Baton Rouge winks at racially motivated hate crime

Originally posted by Snsoc
When people riot, it isn't because of one incident, it's because of repressed rage from a long history of abuses. To suggest that a racial group would or should riot because of a single incident fairly smacks of race-baiting.

The Rodney King riots come to mind.

Originally posted by Snsoc
Bottom line is-suck it up. Until whites are made slaves for 300 years, no one is going to feel sorry for us.

There have been alot of white slaves throughout history. Just not recent history (unless you want to count the hundreds of western European women who get sold for sex slaves yearly.) The race card can not be played by white people, even though the same rules apply to both blacks and whites. If the colors of the people were reversed I'm sure Quanell X or some other pro-black group would already be staging a rally.

reply to post by Cancerwarrior


Fighting a losing battle bro..
Its all about the USA and how evil we are and have been. Nobody bothers to remember that England was one of the biggest slave dealers in the world at one time or that other Africans were responsible for kidnapping and selling their own people to England and the US or that the French used black slaves on sugar plantations in the Caribbean.

History has painted the US as the most racist country in the history of mankind but thats a bunch of bullsh*t

reply to post by Berzerked


It all started with the american Civil War. History is written by the victors. The North won. So what sounds better for the history books? You were snuffing out a bunch of soldiers and farmers and states that wanted to govern themselves. Or you were freeing the slaves from the evil slaveowners who would not let them go.


The 2008 presidential elections I think are a good example of what you are saying. I know of so many people (all of which were white) that said they voted for Obama because they did not want to feel like they were being racist. Nobody knew anything about the guy. Not that it really matters because if you ask me Obama might as well be a white guy the way he carries himself. Now if a fella like Dave Chappelle was President then I'd say we have a black president.

Man, I wish he would come back to comedy central.

Originally posted by Cancerwarrior
History is written by the victors.

That is the truth, but what makes someone the victor? The victors have written the history of the entire planet to their liking, those same victors are also the majority responsible party for the slave trade era (and most every other world problem). They can lie in the history books, but they forgot to edit the census records. Until the world comes together and calls the "victors" out once and for all, this will NEVER stop, for they alone also fuel the racial fires.

reply to post by Cancerwarrior


The Rodney King riots did not happen because of a single incident. A short time before the "Not Guilty" verdict in that case, a 15-year old black girl was fatally shot for allegedly stealing juice from a Korean grocer. The killer received probation. This is why the rioters attacked Koreatown, and the shopkeepers defended their stores with automatic weapons. This followed an incident the previous fall in the same area when black people robbed and killed a Korean woman and burned her store. Naturally, the police said these incidences were "not racially motivated."

Originally posted by Slugworth
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.

Read the facts... It does show that the victim was white and the attackers were black.

here is another link for you.

Read...

There are more sources for this news article than the one listed here on this site. if you had been smart, you might have dug more into it.

Furthermore. Why would the clip (yes the one listed in the OP that doesnt work anymore) say anything investigating wether or not this should be considered a hate crime? I didn't assume anything. I actually read about it. The interest holds more for me than race. I'm actually from Baton Rouge.

If there was no mention as to what side was white or black, the basis alone still holds to me to be a hate crime. I dont care who was what color. it's a fact that it was two colors. As I already mentioned, why would someone say "You're in the wrong neighborhood" if it's specificaly crime related? How would the attacker know those people aren't from that area? You obviously dont realise just how big that area is. I do... It's not exactly a small community. It's also off the interstate and a major highway. Did you know that? Of course you would have had to read the clip to know, but you didnt take that into consideration did you?

Ignorance...

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.

NO! It's the ONLY way. Why? Because it says so in the news clip. Why would you say It's an interpreted? It's stait out of the news clip. Didn't you read it?

How do you "childishly" engage someone in an argument and not stand firm? It's the same thing. He stood up for himself. He "stood firm". backing down and saying nothing would be the alternate. You're not making any sense. What's even more funny is that people actually stared your response.

Besides.. the way you just described it DOES NOT HAPPEN. lol Ask anyone from "our" neck of the woods. You'll just have to trust me. a bunch of black guys swarming to protect their one friend from a WHITE GUY? lol That's funny right there. More like... They're all waiting to get a punch in...

Once again.. you didn't read the news clip, or obvously turned it around to suit whatever demented story you have put in your head. You're trying to pull some indirect race card out of my post and you've failed. Go back to wherever you come from and pretend all you like. People from our neck of the woods knows exactly what goes down in Louisiana. We dont make up stories to hide it and we damn sure aren't blinded by the facts of what really goes down there.

Racism in Louisiana is just as much black on white as people assume it's white on black.... even more so. If you don't see it, then you need to get out of the house more. I lived on the streets. I went to an all black school because I was MADE to, because of segrigation issues in that very same city. I know exactly what went down, not just because the news said so, but because I've lived there, I know how it happens.

If you still dont believe it.. Take a trip. I'll tell you of places you can go and visit and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about. hell... I'm willing to throw money down on it. That's how sure I am.

