92 year old beaten with a brick, told to go back to Mexico

[Jarhyn]

If you read those threads you will note I am not the idiot making or supporting the claim that Black people can't be racist. I just learned it from people here.

Just like I learned you're supposed to capitalize "Black" when talking about Black people (but not "white" when talking about white people), which you have also failed to do.

I'm going to give myself +2 woke points (and you -2) for being socially aware of these things.

Or instead of trying to distract people from the conversation that they are trying to have, particularly about the detrimental effect spewing shittons of toxic propaganda against minority racial groups, you could try participating in the conversation instead. Perhaps you might be able to shed some light on why some such as yourself are so afraid of talking about the effect this toxic propaganda is having, why (presumably) educated people such as yourself are doing nothing to object to that propaganda, and perhaps what your thoughts are on correcting it.

They stopped trying to have a conversation about this when it emerged the attackers were Black. You didn't notice that?

Except that, you know, I just so happen to still be in here trying to have that conversation, and judging by the fact that my response drew two reputation bumps, other people agree: there is a desire to pursue a discussion of the effects of toxic racist propaganda. The only one shitting on that intent is you. So, let's get off this stupid detail of yours and actually talk about the downstream effects of racist propaganda that have filtered down from the highest levels of our government and media.

 

[dismal]

They stopped trying to have a conversation about this when it emerged the attackers were Black. You didn't notice that?

Except that, you know, I just so happen to still be in here trying to have that conversation, and judging by the fact that my response drew two reputation bumps, other people agree: there is a desire to pursue a discussion of the effects of toxic racist propaganda. The only one shitting on that intent is you. So, let's get off this stupid detail of yours and actually talk about the downstream effects of racist propaganda that have filtered down from the highest levels of our government and media.

OK, let's talk about it. Why do you think these Black people beat this guy up?

 

[Jarhyn]

They stopped trying to have a conversation about this when it emerged the attackers were Black. You didn't notice that?

Except that, you know, I just so happen to still be in here trying to have that conversation, and judging by the fact that my response drew two reputation bumps, other people agree: there is a desire to pursue a discussion of the effects of toxic racist propaganda. The only one shitting on that intent is you. So, let's get off this stupid detail of yours and actually talk about the downstream effects of racist propaganda that have filtered down from the highest levels of our government and media.

OK, let's talk about it. Why do you think these Black people beat this guy up?

Well, there's a large corpus of messages out on the wire, coming from high sources in the media and government, which largely encode the messages "immigrants bad" "distrust minorities" "Mexicans are rapists", etc..

The thing is, just because someone happens to be in a minority, or have minority status, it doesn't make them immune from having their subconscious decision making process impacted by those messages; minorities may have separate subcultures with more or less cultural infrastructure to prevent those messages from being consumed, but in my understanding, that will lead to an incomplete mitigation of the message, not a nullification. So the result is that everyone, including the disenfranchised groups, will end up racist against said disenfranchised group, nor necessarily in the same extent or ways, but that some extent of self-defeating racism will survive. Minority cops will still shoot black people (and other minorities) more than they shoot white people.

I don't really know, though, what we can start to do, other than calling out the racist messages and tell those sending them to Fuck Off. I would say that at the far end of the horizon, we should be human and decent enough to simply stop participating in normal social/economic activities with those who push such messages.

Part of me thinks that such impulses to bias the populace against out-groups are built into the human condition, since success within a limited carrying capacity is a zero sum game, and genetics will always be as selfish as we let them be.

 

[dismal]

OK, let's talk about it. Why do you think these Black people beat this guy up?

Well, there's a large corpus of messages out on the wire, coming from high sources in the media and government, which largely encode the messages "immigrants bad" "distrust minorities" "Mexicans are rapists", etc..

The thing is, just because someone happens to be in a minority, or have minority status, it doesn't make them immune from having their subconscious decision making process impacted by those messages; minorities may have separate subcultures with more or less cultural infrastructure to prevent those messages from being consumed, but in my understanding, that will lead to an incomplete mitigation of the message, not a nullification. So the result is that everyone, including the disenfranchised groups, will end up racist against said disenfranchised group, nor necessarily in the same extent or ways, but that some extent of self-defeating racism will survive. Minority cops will still shoot black people (and other minorities) more than they shoot white people.

