Regarding “Hate” Crimes

I don’t believe in the concept of “hate crimes.”

There are precious few crimes, especially murders, that are “love criimes.” 

In my opinion, the psychological intent or the mind state of the person committing the murder is already summed up in degrees (first degree, second degree, manslaughter, etc). 

The reasons for premeditation are immaterial. If the person intended with forethought to visit bodily harm resulting in the death of an innocent person for reasons not related to self defense, that perpetrator committed murder. Period. It is immaterial whether the perp is a racist or whether the perp is Mother Teresa. 

To assign an instance of the wanton deprivation of another’s life as more or less severe simply because the perp was a racist or did it out of racial spite is superfluous. Premeditated murder is premeditated murder. 

When society assigns the gravity of premeditated murder as dependent on the mind state of the perpetrator, you are now jumping into the realm of THOUGHT CRIMES. 

Do we really want to go there? 

Unfortunately, there are many on the left who do. 

As the George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin case clearly illustrated, those on the left are more than happy to fall all over themselves in immediately assigning motives of racism and “hate crime” (read: THOUGHT CRIME) status when a fellow-traveller is on the receiving end and a white person (even a ginned-up “White Hispanic” person) is on the giving end. 

When one or more of their own is on the giving end, however, not so much. Rare indeed is the case when black on white violence ends up being prosecuted as a “hate crime.” 

Which leads me to believe that to a critical mass of our population (not at all exclusively black, mind you, but exclusively “progressive” at any rate), the whole concept of “hate crime” is not borne out of a thirst for blind justice; rather, the concept of “hate crime” seems to serve as a tool to exact revenge on those progressives identify as enemies of their ideology at worst, or as tools to advance their sense of ideology and/or personal political agendae at best.

It looks as though the thugs who murdered Delbert Belton will not be charged with a hate crime. 
I’m sure there was nothing but bored love in their hearts as they beat him senseless and took his life.

113 thoughts on “Regarding “Hate” Crimes

  1. neocon01 August 28, 2013 / 7:14 am

    hate crimes are marxism 101, the beginning of thought control by government at the end of a gun.
    The constitution is DEAD, long live the constitution!!

    • j6206 August 28, 2013 / 2:25 pm

      agreed, a crime is a crime the motivation.does not matter.

      • neocon01 August 29, 2013 / 8:07 am


  2. Norma Stitz August 28, 2013 / 11:29 am

    The term “hate crime” and is elevated punishment level was created as a deterrent to specific crimes. A murder of a man during a robbery is horrible and deserves justice, but a murder of a man lynched in front of his family is deemed worse and requires greater justice. Prior to hate-crime laws both murders were valued equally by the law.

    Certainly there are examples of prosecutors seeking hate-crime status where no hate crime existed. George Zimmerman’s example valid. GZ is a wannabe cop who got himself in a situation beyond his abilities but I don’t think many believe he was just out looking to mix it up with a back guy. Her wanted to be a hero regardless of te ethnicity of his “perp.”

    But to say hate crimes don’t exist just because of some abuseof the term by the press and overzealous prosecutors is to deny there are some peope who do beat up gays for being gay or drag black kids from the backs of pickups. Thse crimes are very rare but they do exist, and such crimes do – for the sake of deterrence and justice – deserve stronger punishments than mere assault or murder.

    The shame here is on the abuse of the term “hate crime” by media, activists and prosecutors, not on the laws against hate crimes.

    • dougq August 28, 2013 / 11:44 am

      Or attack Christians because they hate Christians, or assault and rob whites because they are white and not black…..

      I’m all for additional punishment for ‘hate’ crimes, though they should change the name to crimes of prejudice.
      A guy who assaults someone in a bar fight because he didn’t like the guy making an advance on his wife, might get the night in jail and a suspended sentence for his first offence. And likely it’s a one-off incident and he’s not really going to be that much of a problem in the future.

      However, the black man who randomly assaults a white guy because he’s white, or someone who randomly assaults a Jew because he’s against Jews, those are folks that are likely to re-offend and need much more correction. Do you give them just the one night in jail and a suspended sentence?

      Doesn’t make sense to me, it seems that there would be a logical need to attach a longer penalty onto them because their correction needs to be more intense.

      Norma makes good points but from her reading it sounds like it’s only a ‘hate crime’ when perpetrated against the protected class. Yes, it’s being abused by the media and prosecutors, but one of the major hidden abuses is that it is not being used when the crime is committed against a non-minority, or a Christian.

      • Norma Stitz August 28, 2013 / 11:51 am

        I only gave three examples – I went for classic examples of lynching, gay bashing and the dragged-from-a-pickup that happened to both a gay man and a black man – but I set no limit to what constitutes a hate crime.

    • M. Noonan August 28, 2013 / 12:46 pm

      Greater justice? No such thing. There is justice, and there is lack of justice. You either have entirely the one, or entirely the other. In the case of murder, someone is dead who did not deserve to die – if someone killed on purpose without cause, then it doesn’t matter what motivated him…money or sex or ethnic animosity; all entirely irrelevant as to the cold, hard fact that someone died who did not deserve to die. Once you get in to trying to punish the same sort of crime differently for different people, you are walking straight in to injustice.

      • Norma Stitz August 28, 2013 / 12:56 pm

        Justice always works in shades of gray. The difference between manslaughter and murder is motivation.

        “Justice” serves two purposes. It “evens the score” as much as possible for the victimized, and it seeks to deter future acts.

        You are right in that a crime’s motive has little to do with making it up to the victim, but hate crime laws were written for deterrence.

      • neocon01 August 28, 2013 / 1:30 pm

        . The difference between manslaughter and murder is motivation.

        pretty black and white to me troll.

      • Amazona August 28, 2013 / 2:43 pm

        “…hate crime laws were written for deterrence…”

        Yeah, because it is so much more of a deterrent to be put to death for not liking the guy you killed than it would be to be put to death for not giving a flip one way or the other and just blowing him away anyway.

        So what is the other side of the “hate crime” coin? If you kill someone based on your “hatred” of his identity, the punishment should be less than that for a killing that was indifferent to identity? Yeah, THAT makes a lot of sense.

        The crime is what needs to be punished, equally and across the board, not what someone claims someone else was thinking while committing the crime.

      • dougq August 29, 2013 / 2:20 am

        Mark, ” In the case of murder, someone is dead who did not deserve to die – if someone killed on purpose without cause, then it doesn’t matter what motivated him…money or sex or ethnic animosity; all entirely irrelevant as to the cold, hard fact that someone died who did not deserve to die.”

