If you and the author of the editorial want to pick a poster child for hate crimes against whites - you should really pick somebody with less of a sketchy background than the victim of the attack in Albany. I mean seriously, out of all the possible examples, the author picks a case of a woman who later in the year was caught stealing a school bus and under the influence of meth and other drugs. Her excuse for stealing the bus? "she thought somebody was chasing her". Oh, and when she was beat up outside the club in Albany - her purse was stolen. It was a robbery - something she initially forgot to report - maybe because her purse was full of meth?
Hartford Student Expelled, Faces Hate Crime Charge For Harassing Black Roommate
- Thread starter versitile1
- Start date
- Status
If you and the author of the editorial want to pick a poster child for hate crimes against whites - you should really pick somebody with less of a sketchy background than the victim of the attack in Albany. I mean seriously, out of all the possible examples, the author picks a case of a woman who later in the year was caught stealing a school bus and under the influence of meth and other drugs. Her excuse for stealing the bus? "she thought somebody was chasing her". Oh, and when she was beat up outside the club in Albany - her purse was stolen. It was a robbery - something she initially forgot to report - maybe because her purse was full of meth?
Well, the police, and more importantly, the DA feel there's enough evidence to charge her with a hate crime.
Why do you feel the need to defend her?
Depends on what the motives for the crime are.
The police and DA feel that this is a hate crime. Do you have evidence proving otherwise?
Happened in Hartford, Connecticut. Which is in 'Murica.
From the article
My guess is that this falls under what constitutes a hate crime in 'Murica, which is probably why the article stated as much.
The whole fallacy of dawn's and the author of the Washington Times editorial's view (besides using a sketchy background meth addict as a poster child) is the notion that the current political climate discourages ethnic minorities from being charged with a hate crime. Seriously? We have a (possibly) white supremacist President in office. A man who grasped for excuses before condemning Nazis who were at the protest when an innocent woman was purposely run-over. A President who publicly advocated for Americans (specifically black athletes) to be fired because they dared to exercise their Constitutional rights by participating in a peaceful protest. Millions of Americans (and lots of Canadians) have come out of the shadows to cheer Trump's views. We have the traditional Conservative and alt-right gathering strength and voicing their opinions loudly via the new media. We have a wave of anti-immigration views sweeping nations globally. Ask yourself when the political climate has been BETTER for an ethnic minority to be charged with a hate crime.
Well said, essguy!
This ties into the whole alt right myth about how "libtards" have somehow sneakily taken over all the government institutions and diverted them into giving minorities undue rights at the expense of the white working class.
Speaking of thick skulls, is your memory so addled that you can't remember what you wrote earlier? You fell into a trap set unwittingly by the author of the editorial. You actually used his example to support your typically juvenile retort. The guy failed to do the most basic of research before writing his editorial and you fell for it, hook, line and sinker. The woman in the New Albany case was robbed and then beaten up. Other patrons at the same bar were robbed too - and had already called police when this woman chose to go outside and confront the group who stole her purse. THAT is when she was beaten up. It was not a "Hate Crime" - it was a robbery and assault. NOTHING DO DO WITH THE POLITICAL CLIMATE. This same woman (who cried hate crime) was later caught stealing a bus with meth and other drugs hidden in her body cavities. She claimed that she had to steal the bus because she was being chased. She is not a credible poster child for white victims of hate.
Okay, it's your opinion that a hate crime wasn't committed here. Funny thing is, it's the opinion of the police and the DA that a hate crime did actually occur. At the end of the day, whose opinion really matters here?
Hint, it's not the opinion of the person posting on a pooner board.
Do you think any school aside from Trump University is gonna accept her? Do you think anyone other than Walmart will employ her?
Better she be exposed for what she is early on, rather than graduate and join the workforce to spread more "poison".
The hilarious thing is: dawn literally just made assumptions based upon the hot air of the Washington Times editorial. No proof that it was motivated by race, or influenced by the political climate, yet she's on here insulting as usual, using the flawed New Albany example which she accepted with ZERO PROOF. Yet this case, which has far stronger proof, is rejected. dawn's very inconsistent and not the sharpest arrow in the quiver.
Said the man who recently posted over 100 times in another thread his attempt to "scientifically prove Blacks are genetically inferior to Whites".
#unintentionallyironiconmanylevels
Come down off the soap box and lets talk
NOONE ever said ANYTHING about she did not want a *black* roommate
She was very specific she did not like her roommate but never once mentioned anything remotely racist
As you yourself pointed out it is not the actions, it is the REASONS behind the actions
Or if she gets convicted
Obv news story does not say everything but for now no evidence of hate crime beyond an angry black woman
Okay sure, she personally told you very specifically that her reasons were not racially motivated.
It's a good thing then that the police and the DA think very differently than you do. I think I'll go with them over some pooner board troll, thanks.
