Racist attack

[CrashTester]

Hyperthetically, say I were a white person and I attacked a black or an asian person, for example, for a reason that was not racially motivated, say they hit a younger brother or sister so I clouted them back. Nothing more than that.

Now say I then later accepted that although I hit them for the original reason (they clouted my younger sibling) I also admitted that if the person was white I would probably have given them a stiff telling off but because they were black/asian I hit them instead.

Would that be considered a racist attack since it wasn't intended to be in the first place?

Now of course, noone can say for sure that if the person was white the attack wouldnt have taken place it would only be my word against my word really and couldnt only be open to interpretation at best, so is that enough to make it a considered racially motivated?

[pablissimo]

Probably.

[Kurashima]

In todays day and age , the police aim to hit you with "Racially motivated assault" as it carries a higher sentence. They will then inevitably get your lawyer to bargain it down to assault and they can guarantee a conviction.

Since it was just common assault in the first place, they get their result , you get whatever is coming to you, and the figures look good when theyre read out by a politician whos never experienced crime in his or her life.

[Vermillion]

I also admitted that if the person was white I would probably have given them a stiff telling off but because they were black/asian I hit them instead.

Explain to me how this is not the dictionary definition of a racially motivated attack. You hit them because of their race, and then (in this hypothetical) were foolish enough to admit it.

[CrashTester]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

Explain to me how this is not the dictionary definition of a racially motivated attack. You hit them because of their race, and then (in this hypothetical) were foolish enough to admit it.

I this hyperthetical stituation I hit them because they hit my younger sibling. Even if I were to say later that I may have not hit a white person, who is to say for sure what I would have done? This surely cannot be classed as racially motivated, since it wasnt.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by CrashTester

who is to say for sure what I would have done?

The law works upon the basis of the evidence avaliable to it, faggot.

You saying that you would not have attacked the person if they had been white is 'persuasive' in these matters.

[Dante Hicks]

The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 gave statutory force to the idea of 'racially aggravated offences'. Racially aggravated offences include assault, criminal damage and public order offences. An offence is racially aggravated if (a) at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrates towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim's membership - or presumed membership - of a racial group; or (b) the offence is motivated - wholly or partly - by hostility towards members of a racial group based on their membership of that group.

-- From : http://www.yourrights.org.uk/your-ri...l_hatred.shtml

[CrashTester]

Thanks, so it this situation it would not be considered racially motivated. I thought so.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by CrashTester

Thanks, so it this situation it would not be considered racially motivated. I thought so.

You said you wouldn't have attacked the person if they had been white. This in itself indicates a level of hostility towards that person's race.

[pablissimo]

Originally Posted by CrashTester

Thanks, so it this situation it would not be considered racially motivated. I thought so.

Part B of that seems to cover your situation perfectly. You said you probably wouldn't have hit him had he been white ('hypothetically'), as such your hitting him must have been at least partly motivated by his race.

See?

[Intrepid00]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 gave statutory force to the idea of 'racially aggravated offences'. Racially aggravated offences include assault, criminal damage and public order offences. An offence is racially aggravated if (a) at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrates towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim's membership - or presumed membership - of a racial group; or (b) the offence is motivated - wholly or partly - by hostility towards members of a racial group based on their membership of that group.

-- From : http://www.yourrights.org.uk/your-ri...l_hatred.shtml

Why do people make laws to cover what we already have covered. Last I checked it wasn't legal to assault someone so why do we need a law that will never be used when another race hits a white person to say it was illegal.

Its reverse discrimination I tell you.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Intrepid00

Why do people make laws to cover what we already have covered. Last I checked it wasn't legal to assault someone so why do we need a law that will never be used when another race hits a white person to say it was illegal.

I agree with your overall point, but your statement here is kind of misleading.

The reason why that such laws are made is the legal idea that certain crimes are worse than others. Rape is a fom of assault, yet is treated more harshly (usually) than "normal" assaults. Do you see?

The idea of treating racist crimes more harshly is more of a practical public order issue, rather than any ethical/moral reasons. I don't think anyone is saying that beating a black person is worse than beating a white person, but that socially, the damage caused by racist crimes is larger than "normal" crimes.

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by CrashTester

who is to say for sure what I would have done?

Originally Posted by CrashTester

I also admitted that if the person was white I would probably have given them a stiff telling off but because they were black/asian I hit them instead.