        I think we are conflating hate crimes to murder too much here when it would be more apt to tie ‘hate crimes’ to lesser offenses where the additional penalty might mean something. Mark, address the issue of whether someone who assaults someone, beats him up because he didn’t like what he says (I’m assuming ‘without cause’ is loosely defined as you continued to list possible causes in the mind of the offender) and is his first offense, should be treated differently than someone who beats up a Jew and admits that he hates Jews and wants to kill many of them and will if he gets a chance.

        As for your case of murder, I see then that you are all in favor of the death penalty for 7 year olds who kill an innocent on purpose, and that you are in favor of the death penalty for handicapped who do the same (if you were in favor of the death penalty, otherwise exchange those for ‘life in prison’). At least that is what your argument here states…..that there are no extenuating circumstances that should be considered in the least.

      • M. Noonan August 29, 2013 / 2:38 am

        Actually, I’ve been opposed to the death penalty for a very long time. Might even be close to two decades by now. But, that aside, I don’t care why a man beats up another without cause – whether its because he wants to steal his money or because he’s a Jew is a matter of perfect indifference to me: did he do it? Was it justified? Those are the two questions to ask and the answers will determine the correct course of action.

        Suppose we have ourselves a rank, nasty anti-Semite who can’t go an hour without blaming the Jews for something. Upon a time, we have to send the police to an establishment where this man is and laying on the floor beneath him is a badly battered man of the Jewish faith. While you’re out trying to punish him for being an anti-Semite – which is not illegal, no matter how distasteful – I’m only concerned with “did he beat the Jew?” and “was the beating justified?”. Now, if the anti-Semite is determined to just have hauled off and beaten the Jew without provocation, then that anti-Semite is going to spend some time in jail…but if the Jew decided to go fight the anti-Semite because he (understandably) doesn’t like anti-Semites, then that anti-Semite isn’t going to go to jail, as far as I’m concerned. Don’t care if the anti-Semite was shouting “dirty Jew!” at the top of his lungs while knocking the Jew out…if he didn’t start the fight then he did nothing wrong. Supposing it is the anti-Semite who started the fight, then I see no justice in tacking on a harsher sentence because he was motivated by racism while someone next door gets less time because he beat the bejabbers out of someone for his money.

        As far as “creating a climate of fear”, that must not ever be a crime – we are not protected against being frightened in the general sense, just as we are not protected against being offended (if we are, then I’m ordering most of television cancelled). You live in a world of people and people have a right to believe whatever they want to believe – and pretty much do whatever they want, as long as they don’t directly threaten you.

      • dougq August 29, 2013 / 11:40 am

        Mark, it isn’t just semantics. The issue we are dealing with in today’s world is your part about “if he didn’t start the fight then he did nothing wrong. Supposing it is the anti-Semite who started the fight”…..

        We have teenagers going around beating people because they think those people provoked them because they looked at them wrong. We have Muslims going around killing people because they believe those people’s faith provoked them. You can fill in a whole book with more of these. The point is that the offenders feel justified and provoked, that is why they are doing it. You and I, from our point of view, think they aren’t being provoked, that the offender started the fight.

        The man who beats up someone in a bar to protect his wife’s honor, he didn’t start the fight, yet he gets prosecuted, of course the judge has the leeway (again it’s in our laws) to give him less time, than the man who beats up someone because he wanted a thrill.

        Motivation has to be a key determinant when punishment is doled out, we do it as parents and we have always done it as a society. You and I hate it when a school suspends a student for fighting when all he did was protect someone else from bodily harm. We had a case where a student was suspended for fighting when he fought an adult who entered the campus without permission and attacked another student. Those schools do it because the rule is the rule and they think that motivation is not a determining factor, that the action must be punished the same despite the cause.

        Someone who commits a crime against someone because of a prejudice has to be corrected differently….there is a very easy reason why. They have already slanted their judgement off kilter when dealing with the situation. Just take an anti-Semite. If you put a true anti-Semite in a room with 3 others and told him the person on the left was a Jew, then have him observe the three, he will no doubt report unfavorably on the one he thinks is a Jew, rather than the other two, who in this case could be the Jews.

        It’s a case where the prejudicial person’s judgment is already colored to a point where they would believe there is a provocation where there is not, they are, in truth, more dangerous to others than someone whose judgment is not already colored.

        Being more dangerous to society, we treat them different, just as we do sexual predators who are more dangerous to society, why? Because it makes sense.

      • M. Noonan August 29, 2013 / 11:54 am

        You’re missing the point – you are allowed to be prejudiced. You are allowed to have your own opinions, even if I think them wrong. The only time I can intervene is if your opinions result in an illegal action…but it is only legitimate to punish the action, not the thought which might have led up to it. You can think about robbing a bank all the live long day and I’ve nothing to say about it…its only when you go and rob the bank that I may take a hand (or are so clearly planning it – staking the bank out, learning how to defeat the alarm system, purchasing a disguise, buying a gun to use in the crime, etc – that I can nab you for conspiracy to commit a crime; though you’ll find, usually, that if the authorities are in such a position they’ll still wait until you actually break the law, unless its murder, before making the arrest).

        It is pure and simple injustice if we will send a man to jail for 20 years because he’s an anti-Semite who beat up a Jew and send another man to jail for 10 years because he beat up a Jew in order to rob him.

      • Amazona August 30, 2013 / 8:15 pm

        ” The difference between manslaughter and murder is motivation.”

        Except it isn’t.

        The differences lie intent and premeditation. Your goal is to kill someone and you plan the act, you prepare for it, and you are guilty of murder. This is not “motivation”. (If the intent was not to kill, yet a killing takes place,this would be manslaughter, and it would also not depend on motivation but on intent.)

        Motivation is WHY you plan to kill someone, and it simply does not matter.

        Mark said “It is pure and simple injustice if we will send a man to jail for 20 years because he’s an anti-Semite who beat up a Jew and send another man to jail for 10 years because he beat up a Jew in order to rob him.” and I agree. But to take this a step farther, what about a man who has expressed overt anti-Semitic views in the past, or even made comments he did not personally feel reflected anti-Semitic bias (“He Jewed the guy down on the price” but who never associated the term with a prejudice against Jews and just accepted it as a saying, like saying someone got “gypped” without intending a slur against gypsies). He then mugs a man for his watch and his money, without any consideration of the man’s religion or ethnic background, kills the man in the process, and then it is learned that the man is Jewish. This can be spun as a “hate crime” though the prejudice or perception of prejudice and the act are not really related. But it could lead to a bigger sentence than one given for a similar crime.

        And what if two robbers engage in a mugging, one who has expressed sentiments such as those above and one who has not, and the victim, who is Jewish, dies. Not only is there no evidence that the crime was motivated by prejudice, with the application of “hate crime” one mugger could get a much stiffer sentence than the other, though both participated equally in the crime.

