• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

World War II veteran beaten to death by two black teens

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
woolfe9998 said:
That case reviewed the Constitutionality of an existing hate crime statute and found it Constitutional. By definition, the statute existed prior to the case.

Hate crime statutes have existed in the US since the 1960's.
Click to expand...
And while I'm no fan of treating different people differently under the law, at the time they were definitely needed. Probably still are for some crimes. Here though we're talking about murder, which already has some pretty serious consequences. Not exactly a problem if these thugs aren't charged with a hate crime on top of murder one.
 
werepossum said:
And while I'm no fan of treating different people differently under the law, at the time they were definitely needed. Probably still are for some crimes. Here though we're talking about murder, which already has some pretty serious consequences. Not exactly a problem if these thugs aren't charged with a hate crime on top of murder one.
Click to expand...

Well, "treating people differently" under hate crime statutes means making distinctions about the degree of culpability based on the nature of the motive for the act. The law has recognized the importance of motive in myriad ways. Various motives can either aggravate or mitigate one's culpability.

I suppose one could ask why does it matter if you beat someone up because they're black/white/gay as opposed to beating them up because you're mad at them for sleeping with your wife. The way I see it, violence springing from group based animus is different because it's like a cancer in society. It causes public outrage and worse yet, cross-group retaliation which is a never-ending cycle. Look at the Martin case which turned out to not be a racially motivated crime but the mere perception that it was racially motivated caused a huge uproar on both sides of the issue and was arguably not good for race relations in this country. The bottom line is that it spreads, and hence it cannot be tolerated in a civilized society.

- wolf
 
Like I've said before, if you're a racist and want to kill someone, just be sure you get their wallet before you flee the scene. That should help reduce your prison sentence.
 
BoberFett said:
Like I've said before, if you're a racist and want to kill someone, just be sure you get their wallet before you flee the scene. That should help reduce your prison sentence.
Click to expand...



Seriously.. The progessive mindset in this thread baffles me.



So if you're committing a brutal assault on someone, it's less morally reprehensible if the person robs the victim?


I can't even believe some of the vile crap I'm reading. Disgusting.
 
SpatiallyAware said:
Seriously.. The progessive mindset in this thread baffles me.

So if you're committing a brutal assault on someone, it's less morally reprehensible if the person robs the victim?

I can't even believe some of the vile crap I'm reading. Disgusting.
Click to expand...

Why is it surprising to you that motive changes the perception of an action? For example, taking someone's life can range from perfectly legal to absolutely heinous, based on motive alone.

Would you consider all of these equivalent from a moral perspective:
- killing someone during a war
- killing someone in self defense
- killing someone while they are assaulting a family member
- killing someone who raped your daughter
- killing someone when you walk in on them sleeping with your wife
- killing someone after finding out they slept with your wife
- killing someone during a robbery
- killing someone because you don't like the way they look
- killing someone because you enjoy the act of killing
 
Teen fell in with 'wrong people,' family says:

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...ell-in-with-wrong-people-family-says#comments

"They did a horrendous thing and they need to pay the consequences," the victim's daughter-in-law, Barbara Belton, told NBC News.
"They just kept hitting and hitting him," she said. "He was an 88-year-old man. Even if they wanted his money and he didn't want to give it to them, they didn't need to do that."

Belton, who survived being shot in Okinawa during the war, was in his car in the parking lot outside his Eagles Lodge when he was attacked on Wednesday night.

Both Glenn and Adams-Kinard have previous arrest records, including assault convictions.

But Odell Kinard said he was shocked to learn his nephew, who was a standout basketball player, was accused of killing a man.
"It really hurt to hear that," he said.

"He has to take responsibility," he added. "But the family is praying he gets 10 years or less."
Click to expand...

10 years or less because bashing an old veteran head repeatedly and killed him (with prior assault conviction) = take responsibility? <scratching head>
 
Last edited:
No kidding, next up the progressives will be evaluating the poor man's age and trying to make it out like he didn't take that much life from him.


And that family disgusts me. If you know your kid has a propensity for violence and is wrapped up in thug culture then you shouldn't play stupid when he ends up involved in something like this.
 
That family is pathetic for what they did. How dare they suggest 10 years for murder. These guys need to be shamed on TV for their despicable actions.
 
Incorruptible said:
That family is pathetic for what they did. How dare they suggest 10 years for murder. These guys need to be shamed on TV for their despicable actions.
Click to expand...



Shit, look at the thug supporters in this thread. Same MO as our dear thug trayvon.... "they didn't beat him that bad!!!" He shoulda just taken the beating.



Poor old man, it's too bad he wasn't armed that night. Course, then we'd have the crew in here talking about how dey wasn't bad kids, they didn't do nothing wrong....

Same old BS and MO, different day. Thankfully these racists are few and far between nowadays. Mainstream society shuns trayvons and thugs like him, it's only the vocal thug supporters who still shriek for his "justice".
 
SpatiallyAware said:
Shit, look at the thug supporters in this thread. Same MO as our dear thug trayvon.... "they didn't beat him that bad!!!" He shoulda just taken the beating.



