A Hate Crime You're Not Going To Hear About (1 Viewer)

[aquapub]

Newsday had an interesting story about a black racist who randomly attacked a woman and her children by throwing a concrete block through their windshield because they were white.

When the victim is gay, black, or any of the other special ordained groups liberals have authorized to be victims, the Left writes hundreds of articles a week about it, anoints the victim into sainthood, and tries to establish a national holiday in their honor.

When the victim is someone who forces them to rethink their self-serving portrayal of America as an evil place filled with hostile white bigots, the story gets largely ignored.


A Lexis Nexis search of just the name Carl Graves (who attacked the woman and her children) turns up 2 articles. 2 articles in one week.

In the last six months, there have been 83 articles on gay victim Matthew Shepard. That incident happened YEARS AGO, and they are still writing this much about it! See what I mean?

 

[zymurgy]

Newsday had an interesting story about a black racist who randomly attacked a woman and her children by throwing a concrete block through their windshield because they were white.

When the victim is gay, black, or any of the other special ordained groups liberals have authorized to be victims, the Left writes hundreds of articles a week about it, anoints the victim into sainthood, and tries to establish a national holiday in their honor.

When the victim is someone who forces them to rethink their self-serving portrayal of America as an evil place filled with hostile white bigots, the story gets largely ignored.


A Lexis Nexis search of just the name Carl Graves (who attacked the woman and her children) turns up 2 articles. 2 articles in one week.

In the last six months, there have been 83 articles on gay victim Matthew Shepard. That incident happened YEARS AGO, and they are still writing this much about it! See what I mean?

is using the victim in one search and the criminal in the other a simple mistake or was it intentional?

 

[Calm2Chaos]

A google search of Carl Graves doesn't even appear till the 4th page. So there really isn't much being written about it. I guess its ok to hate it just depends on which direction your hate flag flies

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I get this as the first Google News hit I got on Carl Graves was "You Will Not Hear About This Crime On The Nightly News"
If Carl Graves has play made after him and sever years of funds established in his name and has his name associated with some publicity hounds like Phelps then the comparison will be apples to apples instead of apples to pineapples.

Also one event was where someone was beaten and left to die and the other was damage to a minvan. It's hard to see why you've decided that these are suitably matched for such a comparison.


You don't seem all that interested in controlling for other variables in your little experiments. Have you just not thought about it? Or is there some other reason why you proceed w/o accounting for them?

 

[taxedout]

Also one event was where someone was beaten and left to die and the other was damage to a minvan. It's hard to see why you've decided that these are suitably matched for such a comparison.

Well next time,maybe someone will just throw a cinderblock through a gay couples winshield. You can be all cool with it then too.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Well next time,maybe someone will just throw a cinderblock through a gay couples winshield. You can be all cool with it then too.

Your powers of deduction are great yet faulty.
I'm not "all cool with it." It's an exceptionally silly idea to think that I am. I"m just pointing out methodological flaws in aquapub's experiment.

It's notable that you responded with baseless, ludicrous accusations when it was pointed out that the theory advanced was not supported by the results of the experiment. The experiment is methodologically flawed.

Noticing this flaw is not the same as being "all cool with" someone throwing a chunk of concrete through someone else's windshield. Just an fyi for you.

 

[::Major_Baker::]

Your powers of deduction are great yet faulty.
I'm not "all cool with it." It's an exceptionally silly idea to think that I am. I"m just pointing out methodological flaws in aquapub's experiment.

It's notable that you responded with baseless, ludicrous accusations when it was pointed out that the theory advanced was not supported by the results of the experiment. The experiment is methodologically flawed.

Noticing this flaw is not the same as being "all cool with" someone throwing a chunk of concrete through someone else's windshield. Just an fyi for you.

You'll see these types of things in aquapub's 'studies'--such as basing the idea that 'liberals don't read' and are uneducated on figures concerning sales of conservative political books vs. liberal ones.

If the method is flawed, you can make your study prove whatever you want.

 

[disneydude]

Aqua:

This post shows your complete lack of understanding of Hate Crime legislation.
I don't really blame you though because a great deal of the American public does not really understand what constitutes a "hate crime".

Let me try to state it as simply as possible.

The example that you give does not appear to be a "hate crime". And it has nothing to do with the race/ethnicity of the individuals involved.
Its not a "hate crime" because unless there are more facts, from the facts you stated there is no indication that the crime was motivated by a desire to single out these individuals because they were "white".
In other words, even if the races were switched, it still wouldn't qualify for a "hate crime".

Hate Crime legislation requires that the crime itself be motivated by an intention to single out a particular victim because of either ethnicity, gender and in some cases sexual orientation.

Let me give you another example:

Here in Los Angeles 3 black men attacked and robbed a gay man in West Hollywood. The gay community was up in arms and wanted the District Attorney to file "hate Crimes" against the men. The DA refused to do so, and I believe rightfully so. There was no evidence (at least proveable beyond a reasonable doubt) that this guy was singled out because he was gay. It was a robbery, simply that.

Now, if there was evidence that these guys specifically went to West Hollywood because it was their intention to beat and rob gay men it would be a "hate crime" because it was their intention to single out individuals based on specific criteria.