    • Amazona August 28, 2013 / 2:47 pm

      If we are going to be biased because of perception of hatred, then Norma has stepped in it, because her tirade about Zimmerman absolutely reeks of prejudice and hatred. She condemns him for being a “wannabe cop” and announces that he was really trying to be a hero. I guess she is lucky she was never in a position to confront him in any way, because it would clearly fall into the category of “hate crime”.

      • Norma Stitz August 28, 2013 / 4:42 pm

        My point was Zimmerman was not involved in a race-based situation. That he is a wannabe loser is sef-evident.

      • M. Noonan August 29, 2013 / 12:58 am


        Not only not self-evident, but not even evident by stretching things a lot. He’s just a normal man doing what normal men do when their families and friends are under threat.

      • Leo Pusateri August 28, 2013 / 8:43 pm

        So– by virtue that Zimmerman (a Latino, not white, btw) had a bit less melanin in his skin than did Treyvon, it’s automatically a “race-based” situation. Nothing to do whatsoever with the fact that Treyvon was trying to bash Zimmerman’s head into the cement sidewalk.

        Yeah. OK. Right.

        Why is it that progressives focus on the least-relevant aspects of a situation, instead of real issues? Is it that progressives see things, literally, only in black and white terms?

      • neocon01 August 28, 2013 / 8:48 pm


        this was a cherry picked case by the leftist race hustlers to overturn the will of citizens choice to SYG and Castle doctrines we voted into law to protect ourselves against the feral tra vons in our society.

  3. Norma Stitz August 28, 2013 / 11:42 am


    Saying everything is Marxism 101 or “pure Alinsky” or any of the usual responses you give on every topic a) waters down whatever point you might be making [like when Amanda Bynes tweets “your ugly” to every celeb she fights with] and b) demonstrates time and again that you have never read or studied any of those you mention.

    I have racked my brain trying to find a connection between Marx and use of “hate crime” and am blank. It is possible – though a giant stretch – to claim Leninism or Troskyism, but there is nothing in Marxism to latch onto.

    If you are gong with “Marx was for coming up with laws to jail enemies of the revolution,” that was Trotsky. Also that has nothing to do with hate crime laws, which even if it were focused on the enemies of the Left is so narrowcadt as to be useless. The Left (as a political movement) could care less about small potatoes like Zimmerman. A Trotsky Left would seek laws affecting large swaths of the Right, like laws for mandatory union membership (yes, another discussion for another day.

    Rather than popping off “BINGO, Alinsky 101” to everything, how’s about you read a book and post an intelligent reply? It would be a refreshing change I think we’d all appreciate.

  4. neocon01 August 28, 2013 / 1:27 pm

    norma stizita

    how’s about you read a book and post an intelligent reply? It would be a refreshing change I think we’d all appreciate.

    “we’d all” ALL as in the HIVE of loons from the pitchfork?
    so now newbee you speak for others on this blog?,
    why dont YOU read a bit of history on the racist past past of the lynching KKK party and the take over of the same democrat party by marxists.
    and You having a mili ounce of intelligence on anything besides big boobs might be a refreshing change here also.

    Love the weave of racism by still continuing to bleat about a a man who was a police sanctioned, crime watch captain in his OWN GATED community merely observing a drug addled, thief, thug, suspended, MMA style street fighter who committed FELONY BATTERY and was LEGALLY shot by his VICTIM.……..YEAH.. lets IGNORE the rash of REAL BLACK on WHITE **HATE CRIMES** in the name of St.tra von (aka st skittles) plus of course arizona watermelon drink laced with copious amounts of CODINE!! and skittles.

    • Norma Stitz August 28, 2013 / 2:22 pm

      Genius, I wrote that Zimmerman was NOT motivated by racism.

      • Amazona August 28, 2013 / 2:39 pm

        Norma, if your only goal here is to establish that you are here only to snipe, you can consider yourself a success. You either post vague platitudes, just to take up space but not really say anything, or you snarl at people.

        So what’s your point?

      • Norma Stitz August 28, 2013 / 4:43 pm

        I think you about summed it up.

    • Amazona August 30, 2013 / 8:25 pm

      I am always intrigued by the attitude that wanting to be a cop is supposed to be an indictment of a man’s character. Here we had a man whose history was one of wanting to serve his fellow man. He wanted to be a cop, sure, but there has never been a scintilla of evidence, not even testimony, that he did so because he wanted to be in control, or an authority figure. On the contrary, his history is one of helping others, from tutoring a young black man to buying and installing a lock on the door of a neighbor who was burglarized. He offered to help serve and protect in the only way he could, after he failed to pass the tests to become a policeman.

      He was physically weak, and he knew it——he had to, as his martial arts instructor told him so. He “could not throw a punch” and he had no history at all of even wanting to. He was not aggressive, he was not belligerent. He was meek and mild, and he wanted to help people.

      Evidently if you choose to help people on a one to one basis, or volunteer to help protect your neighborhood, this is something to be used against you, as an insult or a sneer—” a wannabe loser” is one comment, which is by the way utterly stupid unless the claim is that he strove to be a loser but just couldn’t make the grade.

      It says a lot about a person if “she” condemns a stranger for wanting to help others.

  5. neocon01 August 28, 2013 / 1:35 pm

    Media Manipulation – Political Correctness and Cultural Marxism Exposed (May Hate Crimes Report)

  6. Norma Stitz August 28, 2013 / 2:30 pm

    Wow, Neocon, you found three blog articles that back your claim. This only further demonstrates you know nothing of Marxism or Alinsky or anything that you didn’t learn from a blog posting.


    • Amazona August 28, 2013 / 2:37 pm


  7. Amazona August 28, 2013 / 2:36 pm

    The way it stands now, if my white brother is in a convenience store and the clerk is black, and someone comes in to rob the store and kills them both, society would deem that the death of the black clerk is more important than that of my brother, because one would be a “hate crime” and one would not. Any testimony that the killer hated blacks would immediately create two different levels of crime, though in reality they would be equal.

    When a bank robbery results in the death of a bank employee or a witness, everyone responsible for the robbery attempt is equally guilty of murder, including the guy outside the bank whose only job was to drive the getaway car. There does not have to be intent to kill someone, and there does not even have to be a hand on the gun that fired the bullet.

    To claim that one death is more significant than another is foolishness. Worse, it is foolishness pandering to special interest groups. Taken to its logical conclusion, pretty much any group, once divided into a named demographic, could qualify as one eligible for “hate crime” status.