So the expelled student posted this on her Instagram account:
“Finally did it,” “After one and half months of spitting in her coconut oil, putting moldy clam dip in her lotions, rubbing used tampons on her backpack, putting her toothbrush places where the son doesn’t shine, I can finally say goodbye to Jamaican Barbie.”
There is a huge difference between the above and if she posted the following instead:
“Finally did it,” “After one and half months of spitting in her coconut oil, putting moldy clam dip in her lotions, rubbing used tampons on her backpack, putting her toothbrush places where the son doesn’t shine, I can finally say goodbye to Barbie.”
For anyone who cannot see the difference between the above two statements, well, you obviously lack any common sense. Due to her own words, she has been expelled from her school and has been charged accordingly. She was not forced to say what she did but it is obvious her actions were motivated not just due to a dislike for her roommate but also because of her ethnicity. Why would we think that? Her comment "Jamaican Barbie".
“Finally did it,” “After one and half months of spitting in her coconut oil, putting moldy clam dip in her lotions, rubbing used tampons on her backpack, putting her toothbrush places where the son doesn’t shine, I can finally say goodbye to Jamaican Barbie.”
There is a huge difference between the above and if she posted the following instead:
“Finally did it,” “After one and half months of spitting in her coconut oil, putting moldy clam dip in her lotions, rubbing used tampons on her backpack, putting her toothbrush places where the son doesn’t shine, I can finally say goodbye to Barbie.”
For anyone who cannot see the difference between the above two statements, well, you obviously lack any common sense. Due to her own words, she has been expelled from her school and has been charged accordingly. She was not forced to say what she did but it is obvious her actions were motivated not just due to a dislike for her roommate but also because of her ethnicity. Why would we think that? Her comment "Jamaican Barbie".
Just to close a loop on the myth that the current political climate prevents minorities from being charged with hate crimes, I thought I'd post a link to the FBI's UCR records on hate crime. The Uniform Crime Reporting statistics are compiled by the FBI who (under the UCR act) receive all arrest reports for reported crimes in America. These are then categorized and released to the public where the stats have many uses (planning, politics, even the investment world digests stats like these into models for businesses which are affected by crime (Eg: American Outdoor Brands (Smith and Wesson) and Sturm Ruger are publicly traded and crime statistics can be used to model longer term demand trends). But I digress...
https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime
The stats are broken down into categories of hate crime. Looking specifically at RACE related - If you look at the 2015 report (the latest available) you will find the following stats:
Under VICTIMS of hate crimes:
52.2% of victims of a reported hate crime victims were black. Who do you think the next "Victim" category was? Hispanic? Arab? Asian? No, it was white victims at a reported 18.7%. The next category was half that for Hispanic victims of hate crimes.
Under OFFENDERS of hate crimes:
48.4% were white. What does that mean? That means that 51.6% of hate crimes were reported and charged against NON-WHITE offenders. (eg: 24.3% of offenders were black).
In other words, it is a total MYTH that hate crimes are only being charged against white offenders or that white victims of hate crimes never get protection of the law. As a side note - these stats are only for police reported hate crimes. The actual conviction for a hate crime is very difficult due to First Amendment Rights for ANY race. So the young racist in this case will likely NOT be convicted of a hate crime, as it's not a crime to post racist words on a website, but WILL be convicted of something else. And you can be as clever as you want - but let's not kid ourselves - this kid was racist as fuck.
Anyway, the author of the editorial in the Washington post, and people like dawnlee need to separate their feelings from fact. Anybody screaming that white victims of hate crimes are being ignored sue to the "political climate" are ignorant, or lying (or both).
https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime
The stats are broken down into categories of hate crime. Looking specifically at RACE related - If you look at the 2015 report (the latest available) you will find the following stats:
Under VICTIMS of hate crimes:
52.2% of victims of a reported hate crime victims were black. Who do you think the next "Victim" category was? Hispanic? Arab? Asian? No, it was white victims at a reported 18.7%. The next category was half that for Hispanic victims of hate crimes.
Under OFFENDERS of hate crimes:
48.4% were white. What does that mean? That means that 51.6% of hate crimes were reported and charged against NON-WHITE offenders. (eg: 24.3% of offenders were black).
In other words, it is a total MYTH that hate crimes are only being charged against white offenders or that white victims of hate crimes never get protection of the law. As a side note - these stats are only for police reported hate crimes. The actual conviction for a hate crime is very difficult due to First Amendment Rights for ANY race. So the young racist in this case will likely NOT be convicted of a hate crime, as it's not a crime to post racist words on a website, but WILL be convicted of something else. And you can be as clever as you want - but let's not kid ourselves - this kid was racist as fuck.
Anyway, the author of the editorial in the Washington post, and people like dawnlee need to separate their feelings from fact. Anybody screaming that white victims of hate crimes are being ignored sue to the "political climate" are ignorant, or lying (or both).
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-God-white-people-populated-America-not-black
Members can draw their own conclusions from your own posts - all 100+ of them.
No. He got the point of the article. He simply stated the obvious flaws in that point.
- Status
