Obama has done it now - Nine Shot dead in church

[Jimmy Higgins]

Props to all blacks in America for having taken it over. Please be careful with it.

Nothing worse than being murdered over a lie.

And major props to the cops for being able to take this guy down without pumping him full of bullets.

Helped that he's white, don't you think?

Personally, I cannot imagine a black man shooting up a church full of white people and walking out of there or even being carried out while still breathing.

Well, if blacks weren't so easy to kill, maybe officers wouldn't be killing them as often as they do. Personal responsibility people!

 

[Toni]

The purpose of a hate crime is to instill terror.

This doesn't sound quite right to me. What grasped my attention beyond the assumption that every such crime has the aim to instill terror is that, if there is a purpose, that instilling terror is it. What I'm getting at is that there seems to be room for hate based crimes to have no such motivation. There is also the possible conflation of effect with intent that is troublesome. If a serial sniper targets blacks only (because he hates blacks), that may very well instill fear, but if (for instance) there is intent to conceal the crimes, it seems unlikely the hate crime has the purpose of instilling fear--even if an unsuccessful concealment leads to the spread of community-wide fear.

It could very well be that I'm making a big mistake. I could be underestimating the scope of the term's meaning. There is a danger of misinterpreting multi-worded terms. The mistake often comes from the mistaken assumption that the meaning of such terms are derived by combining the meaning of the constituent words. Often times, the meaning of multi-worded terms evolve beyond their original use, and that's why it's an assumption and sometimes a mistake. Also, it could be a technical term. I don't know enough about it to make a comfortable judgement.

Lynching of black men had multiple purposes: to exact violence and revenge against the victim, to puff up insecure whites and TO INSTILL FEAR IN THE BLACK COMMUNITY.

It's called multi-tasking.

 

[Ford]

Helped that he's white, don't you think?

Personally, I cannot imagine a black man shooting up a church full of white people and walking out of there or even being carried out while still breathing.

And then being called a "thug" afterwards.


Funny isn't it? Kid walks into a church and murders 9 people in cold blood, and not a single member of the right wing media calls him a "thug."


Wonder why that is?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Helped that he's white, don't you think?

Personally, I cannot imagine a black man shooting up a church full of white people and walking out of there or even being carried out while still breathing.

And then being called a "thug" afterwards.


Funny isn't it? Kid walks into a church and murders 9 people in cold blood, and not a single member of the right wing media calls him a "thug."


Wonder why that is?

But then we hear about some guy on a radio program getting all uppity over the fact that nine blacks were killed.

 

[fast]

This doesn't sound quite right to me. What grasped my attention beyond the assumption that every such crime has the aim to instill terror is that, if there is a purpose, that instilling terror is it. What I'm getting at is that there seems to be room for hate based crimes to have no such motivation. There is also the possible conflation of effect with intent that is troublesome. If a serial sniper targets blacks only (because he hates blacks), that may very well instill fear, but if (for instance) there is intent to conceal the crimes, it seems unlikely the hate crime has the purpose of instilling fear--even if an unsuccessful concealment leads to the spread of community-wide fear.

It could very well be that I'm making a big mistake. I could be underestimating the scope of the term's meaning. There is a danger of misinterpreting multi-worded terms. The mistake often comes from the mistaken assumption that the meaning of such terms are derived by combining the meaning of the constituent words. Often times, the meaning of multi-worded terms evolve beyond their original use, and that's why it's an assumption and sometimes a mistake. Also, it could be a technical term. I don't know enough about it to make a comfortable judgement.

Lynching of black men had multiple purposes: to exact violence and revenge against the victim, to puff up insecure whites and TO INSTILL FEAR IN THE BLACK COMMUNITY.

It's called multi-tasking.

Right. I'm with you on that. At least some perpetrators of hate crimes intend to instill fear. I think the point of contention lies in whether (by definition) all perpetrators of hate crimes intend to instill fear. What's peculiar is that if I'm wrong, a person can commit a crime because of hate and it not be a hate crime in cases where there is no intent to instill fear. In my sniper example, I'd call it a hate crime because of the hate based reasoning.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

The purpose of a hate crime is to instill terror.