I hope that explains it a little better. I know that it is confusing to a lot of people. Its also interesting to note that according to a number of polls conduced most people who "oppose" hate crime legislation usually change their position once they are educated about what the legislation does and does not criminalize. Its all a matter of education which for this particular issue has not been done very well and so a lot of myths still exist.

 

[Deegan]

I would venture to guess that we don't hear much about it, because it's not really a big problem, certainly not as wide spread as hate crimes against gays. This sounds like just another black man who is a victim of the welfare system we foolishly created, and he is acting out as many have when they don't get things handed to them in a manner they have come to expect. As to the point of liberal whining, that's not going to end anytime soon, they didn't get the title "bleeding heart" for nothing, I wouldn't waste my time being so upset about it. I would suggest allowing folks like Ann Coulter do that for you, as it seems that if you can't beat them, join them, crowd has emerged on the right, let them do their "good work"

 

[zymurgy]

I would venture to guess that we don't hear much about it, because it's not really a big problem, certainly not as wide spread as hate crimes against gays. This sounds like just another black man who is a victim of the welfare system we foolishly created, and he is acting out as many have when they don't get things handed to them in a manner they have come to expect. As to the point of liberal whining, that's not going to end anytime soon, they didn't get the title "bleeding heart" for nothing, I wouldn't waste my time being so upset about it. I would suggest allowing folks like Ann Coulter do that for you, as it seems that if you can't beat them, join them, crowd has emerged on the right, let them do their "good work"

So crimes involving blacks harming whites isn't as big a problem as crimes against gay people?

:doh

 

[Captain America]

It's only considered a hate crime when a white guy does it, right?

 

[americanwoman]

Hmm one search of him and I got something, and it shows he is being charged with a hate crime


http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/424467p-358022c.html

 

[aquapub]

is using the victim in one search and the criminal in the other a simple mistake or was it intentional?

That is irrelevant. News stories mention the names of victims AND perpetrators in attacks.

 

[Deegan]

So crimes involving blacks harming whites isn't as big a problem as crimes against gay people?

:doh

I don't consider crimes against whites, perpetrated by blacks, as hate crimes, I explained that situation, perhaps you should read my response again.

 

[disneydude]

It's only considered a hate crime when a white guy does it, right?

You need to educate yourself a little about hate crime legislation. What you will find out is that hate crime legislation has nothing to do with the race/gender/ethnicity/sexual orientation of the perpetrator. It doesn't even really focus on the race/gender/ethnicity/sexual orientation of the victim. It depends on the motivation behind the crime.

So to answer your question, "whites" can be the victim of a hate crime. If a latino decides he is going to take a baseball bat and go beat white men because he views them as "the man" .....yes, that would qualify as a "hate crime".


And after reading the news article posted which gives more details.....yes this incident would qualify for "hate crime" in California. The reason being is that there is evidence that he was ranting and stating that the attack was committed because his area mall was becoming "too white".

 

[aquapub]

1) If Carl Graves has play made after him and sever years of funds established in his name and has his name associated with some publicity hounds like Phelps then the comparison will be apples to apples instead of apples to pineapples.


2) It's hard to see why you've decided that these are suitably matched for such a comparison.

1) You think it makes more sense to compare this racist who attacked people for being white to a media hound rather than to someone who actually attacked another person out of bigotry? What kind of logic is that???

2) I was waiting for someone to start microscopically splitting hairs and acting like every comparison is illogical unless you find something identical...

The difference in severity of the two attacks only gets you so far. The drastic, ridiculous difference in coverage in this and other situations like it cannot be explained away that easily.

Name me another person who YOU think better fits the comparison and we'll do the search that way. The media's coverage is so night and day on this stuf that I am confident the same pattern will emerge over and over. It always does.

 

[aquapub]

Oh yes, sorry I forgot to paste thison the intro:

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-liconc0607,0,6044433.story

 

[Captain America]

You need to educate yourself a little about hate crime legislation. What you will find out is that hate crime legislation has nothing to do with the race/gender/ethnicity/sexual orientation of the perpetrator. It doesn't even really focus on the race/gender/ethnicity/sexual orientation of the victim. It depends on the motivation behind the crime.

So to answer your question, "whites" can be the victim of a hate crime. If a latino decides he is going to take a baseball bat and go beat white men because he views them as "the man" .....yes, that would qualify as a "hate crime".


And after reading the news article posted which gives more details.....yes this incident would qualify for "hate crime" in California. The reason being is that there is evidence that he was ranting and stating that the attack was committed because his area mall was becoming "too white".

I couldn't agree more. But in these times, ol' whitey is held to different standards. There are certain words he is not allowed to say but they come out of the mouth of Chris Rock or hip hop songs every second of the day...that's ok.

I would like tolearn more about the hate crimes committed against the "white" guys. I certainly hear about the others.

 

[aquapub]

Let me try to state it as simply as possible.

The example that you give does not appear to be a "hate crime". And it has nothing to do with the race/ethnicity of the individuals involved.