I don't really know, though, what we can start to do, other than calling out the racist messages and tell those sending them to Fuck Off. I would say that at the far end of the horizon, we should be human and decent enough to simply stop participating in normal social/economic activities with those who push such messages.

Part of me thinks that such impulses to bias the populace against out-groups are built into the human condition, since success within a limited carrying capacity is a zero sum game, and genetics will always be as selfish as we let them be.

And what evidence do you have that this had anything to do with this incident?

His family said a woman confronted Rodriguez after he reportedly bumped into a little girl who was with her. Rodriguez was then struck from behind, and “as he fell on the ground, he blacked out,” Sheriff’s Det. Matt Luna said.

Misbel Borjas, who lives near Rodriguez, was passing by in a car when she saw him walking and trying to pass a woman and a girl. Then, Borjas said, she saw the woman push Rodriguez and start to hit him with a block of concrete.

“She was yelling at him, ‘Go back to your country,’ or ‘Go back to Mexico,’” Borjas recalled. “It was racist.”

But authorities said that through their investigation, “detectives have discovered that this is not a hate-related incident.”

The police are saying the crime was not "hate related".

 

[Jarhyn]

And what evidence do you have that this had anything to do with this incident?

His family said a woman confronted Rodriguez after he reportedly bumped into a little girl who was with her. Rodriguez was then struck from behind, and “as he fell on the ground, he blacked out,” Sheriff’s Det. Matt Luna said.

Misbel Borjas, who lives near Rodriguez, was passing by in a car when she saw him walking and trying to pass a woman and a girl. Then, Borjas said, she saw the woman push Rodriguez and start to hit him with a block of concrete.

“She was yelling at him, ‘Go back to your country,’ or ‘Go back to Mexico,’” Borjas recalled. “It was racist.”

But authorities said that through their investigation, “detectives have discovered that this is not a hate-related incident.”

The police are saying the crime was not "hate related".

At this point, it is a fairly well understood concept that if you tell a group of people that some subset of them is bad for some reason, all people in the group are going to hear it and believe it to some extent. That isn't even in question.

So it's up to you to provide some reason why this particular incident is somehow not germane to that effect, not the other way around.

In addition, I call into question any situation where a 92 year old is beaten with a brick and told to "go back to Mexico" and people with a vested interest in ignoring the problem are predictably ignoring the problem. It takes a fair amount of irrational and unacceptable hate to beat a 92 year old man.

 

[dismal]

And what evidence do you have that this had anything to do with this incident?

His family said a woman confronted Rodriguez after he reportedly bumped into a little girl who was with her. Rodriguez was then struck from behind, and “as he fell on the ground, he blacked out,” Sheriff’s Det. Matt Luna said.

Misbel Borjas, who lives near Rodriguez, was passing by in a car when she saw him walking and trying to pass a woman and a girl. Then, Borjas said, she saw the woman push Rodriguez and start to hit him with a block of concrete.

“She was yelling at him, ‘Go back to your country,’ or ‘Go back to Mexico,’” Borjas recalled. “It was racist.”

But authorities said that through their investigation, “detectives have discovered that this is not a hate-related incident.”

The police are saying the crime was not "hate related".

At this point, it is a fairly well understood concept that if you tell a group of people that some subset of them is bad for some reason, all people in the group are going to hear it and believe it to some extent. That isn't even in question.

So it's up to you to provide some reason why this particular incident is somehow not germane to that effect, not the other way around.

In addition, I call into question any situation where a 92 year old is beaten with a brick and told to "go back to Mexico" and people with a vested interest in ignoring the problem are predictably ignoring the problem. It takes a fair amount of irrational and unacceptable hate to beat a 92 year old man.

So, when you say that people are covering for this you mean the police who said this is not a hate related incident? I'm struggling for a motive of why they would do that.

And exactly what messages do you think a 30 year old woman in South Los Angeles is hearing?

