Man Stuck in Windshield Left to Die

by teejay 26 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  bigboi

  So does your definition of a hate crime match the federal government's definition?

  I guess so. To be honest with you I'd never known that certain crimes were designated "hate crimes" until that guy was dragged to death in Texas. I guess the gobvernment sorta coined the term.

  Do you just accept that someone deserves to die twice because it was a "hate" crime?

  Forgive me, but I don't really understand your question. I do believe that if a person is the victim of a crime soley because of their race or their beiefs, then it deserves some type of special attention.

  Every time you kill someone intentionally it's a hate crime. Every time.

  OK, so what if a person comes into my house and attacks me, and I kill them? Now, mind you it isn't an accident or something that just happened during a struggle, but I just upped and blew his head off with my 40 cal. as soon as I got the chance to. Would I be guilty of a hate crime?

  ONE....

  bigboi
• 

  teejay

  You're missing the point. Hitting the man was not a hate crime. It was an accident. Leaving him to die a slow death on the windshield in her garage could easily be called a hate crime. Can it be proven? Yes! Anytime you kill someone, it's a hate crime. If the man had been black would she or one of her friends have called for help? I think it might have made a difference.

  No, Tim, I don't think I'm missing the point.

  You suggest that it "could be proven" that, because she killed him... and everytime you kill someone... it's a hate crime. You're wrong. A bank robber might kill a bank customer only because the customer moved when told not to. Hate was not an issue and couldn't be "proven."

  You support my viewpoint in this when you ended your above quote by saying that if the man had been black she would have helped him. You said,

  I think it might have made a difference.

  No question -- the woman was scared, a damn fool, a complete amoral idiot (and whatever else you want to say about her complete lack of regard for her fellow human), and wanted to hide her huge mistake, but what she did was not, by definition, a hate crime.
• 

  tyydyy

  Killing a person during a robbery is a hate crime. It doesn't matter. When you have the power to give life or take it and you choose to take it then you have committed a hate crime (IMHO). I define "hate" as the absence of love or caring. I don't believe that it has to be cultivated to be called hate. Her disrespect for human life is just as heinous as those boys in Laramie. No she didn't seek out this man but she killed him without regard for his life. That is hate in my book. I don't let the government define my moral and ethical values.......totally. I just disagree that there should be hate crime laws. It devalues the lives of those who were killed just because they were weaker than the criminal. It tells the mother of the little girl that was raped, tortured and murdered that somehow her child's murderer isn't as bad as someone who had done it for racial reasons. I don't think we should put different values on human lives. It is divisive.

  TimB
• 

  tyydyy

  Big boi,

  Good question,

  OK, so what if a person comes into my house and attacks me, and I kill them? Now, mind you it isn't an accident or something that just happened during a struggle, but I just upped and blew his head off with my 40 cal. as soon as I got the chance to. Would I be guilty of a hate crime?

  No, I don't think that would be a hate crime. That would be putting more value on your own life than on someone who could possibly take yours.

  I do believe that the law's definition of 1st degree murder is sufficient to be called a hate crime.

  TimB
• 

  teejay

  Killing a person during a robbery is a hate crime. Her disrespect for human life is just as heinous as those boys in Laramie. No she didn't seek out this man but she killed him without regard for his life. That is hate in my book. I don't let the government define my moral and ethical values...

  I understand, Tim. Believe me, I do.

  I guess it's just that the U.S. government wasn't taking TimB's viewpoint into consideration when they penned hate crime legislation. For the record, the Ft. Worth lady's crime doesn't fit the U.S. Dept. of Justice's description of what constitutes a hate crime.

  That's all I'm saying.
• 

  Perry

  Does anyone here think she would have displayed the same indifference if the victum had been a woman?

  My money is on the bet that she previously had serious issues with men, ....abused by, addicted to, and abused men previously.
• 

  terafera

  I agree with Tim and Perry.

  I totally understand their points... if the woman was white and the man was black I could see the prosecutor saying that even though hitting him was an accident, because he was black, she left him to die like an animal.

  I could definitely see it being charged as a hate crime...

  This reminds me of a case here in Anchorage:
  Three young teenagers wanted to go out on the town and raise hell. They decided to take a paintball gun, drive through downtown, and hit 'derilics'. They were aiming for anyone downtown, but were hoping to hit the drunks (downtown Anchorage has alot of drunks). Anyway, they were stupid enough to videotape the whole darn thing. Many of the drunks were Alaska Natives (Eskimos, Indians, etc.). When the cops pulled the kids over and viewed the tape, the whole things was called a 'hate crime'. The Natives were up in arms, picketing, being interviewed, etc., crying about the horrible racist whites committing this 'hate crime'.

  This really made me angry. What made it a 'hate crime'? They wanted to hit 'drunks and derilicts'... because many in this group were Alaskan Native, it was immediately pronounced a 'hate crime'. They never mentioned that 2 out of the several hit were white; one a woman and one a man. So it wasn't a 'hate crime'! A crime, yes, but a hate crime, no. Because of the attention this case got, the judge allowed many Alaskan Natives to sit on the jury and even sat with them discussing the case. I think the boys were treated unfairly... this was a case of young kids making the wrong choice. I dont think they were racist or set out to commit an act of hate against a certain race. I know one of the boys has to do several things after jail, one of them to volunteer time for a Native organization. Sheesh.

  Anyway, I see the points being made. I am sure it could be proven that the woman who left the man to die, did indeed have racial problems with white people, especially men. I am sure if it were a black person or a woman or even a wealthy person, the scene would have been different.

  Just my take on it!