    Its relationship to Leftist ideology is quite clear, actually, if you understand Leftist ideology. It is quite dependent on the “Divide and Conquer” strategy, for one thing, so it works for them to be able to claim not just that a killer has shown a depraved lack of regard for human life, etc. but that he is representing one demographic in his hatred of another.

    Another component of Leftist ideology is the Thought Police mentality, in which someone can be found guilty of THINKING the “wrong” thing. Even a cursory perusal of history, focusing on the actual reality of Leftist ideology put into practice, will show the clear relationship of the concept of “hate crimes” to aspects of that ideology.

    It’s just a matter of education and knowledge vs. emoting.

    • dougq August 29, 2013 / 2:11 am

      In your case above, I’m pretty sure that prosecutors wouldn’t charge anyone with a ‘hate crime’. However, as Norma pointed and you seem to agree with her, the media would try to portray the death of the black clerk as a ‘hate crime’ so society might judge that way. Your argument does nothing toward resolving whether or not an actual ‘hate’ crime needs to be penalized more severely. Just as we punish a first degree murder more severely than a second degree murder, or that we punish a date rape differently than a forcible rape at knifepoint, there is good reason to punish people differently if their crime is done from a position that likely would cause them to commit more crimes in the future.

      When my fellow conservatives can come on here and say that a 1st degree and 3rd degree assault, murder, whatever should be punished the same, then I’ll listen.

      However, as of right now, we don’t punish folks on just the end result of the actions, we take into consideration the motives of the offender on all those other crimes. And what is wrong with applying different penalties or corrective actions when their motives are different? Nothing, that is why we currently do it, and NORMALLY, conservatives don’t complain about it…….I guess until now.

      • Amazona August 30, 2013 / 8:39 pm

        “However, as of right now, we don’t punish folks on just the end result of the actions, we take into consideration the motives of the offender on all those other crimes.”

        No, we don’t. As a matter of fact, motive is not even a necessary component of prosecution. I don’t know where you guys get this stuff. Is it because you don’t know the difference between “motive” and “intent”? Is it because you watch too many TV cop shows and get tangled up in the story where the investigators look for who has the motive to commit a crime when they are trying to sort out the most likely suspects?

        Motive may be a valuable tool for investigation, but when it comes to prosecution it is used to support the evidence that a person committed the crime, not to define the nature of the crime. A prosecutor may say “Sally killed her husband because she wanted his insurance payout” but not when it comes to filing the charge,and determining guilt or lack of guilt (because no one is “found innocent”).” Motive may be brought in during the sentencing phase but even then it is to show a lack or remorse, or a callous disregard for human life. There is no difference between “She plotted to kill him because she wanted to collect his insurance ” and “She plotted to kill him because he had an affair” and “She plotted to kill him because she wanted his job” and these should not be different than if it was “She plotted to kill him because she didn’t like Hispanic men”.

        The determining factors would be
        (1) She plotted to kill him
        (2) She did kill him
        (3) Whatever her motive was it proves that she was callous and indifferent to the value of a human life.

        It’s fascinating to see how easily people can become so confused.

  8. Norma Stitz August 28, 2013 / 2:38 pm

    Also, “media manipulation” isn’t a Marxist thing. Politics have been run by manipulation of and by the media of the times.

    Revolutionary-era newspapers trashed Jefferson’s and Adams’ reputations in brutal ways. Caesar ran roughshod over the Senate by lauding gifts on the people and creating stories among the populace. The book “The Prince” was all about controlling public knowledge and opinion.

    Yelling “Marxism” every time media manipulation happens is as dumb as yelling “Bingo” every post

    • neocon01 August 28, 2013 / 2:45 pm

      are you the NEW blog monitor, newbie?
      you cant refute, so you attack the messenger….it didnt take long for the real troll to appear from under the bridge did it?
      Though I believe a few of us smelled it (you) a while back…. BINGO!!

      • Norma Stitz August 28, 2013 / 4:28 pm

        Um, it is you that have yet to refute anything.

        Oh, I get it. You think those three blog posts supported your point. You want me to refute that.

        Hmmm, I bet I could find three blog posts that state the Sun circles us, would that do? They would be as pertinent as your posts.

        Love you, Bingo. Can’t wait for your next post.

  9. neocon01 August 28, 2013 / 2:42 pm

    is plagiarism, adultery and fraud perpetrated upon an entire country a hate crime?

    The Truth About Martin Luther King, Jr.-Truth! & Fiction!
    bullet Summary of the eRumor
    A collection of alleged facts about Martin Luther King that are critical of the Civil Rights leader.

    bullet The Truth
    Let’s take them one at a time:
    bullet His name wasn’t Martin Luther King-Confusing!
    According to all accounts, the name on Martin Luther King’s birth certificate is Michael and there is no evidence that he changed it.
    He didn’t pick the name Martin Luther out of the air, however.
    It was the name his father used and claimed to have given to his son.
    According to, Martin Luther King, Sr. said that his son’s given name was Martin Luther but that the doctor who delivered him put “Michael” on the birth certificate, something he didn’t know until much later.
    Until adulthood, Martin Luther King, Jr. was known as “M.L.” or “Michael.”
    bullet Martin Luther King plagiarized in college-Truth!
    The staff at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Papers Project discovered a lot of plagiarism in Martin Luther King’s writings and in a 1991 article in THE JOURNAL OF AMERICAN HISTORY said that “plagiarism was a general pattern evident in nearly all of his academic writings” including his doctoral dissertation.
    bullet Martin Luther King plagiarized his famous “I Have a Dream” speech-Disputed!
    Critics have charged that King plagiarized that too by borrowing from a speech given to the Republican convention in 1952 by an African-American preacher named Archibald Carey, Jr.
    Some of them say he gave Cary’s speech word-for-word.
    It can probably be said that King borrowed from the idea of the speech by Carey (who was a friend of King’s), but only the last couple of paragraph’s resembled Carey’s speech and little of it is word-for-word.
    Both men spun their remarks off the words of the song “My Country ‘Tis of Thee.”