 

[Jarhyn]

At this point, it is a fairly well understood concept that if you tell a group of people that some subset of them is bad for some reason, all people in the group are going to hear it and believe it to some extent. That isn't even in question.

So it's up to you to provide some reason why this particular incident is somehow not germane to that effect, not the other way around.

In addition, I call into question any situation where a 92 year old is beaten with a brick and told to "go back to Mexico" and people with a vested interest in ignoring the problem are predictably ignoring the problem. It takes a fair amount of irrational and unacceptable hate to beat a 92 year old man.

So, when you say that people are covering for this you mean the police who said this is not a hate related incident? I'm struggling for a motive of why they would do that.

And exactly what messages do you think a 30 year old woman in South Los Angeles is hearing?

Police have a vested interest in burying their heads in the sand when it comes to incidents. A hate crime in their jurisdiction puts their department under additional scrutiny, and calling a spade a spade here means that they have to cop to interracial tensions. Your argument from incredulity bouls down to "I can't possibly understand why a cop wouldn't want to do additional paperwork, deal with the press, or was through the politics of charging a black man with a hate crime".

And what messages do you think a 30something woman in socal would be hearing? We have a president who regularly agitates on race, in public addresses, and a media (re: fauxnoise) which regularly backs him up on it and defends it. It foments confusion and distrust.

 

[Mumbles]

Police have a vested interest in burying their heads in the sand when it comes to incidents. A hate crime in their jurisdiction puts their department under additional scrutiny, and calling a spade a spade here means that they have to cop to interracial tensions. Your argument from incredulity bouls down to "I can't possibly understand why a cop wouldn't want to do additional paperwork, deal with the press, or was through the politics of charging a black man with a hate crime".

Or...

The barrier to a "hate crime" charge actually sticking is remarkably high, even in a system like ours, and the attacker said "Nah, I don't hate immigrants, I was mad because he tried to kidnap my kid, and I wanted that pedo to go back where he came from because of that."

 

[dismal]

At this point, it is a fairly well understood concept that if you tell a group of people that some subset of them is bad for some reason, all people in the group are going to hear it and believe it to some extent. That isn't even in question.

So it's up to you to provide some reason why this particular incident is somehow not germane to that effect, not the other way around.

In addition, I call into question any situation where a 92 year old is beaten with a brick and told to "go back to Mexico" and people with a vested interest in ignoring the problem are predictably ignoring the problem. It takes a fair amount of irrational and unacceptable hate to beat a 92 year old man.

So, when you say that people are covering for this you mean the police who said this is not a hate related incident? I'm struggling for a motive of why they would do that.

And exactly what messages do you think a 30 year old woman in South Los Angeles is hearing?

Police have a vested interest in burying their heads in the sand when it comes to incidents. A hate crime in their jurisdiction puts their department under additional scrutiny, and calling a spade a spade here means that they have to cop to interracial tensions. Your argument from incredulity bouls down to "I can't possibly understand why a cop wouldn't want to do additional paperwork, deal with the press, or was through the politics of charging a black man with a hate crime".

And what messages do you think a 30something woman in socal would be hearing? We have a president who regularly agitates on race, in public addresses, and a media (re: fauxnoise) which regularly backs him up on it and defends it. It foments confusion and distrust.

Why do you imagine a Black woman in South Los Angeles is particularly likely to be influenced by the President? It's hard for me to believe frankly, given the current president doesn't seem to be particularly popular with women, Black people or in south Los Angeles. The town where this occurred is 34% Black and 64% Hispanic according to Wikipedia. Not exactly Trump country I imagine. But certainly a place where her opinion of Hispanics might be influenced by contact with actual Hispanics.

You don't seem particularly good at guessing what messages she is getting. You seem to be merely projecting your biases onto someone whose worldview is likely far different than yours.

 

[dismal]

Police have a vested interest in burying their heads in the sand when it comes to incidents. A hate crime in their jurisdiction puts their department under additional scrutiny, and calling a spade a spade here means that they have to cop to interracial tensions. Your argument from incredulity bouls down to "I can't possibly understand why a cop wouldn't want to do additional paperwork, deal with the press, or was through the politics of charging a black man with a hate crime".

Or...