You are. You just admitted that the attack was racially motivated. Your reason for being upset was not, but you stated quite clearly that you hit them because they were not white. That makes it a racial attack.

[ChubbyChecker]

As was said in a really old South Park episode, when you attack someone you'd better be damned sure they're of the same ethnic origin as you (or something like that)

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

You said you wouldn't have attacked the person if they had been white. This in itself indicates a level of hostility towards that person's race.

Originally Posted by Vermillion

You are. You just admitted that the attack was racially motivated. Your reason for being upset was not, but you stated quite clearly that you hit them because they were not white. That makes it a racial attack.

This guy was annoying me so I punched him in the face but if it had been a girl I wouldnt have hit her because hitting girls is wrong, ergo this constituted a sexist/sexually motivated attack and the sentence should be increased

but thats totally different am i rite

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

but thats totally different am i rite

For what reason would someone hit a non-white on the basis of them being non-white, other than racism?

Stop, think, comment.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

but thats totally different am i rite

Well, yeah - under the law it is different (which is what his question was related to).

Whether morally we should have such laws is a different matter.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

For what reason would someone hit a non-white on the basis of them being non-white, other than racism?

Stop, think, comment.

For what reason would someone hit a non-female on the basis of them being non-female, other than sexism?

Stop, think, comment.

[Intrepid00]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

For what reason would someone hit a non-white on the basis of them being non-white, other than racism?

Stop, think, comment.

This is coming from the man that thinks its ok to take people's stuff when they ask you to please ask first and they would be happy to share, but doesn't and gets all pissy when they tell him he is a rude bitch.

You own on my shit list right now because your white.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Well, yeah - under the law it is different (which is what his question was related to).

Whether morally we should have such laws is a different matter.

Neither of the 2 posts I quoted mentioned the law. MM's was talking about it being indicitive of race hatred, while Vermillion was making a purely linguistic argument that is detached from transient legal matters.

[CrashTester]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

You said you wouldn't have attacked the person if they had been white. This in itself indicates a level of hostility towards that person's race.

No, I said probably would not, which implies a large degree of uncertainty. And if I am uncertain it happened because the person was black/asian, how can you be certain that it definately was?

[Work_Child]

It's racist to even look at a black person in a way that displeases them.

[Intrepid00]

Can a white person that is white hate someone cause their white and make them a racist?

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

For what reason would someone hit a non-female on the basis of them being non-female, other than sexism?

Irrelevant to the issue. Provide me with an instance when someone would hit a non-white on the basis of them being non-white, which would not be considered at least in part to be racially motivated.

In any case, you point is a nonsense, since (in your original pseudo-statement.) the person didn't hit the other person because they were non-female, merely indicated that had they been female, they wouldn't have hit them.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I agree with your overall point, but your statement here is kind of misleading.

The reason why that such laws are made is the legal idea that certain crimes are worse than others. Rape is a fom of assault, yet is treated more harshly (usually) than "normal" assaults. Do you see?

Rape is a different crime from normal assault, because the act itself is different (one involves penii, the other generally doesnt). However, there is no difference between a 'hate crime' and the corresponding 'non hate crime' (love crime?). The difference in sentencing occurs purely because of beliefs the criminal may happen to possess, ie he is guilty of thought crime.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by CrashTester

No, I said probably would not, which implies a large degree of uncertainty.

Originally Posted by CrashTester

I also admitted that if the person was white I would probably have given them a stiff telling off but because they were black/asian I hit them instead.

Would you care to revise your bullshit statement, sir?

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Irrelevant to the issue. Provide me with an instance when someone would hit a non-white on the basis of them being non-white, which would not be considered at least in part to be racially motivated.

In any case, you point is a nonsense, since (in your original pseudo-statement.) the person didn't hit the other person because they were non-female, merely indicated that had they been female, they wouldn't have hit them.

Of course its relevant. Your argument is "Person A attacks Person B for reason R. Person B also happens to have characteristic X (which is independent of R), and had they not had it, Person A would not have attacked them. Therefore, the attack was motivated by X", and youre saying that this is magically valid when X is "being black", but invalid when X is "having a penis", without even attempting to point out the relevant difference between the 2 situations.

Your inability to comprehend logic doesnt render counterarguments to your moronic ideas 'nonsense'.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

The difference in sentencing occurs purely because of beliefs the criminal may happen to possess, ie he is guilty of thought crime.