    King’s speech ended with:
    This will be the day when all of God’s children will be able to sing with a new meaning, “My country, ’tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim’s pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring.” And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania! Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado! Let freedom ring from the curvaceous peaks of California! But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia! Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee! Let freedom ring from every hill and every molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

    When we let freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, “Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”

    Carey’s speech ended with:
    We, Negro Americans, sing with all loyal Americans: My country ’tis of thee, Sweet land of liberty, Of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, Land of the Pilgrims’ pride From every mountainside Let freedom ring!
    That’s exactly what we mean–from every mountain side, let freedom ring. Not only from the Green Mountains and White Mountains of Vermont and New Hampshire; not only from the Catskills of New York; but from the Ozarks in Arkansas, from the Stone Mountain
    in Georgia, from the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia–let it ring not only for the minorities of the United States, but for the disinherited of all the earth–may the Republican Party, under God, from every mountainside,
    bullet King was under surveillance because of his ties to communist organizations-Truth!
    David Garrow, the author of “Bearing the Cross,” a book about Martin Luther King, says that King’s criticism of the Kennedy administration drew administration scrutiny.
    There was suspicion that two of his associates, including Stanley Levinson, had disassociated from the Communist party as a cover to work with and influence King.
    Despite extensive surveillance, the FBI was never able to find any direct funding or other links between King and the Communist party.
    bullet King had an obsession with white prostitutes and used church funds for drunken parties-Denied!
    One of King’s closest associates addressed rumors about King’s sexual activities in his 1989 book, “And the Walls Came Tumbling Down.”
    He said that King did have a weakness for women and engaged in extramarital affairs.
    He denied reports that he was attracted to white women and said he never knew of King to be involved with a white woman.
    As a part of its surveillance activities, the FBI did document some sexual encounters involving Martin Luther King.
    We’ve not found any substantiation about prostitues, sex parties or church funds being used for such.Last updated 1/3/04

    • Norma Stitz August 28, 2013 / 4:30 pm

      Thank goodness SOMEone is blowing the lid off how horrible MLK was. Next, let’s hear how Gandhi was a louse.

      Good work, Bingo!

  10. jake goldblum (@Jakegoldblum) August 28, 2013 / 3:04 pm

    hate crimes are enhancements to the crime. Most murders are not charged with a hate crime status because it is already the full extent that they can be charged. Here is some info about hate crimes below from the ADL. Also what are you complaining about. George Zimmerman was never charged with a hate crime. The prosecution never charged him with that so that is irrelevant.

    Sometimes especially serious offenses like murder or attempted murder that are motivated by bias are not charged as hate crimes. Why not?

    In many states, the hate crime charge only applies to certain offenses such as assault, battery, and criminal damage to property. The purpose of the sentence-enhancing feature is to attach more serious penalties to bias-motivated crimes in an effort to demonstrate the seriousness with which we, as a society, address hate violence. Higher-level felonies already have serious consequences regardless of the offender’s motivation. A murder based on the victim’s race, for example, while certainly a hate crime, would likely not be charged as a hate crime under a penalty-enhancement statute. The criminal penalties for murder are already the most severe, so it would not make sense from a prosecutor’s perspective to also charge the perpetrator with lesser included penalties. However, this crime should still be classified and reported as a hate crime for HCSA purposes.

    • neocon01 August 28, 2013 / 3:16 pm


      a crime is a crime is a crime,
      tra von martins FELONY BATTERY upon GZ ***could*** be considered the gold standard for a HATE CRIME,
      just the drug addled Ebonics speaking, racist thug never was told not to bring fists and concrete to a gun fight. sucks to be him, but not his MILLION DOLLAH make you hollah AWOL “parents”

  11. neocon01 August 28, 2013 / 3:25 pm

    My My…if only (really big) norma stazita actually read….

    “Hate crimes legislation has its roots in the communist-inspired, so-called Frankfurt School founded in Frankfurt, Germany by Bolsheviks in the 1920s. Its goal was to implement communism in the West quietly by gradually subverting popular culture — a movement known as Cultural Marxism. One of its leading lights, Herbert Marcuse, opined that the prevailing Western social order is repressive by definition and discriminates against minorities simply by existing.

    This creates a phenomenon he called “repressive tolerance” because even though other views are allowed within Western culture — you know, by that insignificant little old thing called the First Amendment — the Capitalist view is still permitted. It goes without saying that Marcuse considered that to be unacceptable.

    Instead, he proposed what he called “partisan tolerance,” i.e. tolerating the views of those “repressed minorities” only — who Marcuse assumes share his partisan hatred for everything noncommunist — while actively muzzling the views of the majority.

    So now we have a word for Democrats’ eye-popping hypocrisy when they wrap themselves in the mantle of free speech while simultaneously attempting to suppress non-Leftist ideas. We have a word for the Left’s double standard in championing “repressed minorities” only when those minorities share their politics, while savaging principled, accomplished minorities like Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell or Janice Rogers Brown. We have an explanation for why so many college campuses, supposedly the society’s heart of open-minded intellectual inquiry, actively, even violently intimidate conservative speakers — when they let them onto campus at all.

    They have been practicing “partisan tolerance.” That is, tolerance of the extreme Left and virulent intolerance of anything else.

    Marcuse, among other Frankfurt School advocates, was brought to the U.S. in the 1930s by Edward R. Murrow who at the time headed a program to resettle intellectuals facing Nazi repression. According to Wikipedia, Marcuse worked at the OSS, the State Department and taught at Columbia, Harvard and Brandeis. Now doesn’t that tell you something? He has been called the “Father of the New Left” and inspired many of the 1960s’ young radicals, who now have tenured teaching positions at colleges throughout the U.S. It is easy to see his Frankfurt School influence in university speech codes – indeed it is largely the reason they exist.

    In fact the New School, currently run by former Democratic Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, counts the Frankfurt School as one of its main influences. Barack Obama has an indirect connection to the school, in that his father was offered a scholarship there.

    • Norma Stitz August 28, 2013 / 4:37 pm


      So I guess the anti-pogrom laws of 18th Century Poland weren’t hate law legislation? I think they came before 1920’s Germany.

      See? That is a refutation, son.

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) August 28, 2013 / 5:45 pm

        I’d be interested in hearing more about these anti-pogrom laws in Poland, since Poland was barely a country in the 18 century, laws concerning Jews were mostly restrictive regarding ownership, taxation and vocation restrictions,

        Pogrom being a Russian and not a Polish word.

        Pogroms were carried out from 1881 to 1921 and there were no pogroms in Poland or Lithuania.

        So, please direct me to these Anti-Pogrom laws from the 1700s. There weren’t many laws passed during this time period so it should be easy to find.

        Thanks, and mozel tov.

      • neocon01 August 28, 2013 / 6:02 pm

        See? That is a refutation, son. troll

      • Norma Stitz August 28, 2013 / 8:14 pm

        Moderation has determined that you do not come here to discuss only to attack and disrupt.

      • percybeezer August 28, 2013 / 9:43 pm

        Now you’re simply making things up to support an unsupportable statement from before. There were no “anti-pogrom laws” in Poland, during Tsarist times or any other time. I’ve already stated that 18th Century Laws regarding Jews were all restrictive. Jews “flocked” to Poland because Bolaslaw V gave them limited civil rights 50 years after the Magna Carta was signed in England. 500 years before your mythical anti-pogrom laws.

        If you don’t know something, don’t compound it with another lie.