The barrier to a "hate crime" charge actually sticking is remarkably high, even in a system like ours, and the attacker said "Nah, I don't hate immigrants, I was mad because he tried to kidnap my kid, and I wanted that pedo to go back where he came from because of that."

They didn't say "we don't have the evidence to charge her with a hate crime" they said "this is not a hate-related incident".

Bu , as usual, people here probably have better evidence than the police. Who are probably just showing their usual pro-Black police bias, right? Black Privilege and all that.

At least we're consistent on this stuff.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And what evidence do you have that this had anything to do with this incident?

His family said a woman confronted Rodriguez after he reportedly bumped into a little girl who was with her. Rodriguez was then struck from behind, and “as he fell on the ground, he blacked out,” Sheriff’s Det. Matt Luna said.

Misbel Borjas, who lives near Rodriguez, was passing by in a car when she saw him walking and trying to pass a woman and a girl. Then, Borjas said, she saw the woman push Rodriguez and start to hit him with a block of concrete.

“She was yelling at him, ‘Go back to your country,’ or ‘Go back to Mexico,’” Borjas recalled. “It was racist.”

But authorities said that through their investigation, “detectives have discovered that this is not a hate-related incident.”

The police are saying the crime was not "hate related".

At this point, it is a fairly well understood concept that if you tell a group of people that some subset of them is bad for some reason, all people in the group are going to hear it and believe it to some extent. That isn't even in question.

So it's up to you to provide some reason why this particular incident is somehow not germane to that effect, not the other way around.

In addition, I call into question any situation where a 92 year old is beaten with a brick and told to "go back to Mexico" and people with a vested interest in ignoring the problem are predictably ignoring the problem. It takes a fair amount of irrational and unacceptable hate to beat a 92 year old man.

I think I see what the cops are saying--the trigger was personal, not race. Thus it's not a hate crime even if racial statements are made during it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Police have a vested interest in burying their heads in the sand when it comes to incidents. A hate crime in their jurisdiction puts their department under additional scrutiny, and calling a spade a spade here means that they have to cop to interracial tensions. Your argument from incredulity bouls down to "I can't possibly understand why a cop wouldn't want to do additional paperwork, deal with the press, or was through the politics of charging a black man with a hate crime".

Or...

The barrier to a "hate crime" charge actually sticking is remarkably high, even in a system like ours, and the attacker said "Nah, I don't hate immigrants, I was mad because he tried to kidnap my kid, and I wanted that pedo to go back where he came from because of that."

The threshold should be high. The reality is that when people tend to pile on verbal attacks even if they are only vaguely on target or sometimes even a complete miss. Merely expressing a racist idea isn't enough to make it a hate crime. Hate crimes are about the primary reason for the crime. He wasn't attacked because he was from Mexico, thus no hate crime.

 

[dismal]

At this point, it is a fairly well understood concept that if you tell a group of people that some subset of them is bad for some reason, all people in the group are going to hear it and believe it to some extent. That isn't even in question.

So it's up to you to provide some reason why this particular incident is somehow not germane to that effect, not the other way around.

In addition, I call into question any situation where a 92 year old is beaten with a brick and told to "go back to Mexico" and people with a vested interest in ignoring the problem are predictably ignoring the problem. It takes a fair amount of irrational and unacceptable hate to beat a 92 year old man.

I think I see what the cops are saying--the trigger was personal, not race. Thus it's not a hate crime even if racial statements are made during it.

I don't know why they concluded it was not hate-related. I could find no further detail.

Keep in mind the only reason to believe it was "hate related" (as opposed to loving taps on the head with a brick, I guess) is the report of the one witness. Perhaps his credibility was compromised or he was found to be mistaken.

 

[laughing dog]

Police have a vested interest in burying their heads in the sand when it comes to incidents. A hate crime in their jurisdiction puts their department under additional scrutiny, and calling a spade a spade here means that they have to cop to interracial tensions. Your argument from incredulity bouls down to "I can't possibly understand why a cop wouldn't want to do additional paperwork, deal with the press, or was through the politics of charging a black man with a hate crime".

Or...

