The Senate Passes Anti-Lynching Bill

a reply to: lostbook

Lynching goes further back then black American history. It's just the old word for self justice without an apparent factor of justice as it isn't clear if there was unjust done even. That's how it is used in historical context in medieval times.

This is just one of the laws that focuses on intent of murder and gives it a label. It's completely unnecessary law since it is trying to determine the sentence through the intent. And we already have terms for everything not murder = killing someone without intent. So intent is given, it's murder, the person is dead and damage and sorrow is done.

It's like declaring a speed limit's intent as environmentally so they can charge you with like 5 more "crimes" you did while over speeding. Murder is murder, no matter how, the sentence is most of the time life long anyways. It's just theater putting 200 more years on top of a sentence that already exceeds the possible life span by decades and also a waste of money. It is stupid and serves no purpose IMHO.

I never understood the media or people being all crazed up about "big cases". It's a bit like circus waiting for the freaks to enter so all the internal curiosity, voyeurism and hatred can be fed. This is like in medieval times with the tomato throwing.

It craters to the same low level, low energy responses. "Show me who to hate today".

a reply to: lostbook

Well damn, I'll have to find something else to do on Saturday's now.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: lostbook

They have only passed it because when they go to bed at night they dream of Mussolini, and need a sliver of support knowing that it is now officially against the law

It's a hate crime to hold them accountable for destroying the economy, lying about covid, pushing 2020 riots, lying about endless wars, etc.

originally posted by: ThatDamnDuckAgain
a reply to: lostbook

Lynching goes further back then black American history. It's just the old word for self justice without an apparent factor of justice as it isn't clear if there was unjust done even. That's how it is used in historical context in medieval times.

This is just one of the laws that focuses on intent of murder and gives it a label. It's completely unnecessary law since it is trying to determine the sentence through the intent. And we already have terms for everything not murder = killing someone without intent. So intent is given, it's murder, the person is dead and damage and sorrow is done.

It's like declaring a speed limit's intent as environmentally so they can charge you with like 5 more "crimes" you did while over speeding. Murder is murder, no matter how, the sentence is most of the time life long anyways. It's just theater putting 200 more years on top of a sentence that already exceeds the possible life span by decades and also a waste of money. It is stupid and serves no purpose IMHO.

I never understood the media or people being all crazed up about "big cases". It's a bit like circus waiting for the freaks to enter so all the internal curiosity, voyeurism and hatred can be fed. This is like in medieval times with the tomato throwing.

It craters to the same low level, low energy responses. "Show me who to hate today".

Right, murder and vigilante justice are already illegal, to your point. Also, intent, state of mind, anger, planning, and so on, already can influence the charge (1st degree versus 2nd degree, manslaughter, etc), as well as the severity of the sentence.

originally posted by: Madviking

originally posted by: lostbook
a reply to: marg6043

Lynching was used all over but for this bill in particular it speaks to Lynching in the South which was used to punish and/or intimidate blacks. That's why this bill is particularly named for Emmit Till, a 14 yr old boy who was brutally beaten, shot, and Lynched by Whites in 1955.

I am against any discrimination and oppression, including based on race. Did you know that black on white violent crime is much higher than the reverse, including gross numbers and as a function of per capita? This doesn't excuse either, but it often seems these narratives at least today do not match the data. Similarly, black-on-other-racial group violence, per the FBI/DOJ, is overrepresentative compared to other racial groups, including white people.

I didn't know this so thanks for the info.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: lostbook

Lynching was never legal.

So how can make it "illegal" ?? 😃

Excellent point. However, I think by not making it ILLEGAL, that makes it LEGAL by default.

originally posted by: lostbook

originally posted by: Madviking

originally posted by: lostbook
a reply to: marg6043

Lynching was used all over but for this bill in particular it speaks to Lynching in the South which was used to punish and/or intimidate blacks. That's why this bill is particularly named for Emmit Till, a 14 yr old boy who was brutally beaten, shot, and Lynched by Whites in 1955.

I am against any discrimination and oppression, including based on race. Did you know that black on white violent crime is much higher than the reverse, including gross numbers and as a function of per capita? This doesn't excuse either, but it often seems these narratives at least today do not match the data. Similarly, black-on-other-racial group violence, per the FBI/DOJ, is overrepresentative compared to other racial groups, including white people.

I didn't know this so thanks for the info.

You are welcome. A lot of people don't know what the data says and are going off warped narratives from political and media sources. Here are the most recent stats for hate crimes per DOJ:

www.justice.gov...

Of the 6,780 known offenders:

55.1% were White
21.2% were Black or African American
15.7% race unknown
Other races accounted for the remaining known offenders.

Here are the census figures for US population demographics:

www.census.gov...

White people (alone) are 76.3% of the population, although sometimes they conflate various Hispanic populations in there.

Black people are 13.4% of the population.

As a function of population, the data suggests that white people are under-represented in hate crimes, whereas black people are strongly over-represented. I bet you won't hear that on CNN.