This doesn't sound quite right to me. What grasped my attention beyond the assumption that every such crime has the aim to instill terror is that, if there is a purpose, that instilling terror is it. What I'm getting at is that there seems to be room for hate based crimes to have no such motivation. There is also the possible conflation of effect with intent that is troublesome. If a serial sniper targets blacks only (because he hates blacks), that may very well instill fear, but if (for instance) there is intent to conceal the crimes, it seems unlikely the hate crime has the purpose of instilling fear--even if an unsuccessful concealment leads to the spread of community-wide fear.

It could very well be that I'm making a big mistake. I could be underestimating the scope of the term's meaning. There is a danger of misinterpreting multi-worded terms. The mistake often comes from the mistaken assumption that the meaning of such terms are derived by combining the meaning of the constituent words. Often times, the meaning of multi-worded terms evolve beyond their original use, and that's why it's an assumption and sometimes a mistake. Also, it could be a technical term. I don't know enough about it to make a comfortable judgement.

Murderers don't normally publicize their crimes. This guy told survivors to tell others what he did and why he did it. Klansmen and their Kin leave bodies displayed to send a message. Now there are outliers in any group, but I doubt that most or even many hate crimes are committed and then the murderers try to keep the hate a secret or to keep the target group feeling good and safe about the whole thing.

 

[Toni]

Lynching of black men had multiple purposes: to exact violence and revenge against the victim, to puff up insecure whites and TO INSTILL FEAR IN THE BLACK COMMUNITY.

It's called multi-tasking.

Right. I'm with you on that. At least some perpetrators of hate crimes intend to instill fear. I think the point of contention lies in whether (by definition) all perpetrators of hate crimes intend to instill fear. What's peculiar is that if I'm wrong, a person can commit a crime because of hate and it not be a hate crime in cases where there is no intent to instill fear. In my sniper example, I'd call it a hate crime because of the hate based reasoning.

If I kill my neighbor because I hate him, that's not a 'hate crime.'

If I kill my neighbor because I hate men and want to teach them a lesson, that is probably a hate crime.

Here's this:
http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/hate-crime/

A hate crime is usually defined by state law as one that involves threats, harassment, or physical harm and is motivated by prejudice against someone's race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation or physical or mental disability. Laws vary by state and if hate crimes are provided for by statute, the defintions of hate crimes and penalties imposed vary. States that have hate crime statutes provide harsher penalites for such offenses.

The underlying criminal offenses that are designated in hate crime laws include, but are not limited to, crimes against persons like harassment, terroristic threats, assault and crimes against property like criminal trespass, criminal mischief and arson. It may also include vandalism causing damage to a church, synagogue, cemetery, mortuary, memorial to the dead, school, educational facility, community center, municipal building, courthouse, juvenile detention center, grounds surrounding such places or personal property located within such places.

The current federal law regarding hate crimes deals with crimes where the offender is motivated by bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or ethnicity/national origin.

In the case of this individual shooting up a traditionally black church because it was full of black people, that would qualify as a hate crime.

 

[fast]

This doesn't sound quite right to me. What grasped my attention beyond the assumption that every such crime has the aim to instill terror is that, if there is a purpose, that instilling terror is it. What I'm getting at is that there seems to be room for hate based crimes to have no such motivation. There is also the possible conflation of effect with intent that is troublesome. If a serial sniper targets blacks only (because he hates blacks), that may very well instill fear, but if (for instance) there is intent to conceal the crimes, it seems unlikely the hate crime has the purpose of instilling fear--even if an unsuccessful concealment leads to the spread of community-wide fear.

It could very well be that I'm making a big mistake. I could be underestimating the scope of the term's meaning. There is a danger of misinterpreting multi-worded terms. The mistake often comes from the mistaken assumption that the meaning of such terms are derived by combining the meaning of the constituent words. Often times, the meaning of multi-worded terms evolve beyond their original use, and that's why it's an assumption and sometimes a mistake. Also, it could be a technical term. I don't know enough about it to make a comfortable judgement.

Murderers don't normally publicize their crimes. This guy told survivors to tell others what he did and why he did it. Klansmen and their Kin leave bodies displayed to send a message. Now there are outliers in any group, but I doubt that most or even many hate crimes are committed and then the murderers try to keep the hate a secret or to keep the target group feeling good and safe about the whole thing.