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 cri......

Really? LOL!!! The guy was at a gas station! Dude.. what are you not understanding here? We are not talking about drug dealers... That has nothing to do with the story.


give it up.. you just dont get it.

Read the facts... It does show that the victim was white and the attackers were black.

The race of the wife and the two attackers who were not arrested are not specified in either article.

NO! It's the ONLY way. Why? Because it says so in the news clip. Why would you say It's an interpreted? It's stait out of the news clip. Didn't you read it?

Even the two articles give two slightly different versions of the event. The OP article from CBS (which does work) says:

Stubbs said a man wearing a pink shirt was in line trying to pay for gas when Donald Dickerson, 41, started making fun of him, leading to an argument."The defendant (Dickerson) approached the white male victim," the police report stated. It went on to read, "the defendant told him he was in the wrong neighborhood and he was not going to make it out." The victim said that's when he "was punched and knocked to the ground."

The second article from NBC says:

As the man was waiting in line to pay for his gas, he was approached by the suspect.Investigators with the Baton Rouge Police Department say the suspect, Donald Ray Dickerson, 41, walked up to the man and said “you’re in the wrong neighborhood and you're not going to make it out.” Dickerson then began to punch the victim in the face.

The second article leaves out the mockery that led to the argument that led to the attack. This is a nice text-book illustration of how to critically read the news. If the part about the pink shirt was left out of one article it stands to reason that there may be other significant aspects of the story that were left out from both articles.

How do you "childishly" engage someone in an argument and not stand firm? It's the same thing. He stood up for himself. He "stood firm". backing down and saying nothing would be the alternate. You're not making any sense. What's even more funny is that people actually stared your response

Arguing with someone because they laughed at you is not standing firm, and doing so in a scenario that places your own ego above the safety of your family is cowardly. It may take more courage and honor to set your ego aside and focus on escorting your family to safety instead of engaging some idiot who laughed at you.

Racism in Louisiana is just as much black on white as people assume it's white on black.... even more so.

Louisiana is not unique in this fact. It is true everywhere. I have been harassed in similar ways, but I didn't get beat up because I couldn't care if someone thinks I look silly.

If you don't see it, then you need to get out of the house more. I lived on the streets. f you still don't believe it.. Take a trip. I'll tell you of places you can go and visit and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about. hell... I'm willing to throw money down on it. That's how sure I am.

I'll take that bet! I've spent much of my life in places where I was a white minority and was often ridiculed for it. My ego is not so fragile that I couldn't handle it. I laughed with them and showed that it didn't bother me. I made friends in nearly every situation. If you respond to aggression with fear (in the case of the pink-shirt guy, fear of perceived unmanliness) you are likely to become a victim like pink-shirt did. If you respond with confidence it will be recognized.

I used to party regularly with a bunch of true blue gang bangers in the projects my home area. I drank their beer, ate their barbecue and cornbread, danced with their sisters and girlfriends, and played my guitar while they took turns rapping. They laughed at me the whole time, called me white-boy, punk, skinhead and worse, and showed me hospitality while doing so. If we made a beer run to the gas station and someone black started harassing me they would have had my back.

In fact, that sort of thing happened more than once. I had a good friend, a giant fearsome dreadlocked man, who I used to play music with. When we were in his neighborhood people would sometimes ask "what's with the whiteboy? You lost?" and start laughing at me. His favorite response was a dead-serious "He's my little brother" and stare indignantly at them waiting for a response. They would look at me, look at him, look back at me in disbelief, then stare at the floor and humbly say "oh...that's cool".

give it up.. you just dont get it.

My experience tells me otherwise. Besides, the point of this whole thread, and the part that you seemed so bothered by, was that the people were not charged with hate crimes. I think hate crimes are a stupid idea and should have no place in our legal system, regardless of who is involved in the crime. Any time the authorities choose not to invoke a hate crime law I support it.

Originally posted by wingsfan

Originally posted by Cancerwarrior
History is written by the victors.

That is the truth, but what makes someone the victor? The victors have written the history of the entire planet to their liking, those same victors are also the majority responsible party for the slave trade era (and most every other world problem). They can lie in the history books, but they forgot to edit the census records. Until the world comes together and calls the "victors" out once and for all, this will NEVER stop, for they alone also fuel the racial fires.

Imagine if Lee had not been defeated at Gettysburg and went to to successfully besiege and conquer Washington D.C. The war would have then been won by the Confederacy.

Then instead of it being known as a rebellion it would have been known as the "Second War for Independence". At least in the South it would have. Slavery was going to die out on its own anyways and it would have been portrayed as a much different event in history.

I see what you're saying though, there are puppetmasters behind the scenes.

Originally posted by Snsoc
reply to post by Cancerwarrior

 

The Rodney King riots did not happen because of a single incident. A short time before the "Not Guilty" verdict in that case, a 15-year old black girl was fatally shot for allegedly stealing juice from a Korean grocer. The killer received probation. This is why the rioters attacked Koreatown, and the shopkeepers defended their stores with automatic weapons. This followed an incident the previous fall in the same area when black people robbed and killed a Korean woman and burned her store. Naturally, the police said these incidences were "not racially motivated."