    • goldjake1196 August 28, 2013 / 3:36 pm

      let me reword that

      ok besides it being a communist act or whatever what is your objection to hate crime prosecution? It is incredibly hard to prove or convict someone on a hate crime, and it deters other crimes of it’s nature? Everything LEO wrote above was unfounded bs when he stated GZ was prosecuted on a hate crime which he clearly was not

  12. goldjake1196 August 28, 2013 / 4:02 pm

    Also everyone’s death is always measured when it comes to crime regardless if it is a hate crime or not. We have different degrees of murder which i am pretty sure was brought over from the British. So you think there shouldn’t be different degrees of murder or anyone who kills anyone accidentally should be put to death or just thrown in jail for the same amount of time? Your logic doesn’t play out. Also hate crimes are rarely prosecuted when it comes to murder and i don’t even want to go into the death penalty which targets minorities a lot more than whites.

    • neocon01 August 28, 2013 / 4:09 pm

      which targets CONVICTS minorities a lot more than whites.
      Gee goldy couldnt be they commit more crimes per capita could it?

  13. neocon01 August 28, 2013 / 4:07 pm


    you mean PERSECUTED for self defense? That in it’s self is a hate crime brought on by howling Chi cago thugs and rent a mobs…cant get any worse than a political lynching which is a real hate crime not someone uttering a word before a kick in the pants.

  14. goldjake1196 August 28, 2013 / 4:26 pm

    what the hell are you talking about below? What are you referencing and how is it relevant to this discussion?

    you mean PERSECUTED for self defense? That in it’s self is a hate crime brought on by howling Chi cago thugs and rent a mobs…cant get any worse than a political lynching which is a real hate crime not someone uttering a word before a kick in the pants.

    We are talking statistics and percentages, not number of people sentenced to death. We always put degrees on crime which is the point

    • neocon01 August 28, 2013 / 4:38 pm

      No, we are speaking that so called HATE CRIMES that are right out of marxism and the government gets to determine what is a “hate crime” and who commits one based purely on their (governments) perception.
      No where in 200 plus years of juris prudence, or the constitution have we had punishments based on thoughts laid our by the government until the American lefts march to communism.

      • Norma Stitz August 28, 2013 / 4:47 pm

        So why is motive a key requirement in convicting on murder one?

      • Norma Stitz August 28, 2013 / 4:48 pm

        Motive has been required for a conviction for ALL 200 years you so boldly and uneducatedly speak.

      • neocon01 August 28, 2013 / 4:49 pm

        s you so boldly and uneducatedly speak.

        ESAD troll

      • Norma Stitz August 28, 2013 / 4:53 pm

        Guess you showed me, Bingo

      • Norma Stitz August 28, 2013 / 4:55 pm

        btw, does ESAD constitute a threat against another poster?

        Just kidding, I know Bingo constitutes no threat. Guess I can stop eating all the S, then….

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) August 28, 2013 / 5:48 pm

        “Motive has been required for a conviction for ALL 200 years”
        That’s not even close to being true. maybe on TV law but not in the Courtroom.

      • Amazona August 30, 2013 / 2:46 pm

        “Norma” you make this way too easy.

        “So why is motive a key requirement in convicting on murder one?”

        It isn’t.

        The intent to kill, with forethought, is the key requirement to convict for first degree murder. Intent is not motive.

        Intent is the desire to kill.

        Motive is the reason.

        So once the intent has been proved, with forethought (as opposed to a spontaneous and unplanned act) the reason is irrelevant. Because he stole my bike, because he won’t give me a divorce, because his mom dresses him funny, because he has a job I want, because……… But the point is, “because” doesn’t matter.

        Unless we let the Thought Police in, and then they set up their chart of Protected Classes, and then they determine that the “because” was due not to greed or lust or general malice but to an unacceptable ATTITUDE toward someone in one of those Protected Classes.

        Not only is this inherently susceptible to abuse, it is inherently flawed because it moves really important decisions out of the realm of objective analysis of fact into the wholly subjective area of speculation, governed by perception, which is in turn governed to a great extent by emotion and bias.

      • Amazona August 30, 2013 / 2:50 pm

        “Norma” you offer to “..quit eating all the S…” The logical question then is, will your posts become less S__tty?

        After all if the rule is GIGO, wouldn’t it also be SISO? Or am I just extrapolating from what you post?

    • neocon01 August 28, 2013 / 4:43 pm

      degrees on the crime it’s self, not on perceived (interpenetrated) thought. Glad you like the move to government tolatarism, I dont but im not surprised.

      • Norma Stitz August 28, 2013 / 4:49 pm

        Tomato tomahto, I guess I just loves me some totalitarianism.

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) August 28, 2013 / 6:23 pm

        State of Mind or intent (mens rea) are required element; not motive or anything to do with prejudice or attitude.

        The Law is only concerned that the accused has the mental capacity and (in some cases) the intent.

        Although intent isn’t always a requirement; think of “voluntary” criminal acts.

      • neocon01 August 28, 2013 / 6:33 pm

        “Motive is usually used in connection with Criminal Law to explain why a person acted or refused to act in a certain way—for example, to support the prosecution’s assertion that the accused committed the crime. If a person accused of murder was the beneficiary of a life insurance policy on the deceased, the prosecution might argue that greed was the motive for the killing.

        Proof of motive is not required in a criminal prosecution. In determining the guilt of a criminal defendant, courts are generally not concerned with why the defendant committed the alleged crime, but whether the defendant committed the crime
        . However, a defendant’s motive is important in other stages of a criminal case, such as police investigation and sentencing. Law enforcement personnel often consider potential motives in detecting perpetrators. Judges may consider the motives of a convicted defendant at sentencing and either increase a sentence based on avaricious motives or decrease the sentence if the defendant’s motives were honorable—for example, if the accused acted in defense of a family member.

        In criminal law, motive is distinct from intent. Criminal intent refers to the mental state of mind possessed by a defendant in committing a crime.
        With few exceptions the prosecution in a criminal case must prove that the defendant intended to commit the illegal act. The prosecution need not prove the defendant’s motive. Nevertheless, prosecutors and defense attorneys alike may make an issue of motive in connection with the case.

        For example, if a defendant denies commission of the crime, he may produce evidence showing that he had no motive to commit the crime and argue that the lack of motive supports the proposition that he did not commit the crime. By the same token, the prosecution may produce evidence that the defendant did have the motive to commit the crime and argue that the motive supports the proposition that the defendant committed the crime. Proof of motive, without more evidence tying a defendant to the alleged crime, is insufficient to support a conviction.

