Jump to content

Couple who yelled 'white power' at Black man and his girlfriend arrested


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 150
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This is the real issue. Assault, battery, robbery and murder are illegal. The lesson in hate crime legislation is to always remember to take the wallet so it's only robbery instead of a "hate crime".

how far does the right-wing false news go... you hold onto it, with your least breath, like a moron, and yeah, it is sickening  how far they will go.   The best of the bad lie

Now that I think about it...a Nazi salute is a lot worse than 1,384 people getting shot in 6 months.   As half a Jew...I guess I'd rather be shot than get a Sieg Heil thrown at me. That woul

5 hours ago, drvoke said:

 

Perhaps I am not being clear: This should be a non-event. NOT news. Where is the hate crime? An insult is not a crime. 

 

In my first year in college, I took a class called Criminal Law for Police. The professor explained how language was NEVER a justification for assault. Then he gave an example: "If someone came up to you and said "You filthy N-word." are you justified in striking them?  All of the white kids shook their heads 'no.' The black kids -even though they were just told it wasn't - all shook their heads 'yes'.  My professor laughed to himself.

 

We have gotten to the point now that words are considered hate crimes. 

 

 

 

 

 

Agreed. Speech is not violence. Those two people are certainly hateful idiots. That doesn’t make their speech criminal. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, neue regel said:

 

 

 

Agreed. Speech is not violence. Those two people are certainly hateful idiots. That doesn’t make their speech criminal. 

I would guess how the cops  and prosecutors spin it would make it criminal.  There are a couple of charges  the cops could get if they spin this just right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This barely made the news;  but then ( in the eyes of liberals ), this pales compared to name calling. Were all the tree dwellers involved, given the death penalty. I must check. If not, our judicial system is meaningless.

th?id=OIP.Fud6JpHxrUNq97vls_mwhQHaD4&w=380&h=213&c=3&pid=5.1&rs=1

May 08, 2007 · Channon Christian was tortured for several hours, beaten about the head, and raped; afterwards, bleach was poured over her body and down her throat, then she was covered with several plastic .

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, AnotherJim said:

This barely made the news;  but then ( in the eyes of liberals ), this pales compared to name calling. Were all the tree dwellers involved, given the death penalty. I must check. If not, our judicial system is meaningless.

th?id=OIP.Fud6JpHxrUNq97vls_mwhQHaD4&w=380&h=213&c=3&pid=5.1&rs=1

May 08, 2007 · Channon Christian was tortured for several hours, beaten about the head, and raped; afterwards, bleach was poured over her body and down her throat, then she was covered with several plastic .

 

Shhhhhh .... cant bring up bad things them black folks do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, AnotherJim said:

This barely made the news;  but then ( in the eyes of liberals ), this pales compared to name calling. Were all the tree dwellers involved, given the death penalty. I must check. If not, our judicial system is meaningless.

th?id=OIP.Fud6JpHxrUNq97vls_mwhQHaD4&w=380&h=213&c=3&pid=5.1&rs=1

May 08, 2007 · Channon Christian was tortured for several hours, beaten about the head, and raped; afterwards, bleach was poured over her body and down her throat, then she was covered with several plastic .

He was sentenced to death. It's in your link.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, lucifershammer said:

He was sentenced to death. It's in your link.

So "one" tree dweller was sentenced to death, correct?  ONE   How did the rest avoid the death penalty? They were all involved in the same crime. Our judicial system  has become a fucking joke. They should have been chained to a pole & burned alive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AnotherJim said:

So "one" tree dweller was sentenced to death, correct?  ONE   How did the rest avoid the death penalty? They were all involved in the same crime.

 

Pretty sure you can only actually convict one black person of any given crime per year, or you are racist. Very very racist.

 

Its in the NAASPCA charter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, AnotherJim said:

So "one" tree dweller was sentenced to death, correct?  ONE   How did the rest avoid the death penalty? They were all involved in the same crime. Our judicial system  has become a fucking joke. They should have been chained to a pole & burned alive.

Again from your link

 

In October 2011, the presiding judge at the original trial, Richard Baumgartner, was disbarred by the Tennessee Supreme Court after an investigation revealed he had illegally purchased prescription pain pills from a convicted felon under his supervision, and in December 2011 a special judge ruled that Baumgartner was impaired at the time of the first trial and granted new trials to Lemaricus Davidson, Letalvis Cobbins, George Thomas, and Vanessa Coleman. In May 2012 the Tennessee Supreme Court vacated that ruling and allowed the original convictions to stand: further legal maneuvering eventually resulted in retrials for Thomas and Coleman but not for Cobbins and Davidson

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, lucifershammer said:

Again from your link

 

In October 2011, the presiding judge at the original trial, Richard Baumgartner, was disbarred by the Tennessee Supreme Court after an investigation revealed he had illegally purchased prescription pain pills from a convicted felon under his supervision, and in December 2011 a special judge ruled that Baumgartner was impaired at the time of the first trial and granted new trials to Lemaricus Davidson, Letalvis Cobbins, George Thomas, and Vanessa Coleman. In May 2012 the Tennessee Supreme Court vacated that ruling and allowed the original convictions to stand: further legal maneuvering eventually resulted in retrials for Thomas and Coleman but not for Cobbins and Davidson

 

This is why if you are convicted of murder, you should be executed ... in public ... the following day.