We should be able to provide such data counterpoints to divisive narratives without being ostracized. That's what real policy debate looks like. Are the prevailing narratives, from Covid to race, based on data?

Let me clarify something, data on such topics as representation in the professions or leadership, or on poverty rates, does show populations such as black people as being negatively impacted or represented. This is a separate, although related topic.

a reply to: Madviking

Yes, I see your point based on population percentages. And yes, it definitely has to do with poverty. Crime and poverty go hand in hand. It's intentional but that's a whole other thread entirely.

originally posted by: lostbook
a reply to: Madviking

Yes, I see your point based on population percentages. And yes, it definitely has to do with poverty. Crime and poverty go hand in hand. It's intentional but that's a whole other thread entirely.

There's definitely a connection with poverty regarding crime. That's where the whole intersectionality comes in.

Oh, look at this!!!

More virtue signaling... How very special.

I just filled my gas tank this morning, I paid just short of sixty dollars. For a tank of gas. Which in three days of driving back and forth from work will need to be filled again.

Quite frankly, I've got more important things to worry about than an f'n feel good piece of legislation that is nonsensical, and a waste of time.

The Senate can go piss up a rope.

a reply to: lostbook

Meanwhile, a White senior was killed by a punch from a Black guy.

Murder, in other words
www.nbcnews.com...


And the Black guy was sentenced to......house arrest.....for murder.....
Strange, no rioting or looting or fires by mobs....and no special hate crime legislation for the dead White guy...

a reply to: lostbook

This is very "self serving" bill. Remember when Hillary Clinton said Democrats will be "swinging from nooses" if the public finds out the breadth and depth of their crimes against humanity?

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: lostbook

Thanks Jussie and Kamala

jussie said he wasn't suicidal, that doesn't mean he cant be suicided


you can't own a gun in chicago either, doesn't mean you won't get shot.

thanks obama.

originally posted by: DeadlyStaringFrog
So was lynching legal somewhere that we needed a federal law? I thought murder was illegal in all states and the racial stuff was already covered by hate crime laws. When was the last recorded lynching and I'm not talking Juicy's noose that was made of twine.

horse thievin' sidewinders. usually got lynched.

by gummy, even that was too good for em!

Rainey Bethea was hanged on August 14, 1936. It was the last public execution in America. Photo: Perry Ryan, author of The Last Public Execution in America.

TextWhen was the last time someone was legally hung?
When was the last execution by hanging? The last state-sanctioned execution by hanging was carried out on Jan. 25, 1996, in Delaware. Inmate Billy Bailey refused lethal injection as a form of execution and chose to go with his original sentence of death by hanging for the 1979 murders of Gilbert and Clara Lambertson.

hmm bidens state.

Text

opps forgot.

www.google.com... 0j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

originally posted by: M5xaz
a reply to: lostbook

Meanwhile, a White senior was killed by a punch from a Black guy.

Murder, in other words
www.nbcnews.com...


And the Black guy was sentenced to......house arrest.....for murder.....
Strange, no rioting or looting or fires by mobs....and no special hate crime legislation for the dead White guy...

From your link:

“This outcome holds the defendant accountable while considering the totality of the circumstances—the aggressive approach and despicable racial slur used by the victim, along with the defendant’s age, lack of criminal record, and lack of intent to cause the victim’s death," said Grayson Kamm, a spokesman for Hillsborough State Attorney Andrew Warren.

Got that? So apparently it's OK to attack someone if they use foul, despicable language. If the defendant dies, well, they were a racist, so it's OK to kill them.

Meanwhile, if you run away from attackers trying to physically harm you and shoot them as a last recourse of self defense, you will be on trial for murder.

Two tiered justice, but now who is in which tier has just been swapped.

originally posted by: lostbook

originally posted by: M5xaz
a reply to: lostbook

Laws for this have existed for decades already - it's called murder.

Maybe so in certain circles. Even though lynching is murder it's a specific type of murder that was used to intimidate Blacks. The act of lynching has been outlawed although no one here seems to care.

there were songs written about it, maybe even a book or 2.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: lostbook

Once again the Federal government goes to far. States already have these laws on the books. This is another attempt by the Federal government to make everything a Federal hate crime when they dont like what the states are doing.

if guilty of a fed hate crime aka, lynching, they can execute you twice, after serving life.

too bad obama's son didn't survive his attempted murder of a white latino jew.

i wonder if he could be charged under this new law from his cell.

Thank god, they made lynching illegal..just in time.

a reply to: DeadlyStaringFrog Yes, murder is illegal usually, but those are State laws. This plugs that loophole, by allowing Federal charges when local Klan juries let killers walk. It may not seem current but with the increasing discord in our country, I am good with it.

It is now against the "law" to lynch? I always thought this was already "wrong" to do!.. Dang! I've waisted so much time!... So much "justice" underserved.
Is tarring and feathering "illegal" now?.. Or is there a "law" against it?..
Just asking. ... I wouldn't want to do anything "illegal"/"unlegal". I'm asking for a friend.