The barrier to a "hate crime" charge actually sticking is remarkably high, even in a system like ours, and the attacker said "Nah, I don't hate immigrants, I was mad because he tried to kidnap my kid, and I wanted that pedo to go back where he came from because of that."

The threshold should be high. The reality is that when people tend to pile on verbal attacks even if they are only vaguely on target or sometimes even a complete miss. Merely expressing a racist idea isn't enough to make it a hate crime. Hate crimes are about the primary reason for the crime. He wasn't attacked because he was from Mexico, thus no hate crime.

We will never know why the men joined into the attack. It is possible they joined in because at least one of them hates "Mexicans". But without explicit evidence, it is not a hate crime even if some of the attackers are bigots.

 

[Jarhyn]

The threshold should be high. The reality is that when people tend to pile on verbal attacks even if they are only vaguely on target or sometimes even a complete miss. Merely expressing a racist idea isn't enough to make it a hate crime. Hate crimes are about the primary reason for the crime. He wasn't attacked because he was from Mexico, thus no hate crime.

We will never know why the men joined into the attack. It is possible they joined in because at least one of them hates "Mexicans". But without explicit evidence, it is not a hate crime even if some of the attackers are bigots.

Even without evidence, it is a hate crime if it was motivated by hate. The only that explicit evidence would change is the ability to prosecute it as a hate crime.

Whether there is explicit evidence doesn't add or remove hate in the heart of the criminal, nor their motivations, it merely informs what we can proceed in a court of law.

 

[dismal]

The threshold should be high. The reality is that when people tend to pile on verbal attacks even if they are only vaguely on target or sometimes even a complete miss. Merely expressing a racist idea isn't enough to make it a hate crime. Hate crimes are about the primary reason for the crime. He wasn't attacked because he was from Mexico, thus no hate crime.

We will never know why the men joined into the attack. It is possible they joined in because at least one of them hates "Mexicans". But without explicit evidence, it is not a hate crime even if some of the attackers are bigots.

Even without evidence, it is a hate crime if it was motivated by hate. The only that explicit evidence would change is the ability to prosecute it as a hate crime.

Whether there is explicit evidence doesn't add or remove hate in the heart of the criminal, nor their motivations, it merely informs what we can proceed in a court of law.

Again, they did not say "we don't have sufficient evidence to bring hate crime charges". They said "this is not a hate related incident".

The former recognizes uncertainty that a high burden of proof would be met. The latter is an affirmative statement.

 

[Jarhyn]

Even without evidence, it is a hate crime if it was motivated by hate. The only that explicit evidence would change is the ability to prosecute it as a hate crime.

Whether there is explicit evidence doesn't add or remove hate in the heart of the criminal, nor their motivations, it merely informs what we can proceed in a court of law.

Again, they did not say "we don't have sufficient evidence to bring hate crime charges". They said "this is not a hate related incident".

The former recognizes uncertainty that a high burden of proof would be met. The latter is an affirmative statement.

We've already discussed this. The police are NOT a reliable measuring stick on whether it was a hate crime; there is too much of a vested interest to down play the hate crime angle, not the least of which so they don't have to deal with the fallout of saying their jurisdiction is one where hate crimes happen.

 

[dismal]

Even without evidence, it is a hate crime if it was motivated by hate. The only that explicit evidence would change is the ability to prosecute it as a hate crime.

Whether there is explicit evidence doesn't add or remove hate in the heart of the criminal, nor their motivations, it merely informs what we can proceed in a court of law.

Again, they did not say "we don't have sufficient evidence to bring hate crime charges". They said "this is not a hate related incident".

The former recognizes uncertainty that a high burden of proof would be met. The latter is an affirmative statement.

We've already discussed this. The police are NOT a reliable measuring stick on whether it was a hate crime; there is too much of a vested interest to down play the hate crime angle, not the least of which so they don't have to deal with the fallout of saying their jurisdiction is one where hate crimes happen.

Right, right, I forgot about how the police like to go easy on Black people.

Anyway, we know what is reliable: all the evidence you've been able to present for your position that this woman saw a Trump tweet and decided to take her 4 year old kid for a walk to hit Mexicans with a brick.