        A Hate Crime is one crime that requires proof of a certain motive. Generally, a hate crime is motivated by the defendant’s belief regarding a protected status of the victim, such as the victim’s religion, sex, disability, customs, or national origin.
        In states that prosecute hate crimes, the prosecution must prove that the defendant was motivated by animosity ******toward a protected status******* of the victim. Hate-crime laws are exceptions to the general rule that proof of motive is not required in a criminal prosecution”.

      • neocon01 August 28, 2013 / 6:36 pm

        State of Mind or intent (mens rea) are required element;

      • neocon01 August 28, 2013 / 6:43 pm


        Love them together…

  15. Amazona August 28, 2013 / 5:03 pm

    I see that once the Usual Suspects were banned the Loony Left brought in the B team. “Moan and GROWN…?” You are too funny.

    What stands out with the second tier sniping is the same thing we always see from the Left—no substance, just reactionary snarling at whatever a conservative says. Poor old CO can’t even do that, but has to invent my side of a conversation so he can whine about what he thinks I might have said. But content? Not so much. Ideas? You gotta be kidding. Nope—it’s blind ignorant hate-driven emotion, all the time. These poor saps are so miserable they have nothing better to do, or so they want us to believe, than to slink around the Internet looking for conservatives to attack.

    That might fly—actually, given the personality of these people it is even pretty believable—except for the “coincidence” that when some are kicked off they are so suddenly replaced.

    But we have seen the quality of the blog skyrocket once the old trolls got packed off to find a new bridge (which Cluster obligingly built for them) and I am sure we will soon dispatch these second-stringers to the same place in the same fever swamp of hateful emoting.

    • neocon01 August 28, 2013 / 5:18 pm

      the funny thing, the very FIRST day ms boobiekins showed up here they (at the loony farm) were hi fiveing and drooling with baited anticipation for the undercover troll to show us up here on BFV….gee caught us by surprise eh? really didnt see that one…ROTFLMAO!!
      MM must have dug real deep to bring goldie debloom back on to the payroll….LOL

      • Amazona August 28, 2013 / 5:50 pm

        Some day they might find, or train, someone who can pull off what Norma tried, so clumsily, to accomplish—-“oooooh, I just LOOOOOVED George Bush, voted for him doncha know, but it was just his reaction to news of the attack that bothered me !!!” Yeah, right

        They are so predictable. And so ineffective.

        To win an argument, you have to MAKE an argument. You have to state your case and defend it. But what passes for discourse on the Left is to hang out till one of their betters says something, then scurry in like roaches to attack it. So they are always bickering yet never making a point.

        They are only comfortable with something emotion-based, some area where they can shrilly emote (what “Norma” calls “shrilling”—when I read that I just GROWNED !!! 🙂 Which reminds me—which troll was it who commented on “turret syndrome”? They might not good for much, but they can be entertaining. ) But we have noticed, and commented on, the fact that when it comes to articulating their preferred governmental model, explaining it and defending it, they are conspicuously absent. (They don’t even vote “present”.)

    • ricorun August 28, 2013 / 7:07 pm

      Amazona: I see that once the Usual Suspects were banned the Loony Left brought in the B team.

      I thought the intent was to ban the trolls, not the A team. If the A team is gone, what’s the point in posting here?

      • neocon01 August 28, 2013 / 7:16 pm

        slow day at the anti BFV toilet where liars, losers, and trolls pat each other on the butts?
        you seem to seamlessly fit in there, did drop by to put in your $.02 or help your fellow travelers out of an embarrassing B slap?
        seems the flying monkey spotlight shines brightly in the crystal city night.

      • ricorun August 28, 2013 / 7:24 pm

        Anyway, let me give it a try and see what happens…

        I thought Norma defended herself rather well. I don’t agree with her, but she presented a cogent argument. Neo, not so much. But that’s Neo. The fact is, I don’t agree with Norma. My opinion is that there’s enough slop in both the criminal code and sentencing procedures to make any more slop superfluous.

        And there’s certainly no need to attribute to her, merely by association, every grammatical error ever put forth by whomever is not in favor by the powers that be here. If that were the case, Neocon would go home every night with purple knuckles. Lol!

      • ricorun August 28, 2013 / 7:32 pm

        Neo: slow day at the anti BFV toilet where liars, losers, and trolls pat each other on the butts?

        Is it now another requirement of B4V that one only comments on B4V? If so, then even the “inner circle” has problems.

      • neocon01 August 28, 2013 / 7:35 pm

        gee reek0 didnt see THAT coming……
        I thought Norma defended herself rather well. I don’t agree with her, but she presented a cogent argument. Neo, not so much.

        lies, circular deflective sidebars and pure BS is defending one’s self with a cognitive argument?
        sorry she got ripped to shreds, and exposed for the forker shrill troll she really is.

      • neocon01 August 28, 2013 / 7:39 pm

        Neocon would go home every night with purple knuckles. Lol!
        yeah….IF only I could be more like the losers like liver boy, KFC, and the rest of the echo chamber. LOL

      • neocon01 August 28, 2013 / 7:53 pm

        Is it now another requirement of B4V that one only comments on B4V? If so, then even the “inner circle” has problems.

        NO, you go over there slam Mark, Ama, and others who post here in a circle jerk frenzy of bilge and hatred, you are all obsessed with this site and those of us who post here and cant get over it.
        Then you come here and baby face with your BS drivel im only here to discuss….. your words elsewhere make you a liar and part and party to their raw hatred.

      • Norma Stitz August 28, 2013 / 8:20 pm

        Moderation has determined that you do not come here to discuss only to attack and disrupt.

      • ricorun August 28, 2013 / 11:15 pm

        Neo: NO, you go over there slam Mark, Ama, and others who post here in a circle jerk frenzy of bilge and hatred.

        Show me where I’ve done anything close to that “over there”. That said, please tell me… what IS the point in posting here anymore? You talk about a circle jerk frenzy of bilge and hatred. Look at the last few threads on this site. Then look at a few more (what’s left of them anyway). Is it really just a big misunderstanding?

      • neocon01 August 29, 2013 / 8:15 am

        nerma ztazita aka forker…..nice try….but no c-gar see your murderous hero who killed women and children with snipers, tanks, automatic weapons and incendiary devices bill klinton, and monica for the c gar.

        are you seriously comparing the two?
        show us the C word used here against anyone
        show us the defamation of others personally here
        show us threats of beating someone with baseball bats here
        show us people personally ripping by name, or monicer someone who posts on another site here
        show us where dailt another site owner is mocked and ridiculed by name here.

        in other words reek0 you are full of crap…

  16. neocon01 August 28, 2013 / 6:07 pm

    (They don’t even vote “present”.)
    they are on Vacaaaaaation……WAY past present….just like during the massacre at Benghazi.
    Oh wait, that was dereliction of duty and AWOL.