Well we must have been watching different television sets while it was going on. If you were around then, remember all the black folks in the streets screaming "no justice, no peace!!!" After the cops were acquitted? And then Rodney getting on TV crying saying, "Can't we all just get along?" I remember alot of folks saying that for years and still sometimes today I say it myself if I'm arguing with someone. After all that's why the 92 L.A. riots were known as "The Rodney King riots" you can google it if you like. All of that stemmed from him getting the crap beat out of him by 3 or 4 cops with clubs

It was a whole lot more than Koreatown that was affected. My old platoon Sarge was from there and lived through it all and said he was scared as hell when it was all going on.

reply to post by Cancerwarrior


Yes I was "around then." My point was to show that the situation was a lot more complex than most people know. It wasn't just about Koreatown, but the ongoing tension between Koreans and African-Americans was almost completely ignored by the media as a cause.

I could have also pointed out that the black people of that community felt (rightly or wrongly) that the LAPD had been targeting them for decades. The riots were a release of rage over what appeared to be a clear, indisputable example of the things that black people had been saying the police were doing all along-and they got away with it.

If black people were prone to riot at the slightest provocation (as your posts seem to indicate), why haven't they done it since? There have been plenty of opportunities.

.

Originally posted by Snsoc
reply to post by Cancerwarrior

 

If black people were prone to riot at the slightest provocation (as your posts seem to indicate), why haven't they done it since? There have been plenty of opportunities.

Please show me where I have said anything about black folks rioting at the slightest provocation.

And I'm also aware of the L.A.P.D. and their crookedness. Mike Ruppert exposed them and many CIA members selling drugs and then busting some of the people for it. Rodney was the match that lit the fuse, its a fact, so I'm not sure what you're trying prove here.

Originally posted by Cancerwarrior

Originally posted by Snsoc
reply to post by Cancerwarrior

 

If black people were prone to riot at the slightest provocation (as your posts seem to indicate), why haven't they done it since? There have been plenty of opportunities.

Please show me where I have said anything about black folks rioting at the slightest provocation.

And I'm also aware of the L.A.P.D. and their crookedness. Mike Ruppert exposed them and many CIA members selling drugs and then busting some of the people for it. Rodney was the match that lit the fuse, its a fact, so I'm not sure what you're trying prove here.

Well, I wasn't sure. I stated that people don't riot because of one incident, and you replied with "Rodney King." Assuming your original premise was true (for the sake of argument,) if one incident can cause rioting, then other incidents should also cause rioting, and I'm wondering why we haven't seen those. My use of the words "slightest provocation" were exaggeration, but the underlying question remains-why haven't there been more riots?

Ultimately, though, I think that you are wasting your energies. If there really is gross unfairness in the treatment of "your people," it will become self-evident. You won't have to go on a conspiracy site making calls for civil unrest, because everyone will see the same things you do and respond.

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by Slugworth

 

Many people forget the history of racism by whites on the black community.

They are trying to play victims now as if they are innocent of any wrong doing yet both sides are guilty of this even to this day.

See this is exactly whats wrong with the world today, White races being told to feel bad for the sins of their fathers. I say forget all the baggage and look at the now, if your Black and you do a crime on a White person you go to jail and not have some easy out by blaming past indiscretions that may as well of been millions of years ago.

Case in point look at the Middle East now ! no forgive and forget there and the place is Hell.

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by Slugworth

 

Many people forget the history of racism by whites on the black community.

They are trying to play victims now as if they are innocent of any wrong doing yet both sides are guilty of this even to this day.

ATS is so revealing. Crimes are never justifiable. One crime does not justify another crime. Frankly spoken, blacks have killed more whites in the last 40 years then whites killed blacks in the last 200 years in America.

www.wnd.com...

In many respects there has never been "White on black" racism. The concept of White emerged in the South due to a relatively homogenus ethnics(Scottish, Irish and English mostly settled the south). For example in the South, my ancestors and my own person would not have been considered "white" historically, as the southern whites lynched over 5,000 German Americans during the civil war period(before, during and after).

Antics like yours, date back to a meeting that took place during the second Caucasian civil war(this is how the war was viewed by the elite). During the war they had a meeting on the "Survival of the Caucasian race into the 20th century+". It is a shame I misplaced the info, but to me recollection, they wanted to create solidarity among the different Caucasian ethnic groups.

Obama and Holder are in on it as well. By saying "Hate crimes don't cover white people", they are re-enforcing the social construct of "white". Nothing acts like a unifying experience as shared suffering, hardship and common enemies.

In the process they create the "enemy" by encouraging African American's and other non-Caucasian ethnic groups to engage in racism against "whites".

This more about melting the Gaelic, Germanic, Nordic and Slavic races together into a singular new race/culture.