 

Yeah sure maybe some will get wrongly convicted and die, but we can take the bad with the good.

 

Less money wasted supporting criminals, plus less traffic ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, lucifershammer said:

Again from your link

 

In October 2011, the presiding judge at the original trial, Richard Baumgartner, was disbarred by the Tennessee Supreme Court after an investigation revealed he had illegally purchased prescription pain pills from a convicted felon under his supervision, and in December 2011 a special judge ruled that Baumgartner was impaired at the time of the first trial and granted new trials to Lemaricus Davidson, Letalvis Cobbins, George Thomas, and Vanessa Coleman. In May 2012 the Tennessee Supreme Court vacated that ruling and allowed the original convictions to stand: further legal maneuvering eventually resulted in retrials for Thomas and Coleman but not for Cobbins and Davidson

How does impaired eliminate the physical evidence & facts relating to the murders? Why would it have anything to do with the initial charges. Were the victims now, less dead?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pwkbirdie56 said:

This couple more than likely have orgasms together as they read "Mein Kampf"   Wonder what the neo cons would say if same same couple showed Biden signs in front of them and flipped them off.  

 

You have issues with REAL FREEDOM to read whatever you want, think your own thoughts, and have sex with your chosen partner????

 

Really now, you do???

 

Damn, you sound like a NAZI!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, AnotherJim said:

How does impaired eliminate the physical evidence & facts relating to the murders? Why would it have anything to do with the initial charges. Were the victims now, less dead?

I suppose being high on the bench is a no no.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, MidnightMax said:

 

You have issues with REAL FREEDOM to read whatever you want, think your own thoughts, and have sex with your chosen partner????

 

Really now, you do???

 

Damn, you sound like a NAZI!!

 

Did you purchase stock in both the exclamation point and the question mark, or just one of them?

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, lucifershammer said:

Again from your link

 

In October 2011, the presiding judge at the original trial, Richard Baumgartner, was disbarred by the Tennessee Supreme Court after an investigation revealed he had illegally purchased prescription pain pills from a convicted felon under his supervision, and in December 2011 a special judge ruled that Baumgartner was impaired at the time of the first trial and granted new trials to Lemaricus Davidson, Letalvis Cobbins, George Thomas, and Vanessa Coleman. In May 2012 the Tennessee Supreme Court vacated that ruling and allowed the original convictions to stand: further legal maneuvering eventually resulted in retrials for Thomas and Coleman but not for Cobbins and Davidson

Ah Yes, the old legal maneuvering ploy; so the victims "were" less dead. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Link to post
Share on other sites

Political Free Speech -

 

The Constitution of the Untied States

Amendment I (1791)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

Thread/

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Blue Devil said:

Political Free Speech -

 

The Constitution of the Untied States

Amendment I (1791)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

Thread/

Here lies the problem

 

(a) No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall by force or threat of force, willfully injure, intimidate, interfere with, oppress, or threaten any other person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him or her by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States in whole or in part because of one or more of the actual or perceived characteristics of the victim listed in subdivision (a) of Section 422.55 .

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, lucifershammer said:

Here lies the problem

 

(a) No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall by force or threat of force, willfully injure, intimidate, interfere with, oppress, or threaten any other person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him or her by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States in whole or in part because of one or more of the actual or perceived characteristics of the victim listed in subdivision (a) of Section 422.55 .

So when someone says "kill all the cops" it should be a hate crime.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, lucifershammer said:

Here lies the problem

 

(a) No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall by force or threat of force, willfully injure, intimidate, interfere with, oppress, or threaten any other person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him or her by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States in whole or in part because of one or more of the actual or perceived characteristics of the victim listed in subdivision (a) of Section 422.55 .

 

How does voicing a Political Opinion trigger this?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, drvoke said:

 

Perhaps I am not being clear: This should be a non-event. NOT news. Where is the hate crime? An insult is not a crime. 

 

In my first year in college, I took a class called Criminal Law for Police. The professor explained how language was NEVER a justification for assault. Then he gave an example: "If someone came up to you and said "You filthy N-word." are you justified in striking them?  All of the white kids shook their heads 'no.' The black kids -even though they were just told it wasn't - all shook their heads 'yes'.  My professor laughed to himself.

 

We have gotten to the point now that words are considered hate crimes. 

 

 

 

Perhaps, the event wasn't,  " It is real and frighteningly significant"

weird aplenty though........

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...