Yeah, I've already covered this though - the difference in sentencing is because of practical public order concerns.

Similarly, as I've said in the past : The organisation I work for ocasisonally has to take people to court for anti-social behaviour (assault on their neighbours, harrassment, etc). Our actions are much swifter if racism is involved not because we think racism is "worse" than any other kind of harrassment, but merely due to practicalities - i.e. it basically makes our allocation policy a nightmare. We already have certain estates where it's a nightmare to let out to certain groups because they WILL be harrassed by local idiots.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Yeah, I've already covered this though - the difference in sentencing is because of practical public order concerns.

I dont think that giving the state the power to imprison people for their beliefs is particularly practical, but ok.

[LHC]

What about if I hit a white, but wouldn't hit a black because I wouldn't want to be considered racist?

Racial discrimination!

[Bob The Scutter]

Originally Posted by Kurashima

Since it was just common assault in the first place, they get their result , you get whatever is coming to you, and the figures look good when theyre read out by a politician whos never experienced crime in his or her life.

Kura in 'no spaces in between word and comma shocker'!

[Intrepid00]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Yeah, I've already covered this though - the difference in sentencing is because of practical public order concerns.

Similarly, as I've said in the past : The organisation I work for ocasisonally has to take people to court for anti-social behaviour (assault on their neighbours, harrassment, etc). Our actions are much swifter if racism is involved not because we think racism is "worse" than any other kind of harrassment, but merely due to practicalities - i.e. it basically makes our allocation policy a nightmare. We already have certain estates where it's a nightmare to let out to certain groups because they WILL be harrassed by local idiots.

Please clarify.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

I dont think that giving the state the power to imprison people for their beliefs is particularly practical, but ok.

Well, allegedly the Crime & Disorder relies on the crime being motivated by racism, not merely a coincidental belief. The first part of the quote I made stated that you needed to espouse a hostility to x group directly before or after the crime for it to count. So beating up a black person (but not displaying any racism during the act), but then writing in a White Power journal weeks later wouldn't seem to count.

I'm not sure how the courts interpret this though.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

(which is independent of R above),

It is not independent of the reason, it forms part of the reason. This was the original situation given in the thread.

The person did not happen to be a black person who was attacked for some reason individual to the circumstances - they were attacked on the basis of them being black.

The difference is, as I've said, that in this instance the person was attacked on the basis of them being black - solely that - where in your totally irrelevant analogy, a person was hit because they were a person. The first person then grew contemplative, and thought they may not have attacked them if they had a certain charecteristic.

Neither situation has any relationship to the other. If you actually thought about what you were saying, instead of getting into a frothing rant-mode, you would realise this.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

It is not independent of the reason, it forms part of the reason. This was the original situation given in the thread.

The person did not happen to be a black person who was attacked for some reason individual to the circumstances - they were attacked on the basis of them being black.

The difference is, as I've said, that in this instance the person was attacked on the basis of them being black - solely that - where in your totally irrelevant analogy, a person was hit because they were a person. The first person then grew contemplative, and thought they may not have attacked them if they had a certain charecteristic.

Originally Posted by CrashTester

Hyperthetically, say I were a white person and I attacked a black or an asian person, for example, for a reason that was not racially motivated, say they hit a younger brother or sister so I clouted them back.

Now say I then later accepted that although I hit them for the original reason (they clouted my younger sibling) I also admitted that if the person was white I would probably have given them a stiff telling off but because they were black/asian I hit them instead.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

I dont think that giving the state the power to imprison people for their beliefs

Most crimes take into account the mental state and/or intentions of the person at the time of the crime - is belief a seperate realm from this? Just curious.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Stuff

And? I've already addressed this.

The person attacked them on the basis of them being black. It says as much in the original post:

"if the person was white I would probably have given them a stiff telling off but because they were black/asian I hit them instead."

Whatever the black person had done before was irrelevant to that crime. They were attacked on the basis of them being black. A white person would not have been attacked. It says this.

I haven't the faintest idea what your point is.

[queball]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

And? I've already addressed this.

The person attacked them on the basis of them being black. It says as much in the original post:

"if the person was white I would probably have given them a stiff telling off but because they were black/asian I hit them instead."

Whatever the black person had done before was irrelevant to that crime. They were attacked on the basis of them being black. A white person would not have been attacked. It says this.

