarlet letter. In the hierarchy of "crimes" you have murder, rape, anything bad done to a kid or dog, then being racist. Not much worse than being a racist (and maybe there shouldn't be, but that's the world today).
it's a life ruiner and I'm not necessarily saying it shouldn't be if it's true, but it's hard to recover from a false accusation like this.
I think there are two main negative effects of false claims and these make these cases have a gravity of a similar kind to false claims of sexual assault. One, false claims perpetuate the difficulty authentic claims face in the court of public opinion (and the court of law). Two, false claims victimize the accused. The first headline is more effective than the second.
Two thoughts:
I don't see that clearly in the video attached to this article. I can't tell who attacked who first.
If there is video that clearly shows an assault, then where is the assault charge?
I would say that one part of it is that people are taking advantage of an attempt to redress past wrongs by exploiting the good faith attempt of the system/society/govt/etc. to make amends.
I'd also say that "racist" is one of the worst things to say about a man nowadays. It destroys careers and lives in ways that being slandered as "corrupt," "adulterer," "coward," don't. It's an easy way to harm good men and women.
Just some thoughts.
But I'm persuaded that there are crimes that are not simply against individuals, but attempts to cleave the community, to intimidate one group and elevate another. If a kid marks your house with soap on Devil's Night because he's being a jerk, that's one thing. If he writes racial or ethnic slurs on your house, it's another. One is an attack on you, the other's an attack on you and your community. The community has a legitimate interest in treating that differently.
But sometimes there's no underlying crime at all. In this case, these two women say they feel they were victims of a hate crime, but it's not clear they were victims of any actual crime at all. It seems right to me that you have to have a crime before you decide if it's a "hate crime." Hate is a given; crimes aren't.
It's one thing to think you're being picked on, but these two women instigated an incident and then falsely reported it, based on race.
they got off lightly, which would have been ok had they showed any remorse. they didn't. IMO, they are a pox on race relations, and fail to see how they are in the wrong, or why their actions are a pox on race relations. there's plenty of blame to go around, so remember these kind of incidents when you're assessing blame on racial matters