  17. goldjake1196 August 28, 2013 / 7:39 pm

    I am not a troll but amazona your only argument is to have a superiority complex that you are better than everyone else. You really dont answer questions nor make a really sound argument.

    Neocon i see your point on hate crimes but it is as much of a deterrent as capital punishment. Also it has more societal effects. Also the conservatives, Chief Justice William Rehnquist in the supreme court wrote on hate crime laws that

    The Court further stated that, Wisconsin was within its rights to offer sentence enhancement in bias-motivated crime because it had a compelling interest in preventing the negative secondary effects of such crimes. Among these secondary effects mentioned were the increased likelihood of a bias-motivated crime to provoke retaliation, to inflict greater emotional distress on the victim, and to incite community unrest. The Court explained that, these secondary effects were more than adequate reason for such a sentencing enhancement, especially if, as stated above, the law was not explicitly targeting beliefs or statements.

    • neocon01 August 28, 2013 / 7:40 pm

      goldjake1196 August 28, 2013 at 7:39 pm

      I am not a troll

      (jimmy Durante voice) STOP da MUSIC!!

    • neocon01 August 28, 2013 / 7:47 pm

      H C are unevenly distributed, it is up to the police discretion whether to charge it, so it becomes objective of politicians, police, prosecutors and lawyers…. a very bad and dangerous mix.
      Day after day we see a small fight and whites are charged with hate crimes against blacks, daily we see HUGE GLARING crimes by blacks against whites and almost NEVER are HC charges used against blacks…my friend THAT is not justice that is fascism.

      • neocon01 August 28, 2013 / 7:57 pm

        Generally, a hate crime is motivated by the defendant’s belief regarding a protected status of the victim, such as the victim’s religion, sex, disability, customs, or national origin.

        EXTREMELY SUBJECTIVE……..and protected status????? WHERE is THAT in the Constitution?? or bill of rights?

      • dougq August 29, 2013 / 2:03 am

        neocon01…”EXTREMELY SUBJECTIVE……..and protected status????? WHERE is THAT in the Constitution?? or bill of rights?”

        The same exact place where murder, driving under the influence, forcible rape, terrorism, and kidnapping are.

      • Amazona August 30, 2013 / 2:34 pm

        Oh, doug, you really should have thought that through before you posted it.

        Are you arguing that drunken drivers, rapists, terrorists and kidnapers are groups with protected status?

        Take a minute, take a breath, and take a look at the Constitution.

        It mandates equal treatment under the law. That means, just to help you out a little, that men have the same legal obligations as women, that it is murder no matter what the race of the victim, etc.

        OK—got that so far?

        Now, each state gets to make its own laws, and fortunately for us each state has legislated laws against drunken driving, forcible rape, the kinds of damage done by terrorists, and kidnapers. There are also some crimes that are deemed federal crimes, usually on the basis of national security, interstate involvement, etc.

    • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) August 28, 2013 / 8:01 pm

      The Court ruled that Wisconsin’s “Hate Crime” punishment(Wisconsin v. Mitchell) didn’t violate the first Amendment; by unanimous decision the ruling was predicated on the “abstract view on race was not being punished, instead it was another factor in weighing the defendant’s state of mind and intenionality”. The focus was on the criminal harm resulting from animus directed toward another.

  18. goldjake1196 August 28, 2013 / 8:09 pm

    You are making assumptions without facts. However, the reason the two blacks who were bored are not getting hate crime status is because they are being charged with 1st degree murder and life in jail without parole and maybe the death penalty which has not been ruled out. The guys who beat the soldier is not being charged with hate crime because he too is going to get the same punishment. It is stupid outrage at people who do not know the law because these are not hate crime cases. They already have them on first degree and the dp. It might hurt their case if they went with a hate crime. The reason zimmerman had so much outrage is because it took 45 days or longer to charge him with murder and the stand your ground law that seems ridiculous. These people were thrown in jail right away without questions which they should have been. More blacks are in jail for non-violent crimes such as drugs and there are more blacks in jail than are in universities. I am not fighting the merit of it or whatever but blacks can probably make the case pretty well that they are targeted more than whites. They might deserve it or they may not that is not the point. To point to one law because it might target whites more than blacks and say the law is for minorities is not a fair thing to say but whatever. IN RETROSPECT IT PROTECTS RELIGION, WOMAN, MINORITIES AND WHATEVER AGAINST BLACK PANTHERS, NEONAZIS AND CRAZY PEOPLE

    • neocon01 August 28, 2013 / 8:21 pm


      The reason zimmerman had so much outrage is because it took 45 days or longer to charge him with murder and the stand your ground law that seems ridiculous.

      wellllllll, the police, prosecutor found NO reason to charge GZ for a crime, because the only person to commit a crime that night was tra von and it didnt end as expected for him.
      ENTER the racist rabble rower dup of je$$ah and microphone Al, bolstered by the black panthers and rent a mob’s and bingo…(lol) we have a state governor over ride the police, prosecutor, name a “special prosecutor” HACK who violated state law by passing the grand jury system and personally filing charges……the rest is history they got double B slapped by the jury.

      jakey STAND YOUR GROUND had NO, NONE, ZIP, NADA, ZILCH, ZERO, nothing to do with the self defense case.

      • neocon01 August 28, 2013 / 8:27 pm

        PS jake
        battery becomes FORCIBLE FELONY BATTERY when one combatant is no longer engaged in the fight. In the state of Fla a FORCIBLE FELONY in progress can be stopped by deadly force and WAS.
        The neighbor who came out could have shot tra von and been in the right…… capice?

    • neocon01 August 28, 2013 / 8:42 pm

      Homicide in Black and White
      Brendan OíFlaherty
      January 15, 2010

      African-Americans are six times as likely as white Americans to die at the hands of a mur-
      derer, and roughly seven times as likely to murder someone. Young black men are fifteen times
      as likely to be murdered as young white men. This disparity is historic and pervasive, and cannot
      be accounted for by individual characteristics. Culture-of-violence and tail-of-the-distribution
      theories are also inadequate to explain the geographic and demographic pattern of the disparity.
      We argue that any satisfactory explanation must take into account the fact that murder can have

    • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) August 28, 2013 / 9:52 pm

      ” is because they are being charged with 1st degree murder and life in jail without parole and maybe the death penalty which has not been ruled out.”

      Are you serious?

      Crimes are charged based on the elements of the crime, not based on any perceived application of punishment.

      Man, that was a pathetic defense of a stupid statement.

  19. neocon01 August 28, 2013 / 8:14 pm

    the two blacks who were bored

Comments are closed.