I haven't the faintest idea what your point is.

I don't think "A because B" means B is the basis of A, at all.
I like these bands because I'm English so Englishness is the basis of my taste,
I'm reading this book now because my dad recommended it to me, so my dad is the basis of my learning,
I didn't hit her cos she was a girl, so gender is the basis of my violence,
etc

[CrashTester]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Would you care to revise your bullshit statement, sir?

No, because I was not saying that I hit them because they were black/asian but I probably would not have hit a white person. But the point is in this hyperthetical situation, I did not hit him because he was black/asian and I was not certain I would have treated a white person differently.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Intrepid00

when they ask you to please ask first and they would be happy to share,

They told me that afterwards, idiot.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by CrashTester

No, because I was not saying that I hit them because they were black/asian

Originally Posted by CrashTester

but because they were black/asian I hit them instead.

Would you care to revise your bullshit statement, sir?

Originally Posted by CrashTester

but I probably would not have hit a white person.

So you would not have hit a white person, but you did hit a black person because they were black.


Remind me again what your argument was.

[queball]

If he'd said "since" instead of "because", would you understand?

[Intrepid00]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

They told me that afterwards, idiot.

So they didn't even say you could use their shit. Yeah, thats better.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by queball

I don't think "A because B" means B is the basis of A, at all.

When someone hits someone else on the basis of them being black, and admits this, and states categorically that they only hit them because they were black, how on earth can it be nothing other than racially motivated?

No-one has addressed this in any logical fashion whatsoever. The total hysteria that has been given as a substitute for any reasonable answer speaks wonders.

Originally Posted by queball

I didn't hit her cos she was a girl, so gender is the basis of my violence,

That was not Nod's original analogy. (I assume that's what you're talking about.)

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Intrepid00

So they didn't even say you could use their shit. Yeah, thats better.

Did you actually read the ****ing thread, about us all living together, us living in a communal atmosphere, it only being vinegar, or are you just ****ing trolling?

On the basis of the fact that you actually hadn't a clue about the simple detail of it all until a few minutes ago, I would assume you didn't.

[Intrepid00]

You all pay for the room toghter. Where did you pay your share for the Vinegar? If I was one of your roommates I would proably wanna punch you in the throat if I saw your thread.

As said before, stealing is stealing. No matter how small.

[CrashTester]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Would you care to revise your bullshit statement, sir?



So you would not have hit a white person, but you did hit a black person because they were black.


Remind me again what your argument was.

See the bit between full stops, its called a sentence. Read all of it instead of commenting on a few words of it and you will understand what is being said.

In case you dont understand, it says that after the attack, which was not carried out for racial reasons, if i were to admit to probably letting a white person off with a stiff telling off but hitting the black/asian, would this be considered a racial attack.

Since the initial attack was not done because the person was black/asian and at best I had admited to possibly treating a black/asian person differently, how can this be considered racially motivated since the only certain thing was that I hit him because he hit a sibling first and not because of race or colour?

[CrashTester]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

When someone hits someone else on the basis of them being black, and admits this, and states categorically that they only hit them because they were black, how on earth can it be nothing other than racially motivated?

In this situation no one has admitted to hitting someone else on the basis of them being black, they was hit because they hit a sibling first not because of their colour. That's the first point you miss.

Next you fail to see the part that says they may or may not have been treated differently because of colour, something that is not and cannot be proven one way or the other.

[Dace]

If you talk directly to the police when you are charged (ie not through your lawyer) and you admit to a more serious crime than the Polis are after you for then you deserve a longer sentence for your stupidity alone (it'll probably be in your best interest too because if you're that stupid you're liable to do yourself a mischief on the outside world where people aren't watching you all the time).

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by CrashTester

In case you dont understand, it says that after the attack, which was not carried out for racial reasons, if i were to admit to probably letting a white person off with a stiff telling off but hitting the black/asian, would this be considered a racial attack.

Crash, I acn only assume you are confused or being unclear, because otherwise you contradict yourself with every statement. You hit a guy because you were mad. The reason you were mad is irrelevant. You became mad and you hit a person. You hit him because he was black, and if he had not been black, you would not have hit him.

Then you claim this was clearly not a racist attack.

If he was white you would not have hit him. However, he was black, so you hit him.

Please carefully and deliberatly explain your logic, because many people here are not getting it.