Had you originally said that the purpose of this hate crime was to instill terror, I probably would never have posted.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

What an asshole.

How dare he politicize this tragedy by using as a platform to try and rally support against the thing that caused this tragedy.

Perhaps "how dare he" wrongly use it as a platform against "a thing", badly mangling the facts about the nature of the tragedy and the regulatory irrelevancy to preventing the use of "the thing" in this rampage killing..

Contrary to Obama's imprinted memes, 'this type of mass violence' does happen in other advanced countries, and also contrary to his claims, it is unlikely to be within our power to do something about it. Wiki, freely available to Obama and his advisors, offer some quick learning for Presidents in denial (some of the rampage killers of the last two decades or so...many of have killed far more):

Richard Dum, France
Kovar Zdenek, Czech Republic
Bird, Derrik, UK
Borel, Eric France
Flink, Mattias Sweden
Amrani, Nordine Belgium
van der Vlis, Tristin Netherlands
Steinhauser, Robert Germany
Hamilton, Thomas Watt UK
Kretschmer, Tim Germany

And you wouldn't want to forget Charlie Hebdo or Norway's Anders Breivik who killed 75 in 2011 out of ethnic hate, would you?

Perhaps our President should point out what recent gun laws that he has supported would have prevented this tragedy? None, I suspect.

the complete quote

But let’s be clear: at some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency. And it is in our power to do something about it. I say that recognizing the politics in this town foreclose a lot of those avenues right now. But it would be wrong for us not to acknowledge it. And at some point it’s going to be important for the American people to come to grips with it, and for us to be able to shift how we think about the issue of gun violence collectively.

Full transcript here

 

[fast]

Right. I'm with you on that. At least some perpetrators of hate crimes intend to instill fear. I think the point of contention lies in whether (by definition) all perpetrators of hate crimes intend to instill fear. What's peculiar is that if I'm wrong, a person can commit a crime because of hate and it not be a hate crime in cases where there is no intent to instill fear. In my sniper example, I'd call it a hate crime because of the hate based reasoning.

If I kill my neighbor because I hate him, that's not a 'hate crime.'

If I kill my neighbor because I hate men and want to teach them a lesson, that is probably a hate crime.

Here's this:
http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/hate-crime/

A hate crime is usually defined by state law as one that involves threats, harassment, or physical harm and is motivated by prejudice against someone's race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation or physical or mental disability. Laws vary by state and if hate crimes are provided for by statute, the defintions of hate crimes and penalties imposed vary. States that have hate crime statutes provide harsher penalites for such offenses.

The underlying criminal offenses that are designated in hate crime laws include, but are not limited to, crimes against persons like harassment, terroristic threats, assault and crimes against property like criminal trespass, criminal mischief and arson. It may also include vandalism causing damage to a church, synagogue, cemetery, mortuary, memorial to the dead, school, educational facility, community center, municipal building, courthouse, juvenile detention center, grounds surrounding such places or personal property located within such places.

The current federal law regarding hate crimes deals with crimes where the offender is motivated by bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or ethnicity/national origin.

In the case of this individual shooting up a traditionally black church because it was full of black people, that would qualify as a hate crime.

A legal definition is a stipulative definition and rarely compares equivalently to lexical definitions. If Athena was using the term in a nonlexical way, I have no argument.

 

[maxparrish]

Props to all blacks in America for having taken it over. Please be careful with it.

Nothing worse than being murdered over a lie.

And major props to the cops for being able to take this guy down without pumping him full of bullets.

Helped that he's white, don't you think?

Personally, I cannot imagine a black man shooting up a church full of white people and walking out of there or even being carried out while still breathing.

- - - Updated - - -

What an asshole.

How dare he politicize this tragedy by using as a platform to try and rally support against the thing that caused this tragedy.

Perhaps "how dare he" wrongly use it as a platform against "a thing", badly mangling the facts about the nature of the tragedy and the regulatory irrelevancy to preventing the use of "the thing" in this rampage killing..

