reply to post by theRhenn
First of all, the article does not specify anyone's race besides the victim. You are assuming that the suspects were black. They may have been, so
lets assume for the sake of argument that they were.
What act did the victim make other than getting off the interstate and hitting a gas station?
The victim did not do anything that excuses the attack. He did not deserve to be attacked.
The white guy had a pink shirt on. The black guy made fun of him for it. The white guy stood firm and voiced his rebuke. The black guy tells
him he's in the wrong neighborhood.
That is one way to interpret the events. Another would be: Someone made fun of the white guy's shirt. The white guy childishly engaged the black guy
in an argument, instead of standing firm and ignoring the ridicule like a grown man should when escorting his family. The black guy pointed out that
they were in his neighborhood, surrounded by his friends, and that the white guy was outnumbered. The white guy ignored this warning. The argument
escalated to a fight. The suspect is not innocent of a crime, but the victim is certainly guilty of stupidity. Stupidity is not a crime but, right or
wrong, it does occasionally lead to hard lessons learned.
"Wrong neighborhood" is an ambiguous term and is not necessarily a reference to the racial demographics. A gang member could use the same phrase
towards a rival gang member who is of the same race.
If a white guy tells a black guy that he's in the wrong neighborhood and beats him for it.. it's a hate crime. It's racialy
No, it is not necessarily racially motivated. If a white drug dealer sees a rival black drug dealer working his turf and warns him with the exact same
"wrong neighborhood" phrase he is not doing it because he is black. He is doing it because he is on his turf. Not every crime involving people of
different races is a hate crime. Race vs race is not the definition of hate crime.
How is that not racist? Did he beat him down for money? No.
Have you ever been in a fight? If so, what was your motivation? Did you steal your opponents money?
Did he beat him down because he was white in a black part of town? Everything said in that report says yes.
Read the article again. It does not make any mention of the racial demographics in the neighborhood. You are assuming that it is mostly black because
it has a high crime rate.
There had to be an M.O.
If M.O. stands for modus operandi
, then there was no M.O. unless the suspect has a habit of
fighting people in gas station parking lots. From the context I think you meant to say "motivation".
I live right in the middle of a 25 block stretch of bars and nightlife. A few thousand people get ripping drunk here almost every night. Living and
working in this neighborhood I have seen fights break out over insults to people's shirts, shoes, hats, jewelry, tattoos, cars, girlfriends, favorite
team, hair style, car stereo music choice, car stereo volume, driving skills, spot in line at the pizza shop, who bought the last round, who pays for
the next round, who gets to drive, who gets to ride shotgun, who is taller, and plenty of other dumb reasons including race. Sometimes it is as simple
as "You wanna fight? YEAH I do!!!" and they go at it. Some of these fights have gotten really nasty. I have seen people get thrown through walls and
windows, stabbings, heads bashed open on concrete, and guns fired for no reason other than they were drunk and feeling violent. There does not have
to be a logical motivation behind violence.
You'll have to give me reason to prove to me that this was not a hate crime based on racism.
The police do not have to prove that a crime did not happen. They have to prove that it did happen. White vs black is not proof of a hate crime. If
the attacker did not mention race, has no history of racially motivated crime, and had other motivation to attack (such as the argument) there is no
proof of a hate crime.
Neither of us were there so neither can state definitively what happened. The police arrived shortly after the incident occurred, interviewed witness,
and determined that there was not evidence of a hate crime. Their record of the events is the most reliable one we have. We can try to fill in the
blanks, such as what events preceded the attack and what motivated the attacker, but the "hate crime" question was not left blank.