Poor old man, it's too bad he wasn't armed that night. Course, then we'd have the crew in here talking about how dey wasn't bad kids, they didn't do nothing wrong....

Same old BS and MO, different day. Thankfully these racists are few and far between nowadays. Mainstream society shuns trayvons and thugs like him, it's only the vocal thug supporters who still shriek for his "justice".
Click to expand...

This is the problem with these thug leftists and progressives they just can't admit the truth. These people are pathetic lowlifes and should be ashamed of themselves.
 
Incorruptible said:
This is the problem with these thug leftists and progressives they just can't admit the truth. These people are pathetic lowlifes and should be ashamed of themselves.
Click to expand...



Actually I think they're incapable of seeing it. It's not so much that they can't admit it, most of them could take a lie detector and pass it with their beliefs.

The issue is that for whatever reason, whether mental defect or problems as a child or what, they can't wrap their mind around personal accountability. I think it has a lot to do with being extremely coddled as a child... Protected, and never allowed to see the world as it is. Then they wake up at 30 years old, living in mum's basement and going to night classes in liberal arts. They literally are incapable of seeing the world without their rose tinted glasses.
 
SpatiallyAware said:
Actually I think they're incapable of seeing it. It's not so much that they can't admit it, most of them could take a lie detector and pass it with their beliefs.

The issue is that for whatever reason, whether mental defect or problems as a child or what, they can't wrap their mind around personal accountability. I think it has a lot to do with being extremely coddled as a child... Protected, and never allowed to see the world as it is. Then they wake up at 30 years old, living in mum's basement and going to night classes in liberal arts. They literally are incapable of seeing the world without their rose tinted glasses.
Click to expand...

Agree. They are very uncomfortable with the idea of black on white crimes since it goes against their belief that only white people are racist. This is the root of the problem and why they give so much attention to GZ and TM but ignore this case and others since they refuse to accept it. I am starting to believe that many of them suffer from white liberal guilt and are ashamed of the actions of whites from the past.
 
dank69 said:
You two should get a room instead of flaunting your hate-filled romance in front of the rest of us.
Click to expand...

In their world everything is about TM and Zim and nothing else is interesting to talk about.

Bottom line, two thugs beat an old man to death and will be held accountable. They are conflating this into be a bigger issue than it is.

There are more than 16k murders a year in the USA, this is just one of many. What needs to be done to reduce this number is obvious....
1. Easy and FREE access to abortion services for the poor and underprivileged
2. An end to the war on drugs
3. Sensible nationalized laws regulating firearm ownership
 
bshole said:
In their world everything is about TM and Zim and nothing else is interesting to talk about.

Bottom line, two thugs beat an old man to death and will be held accountable. They are conflating this into be a bigger issue than it is.

There are more than 16k murders a year in the USA, this is just one of many. What needs to be done to reduce this number is obvious....
1. Easy and FREE access to abortion services for the poor and underprivileged
2. An end to the war on drugs
3. Sensible nationalized laws regulating firearm ownership
Click to expand...

I can agree with #2 and #3 but not #1. We do not need another gov't program that takes responsibility away from people. We need to make people be responsible for their actions -- suffer the consequences. They should still have to pay for abortions or deal with the child when it is born.

I would be fine with abortion services being free if it also came with a mandatory sterilization procedure (for free, of course).
 
SpatiallyAware said:
No kidding, next up the progressives will be evaluating the poor man's age and trying to make it out like he didn't take that much life from him.
Click to expand...

They did do us a favor. He clearly would have been a burden on the healthcare system where he would have taken out much more than he gave in at this point in his life.
 
JockoJohnson said:
I can agree with #2 and #3 but not #1. We do not need another gov't program that takes responsibility away from people. We need to make people be responsible for their actions -- suffer the consequences. They should still have to pay for abortions or deal with the child when it is born.

I would be fine with abortion services being free if it also came with a mandatory sterilization procedure (for free, of course).
Click to expand...

I would be more comfortable with free access to birth control. Free access to abortions comes off a bit too much as an attempt at eugenics.
 
thraashman said:
I would be more comfortable with free access to birth control. Free access to abortions comes off a bit too much as an attempt at eugenics.
Click to expand...

I can agree with that. It is a bitter pill to swallow to give free birth control because people can't keep their pants on or use common sense. But it is better than the alternatives of unwanted children or abortions.
 
actuarial said:
Would you consider all of these equivalent from a moral perspective:
- killing someone during a war
- killing someone in self defense
- killing someone while they are assaulting a family member
- killing someone who raped your daughter
- killing someone when you walk in on them sleeping with your wife
- killing someone after finding out they slept with your wife
- killing someone during a robbery
- killing someone because you don't like the way they look
- killing someone because you enjoy the act of killing
Click to expand...

The bottom 3 are the EXACT same level of reprehensible for anyone who's not a borderline psychopath themselves.

When did killing someone you were robbing become some sort of 'cut above' just killing someone for the heck of it? Either thing is senseless. That you were also violating the person in another way before committing the ultimate violation against them means dick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top