Contrary to Obama's imprinted memes, 'this type of mass violence' does happen in other advanced countries, and also contrary to his claims, it is unlikely to be within our power to do something about it. Wiki, freely available to Obama and his advisors, offer some quick learning for Presidents in denial (some of the rampage killers of the last two decades or so...many of have killed far more):

Richard Dum, France
Kovar Zdenek, Czech Republic
Bird, Derrik, UK
Borel, Eric France
Flink, Mattias Sweden
Amrani, Nordine Belgium
van der Vlis, Tristin Netherlands
Steinhauser, Robert Germany
Hamilton, Thomas Watt UK
Kretschmer, Tim Germany

And you wouldn't want to forget Charlie Hebdo or Norway's Anders Breivik who killed 75 in 2011 out of ethnic hate, would you?

Perhaps our President should point out what recent gun laws that he has supported would have prevented this tragedy? None, I suspect.

Come on now: why don't you print the statistics about gun violence in Europe vs USA?

For the same reason I don't quote the statistics on European vs. American's height or eye color - also stats that are irrelevant to the claims of Obama on this tragedy.

So "come now", why are you unwilling (or unable) to stick to the assertions made and evidence proffered? Rampage killing does happen in other "advanced" countries. And as of yet, there is no evidence that any gun regulation that has been proposed in Congress or by Obama would have made parsnip of difference in this tragedy.

 

[Toni]

For the same reason I don't quote the statistics on European vs. American's on height or eye color - you are posing for stats that are irrelevant to the claims of Obama on this tragedy.

So "come now", why are you unwilling (or unable) to stick to the assertions made and evidence proffered?

Why are you unwilling to offer facts, when they are so easy to come by?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

The good news is that there are a number of countries in South and Central America with homicide rates higher than in the US. Fewer with a higher rate of suicide by firearms.

On the other hand, the US rate for unintended deaths by firearms is about middle of the road, world wide. So, when an American aims his gun, he generally kills what he's aiming at, I guess is the lesson here.

 

[RavenSky]

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/suspected-terrorist-dylann-roof-captured-in-north-carolina/

Authorities have arrested Dylann Storm Roof, the suspected gunman in a terrorist attack at a black South Carolina church.

The white supremacist was captured in Shelby, North Carolina.

Storm Roof? Seriously? /derail

 

[AthenaAwakened]

“This wasn’t a tornado. This was a racist,” Stewart said of Roof. “This was a guy with a Rhodesia badge on his sweater. I hate to even use this pun, but this one is black and white. There’s no nuance here.”

He also tore into what he described as the prejudice steeped into the culture, noting that several roads in South Carolina are named after Confederate generals, who fought a war to keep black people from being able to use them.

“That’s insanity. That’s racial wallpaper,” Stewart said. “You can’t allow that. Nine people were shot in a black church by a white guy who hated them, who wanted to start some sort of civil war. The Confederate flag flies over South Carolina, and the roads are named for Confederate generals. And the white guy’s the one who feels like his country’s being taken away from him.”

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/i-g...the-jokes-aside-to-discuss-racism-in-america/

 

[bilby]

The apartheid-era South African and Rhodesian flags he is wearing in his picture are a bit of a give-away regarding his racial politics.

I am a little surprised that he wasn't wearing an AWB flag too; but then, perhaps he didn't want people mistaking him for a Nazi:

 

[Derec]

The apartheid-era South African and Rhodesian flags

Would that Zimbabwean people still lived in Rhodesia and the Mugabe regime was just an awful dream!

 

[Derec]

And then being called a "thug" afterwards.
Funny isn't it? Kid walks into a church and murders 9 people in cold blood, and not a single member of the right wing media calls him a "thug."

I've heard "domestic terrorist" bandied quite a lot in connection to him, which is a couple of notches up the evilness scale from "thug".

Wonder why that is?

Because next to "domestic terrorist" a mere "thug" is a bit tame. Otoh, it's not PC to call any black thug a thug, even if they burn their cities down.

 

[Derec]

But then we hear about some guy on a radio program getting all uppity over the fact that nine blacks were killed.

The word "uppity" needs to be taken behind the shed and shot, right next to the "one drop rule". Its only use is to declare any and all criticism of any black person invalid by default.
In this case the talk show host in question responded to racism with racism of his own, which is hardly helpful.

 

[RavenSky]

"hardly helpful"

How ironic

 

[Ford]

Otoh, it's not PC to call any black thug a thug, even if they burn their cities down.

Well you'd be really not PC to call a white kid a thug. Here's your opportunity, Derec.