Um...his stated reason is that they were right. It has everything to do with their race. :roll:

And I am fully aware of the difference between the legal term "hate crime" and what the rest of us mean when we say it. I was kind of playing on that difference in the title "a hate crime you won't hear about."

But thanks for condescendingly "filling me in." :roll:

 

[aquapub]

You'll see these types of things in aquapub's 'studies'

Translation: I lost the debate against Aquapub in "Crucify the Conservative" so now I am aching to smear Aquapub. :lol:

 

[zymurgy]

That is irrelevant. News stories mention the names of victims AND perpetrators in attacks.

Equally? Hardly. Many times the victim remains annonymous, and not just in rape cases.

Furthermore, it wasn't just victim vs criminal.

With how the web works a story 6 months old will result in far more hits then a story that broke a couple of days ago.

The proof is craptacular.

 

[disneydude]

Oh yes, sorry I forgot to paste thison the intro:

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-liconc0607,0,6044433.story

Aqua:

It seems a little "convenient" that you "forgot" to post the article that clearly states that this is a hate crime, when your original post was all about how we hear so much about "hate crimes" when committed against gays and racial minorities..."

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Newsday had an interesting story about a black racist who randomly attacked a woman and her children by throwing a concrete block through their windshield because they were white.

When the victim is gay, black, or any of the other special ordained groups liberals have authorized to be victims, the Left writes hundreds of articles a week about it, anoints the victim into sainthood, and tries to establish a national holiday in their honor.

When the victim is someone who forces them to rethink their self-serving portrayal of America as an evil place filled with hostile white bigots, the story gets largely ignored.


A Lexis Nexis search of just the name Carl Graves (who attacked the woman and her children) turns up 2 articles. 2 articles in one week.

In the last six months, there have been 83 articles on gay victim Matthew Shepard. That incident happened YEARS AGO, and they are still writing this much about it! See what I mean?

• Carl Graves threw a block through a white woman’s car while she was driving down the road with her children in the car. For this action, he was rightfully charged with a hate crime. I do not want to diminish what happened to them at all, and I am certain that it was very traumatic for her and especially for her children. However, she and her children were thankfully uninjured by the incident. That is why there is little to no news coverage about it. In fact, it would be rather absurd to say the least for CNN to use this story as a headline. Although, in the local news, it is a top story: http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_157113608.html

• Gay high school kids are often the target of vandalism and fights at school. Unless they are seriously injured, it does not make the news either. Black people and their children get called the N-Word and other racist insults by redneck thugs in the south all the time, yet that never really makes the news either.

• Matthew Shepard was robbed, horribly beaten, and tied to a fence and left to die simply because he was gay. However, despite the fact that he was beaten to death simply for being gay, and that it was by any conscionable standard a hate crime, the Republicans in congress, in serving the wishes of “decent” and “conscionable” Republican Activists like yourself, made sure that any attempts to add sexual orientation to the hate crimes law has been defeated.

So now, the same people who were against adding sexual orientation to the list of hate crimes, despite the fact that gays are often the victim of hate crimes, are comparing the horrible death of a man who was beaten to death and left to die simply because he was gay, to a woman getting a brick thrown through her car window by some thug because she was white. If you want to start advocating against hate crimes, then by God do what any decent and moral individual would do and recognize all hate crimes for what they are and not exclude certain groups of people from them simply because you in your self-righteous bigotry don’t like them.

I don’t know, but I would suspect that you like me are a heterosexual white man. If that is the case, then quit with the pansy little “white victim” complex. As white heterosexual men we have little if anything to complain about at all as the world pretty much revolves around us simply because of our gender and the color of our skin. Just for being white men, we get to statistically earn more money than any other race or even white women. Those who represent us in congress, especially if they are Republican, almost always are white men just like us. In fact, the president of the United States, the leader of the free world, has always been a white man just like us. The vast majority of the CEO’s of the companies we work for, for the most part, white men just like us. Statistically, we get better jobs than anyone else. We statistically get a better education than anyone else. We statistically get to live in better neighborhoods than anyone else. We statistically even get better healthcare than most anyone else. Hell compared to minorities and women, we have it made and always have.

 

[disneydude]

• 
  If that is the case, then quit with the pansy little “white victim” complex. As white heterosexual men we have little if anything to complain about at all as the world pretty much revolves around us simply because of our gender and the color of our skin. Just for being white men, we get to statistically earn more money than any other race or even white women. Those who represent us in congress, especially if they are Republican, almost always are white men just like us. In fact, the president of the United States, the leader of the free world, has always been a white man just like us. The vast majority of the CEO’s of the companies we work for, for the most part, white men just like us. Statistically, we get better jobs than anyone else. We statistically get a better education than anyone else. We statistically get to live in better neighborhoods than anyone else. We statistically even get better healthcare than most anyone else. Hell compared to minorities and women, we have it made and always have.

• 
  
  
  :applaud
  
  One of the best and well thought out replies I have ever read on these boards. I wish that I had authored your words because they convey a message that I have never really been able to put to words. Thank you!

 

[scottyz]

We're comparing someone getting beaten to death to someone getting a brick lobbed threw their window?