Brainfade Posted October 6, 2013 Posted October 6, 2013 http://www.khq.com/story/23618574/police-soldier-fatally-stabbed-may-be-hate-crime Of course, it is just not as sensational as the the other one (ya know the one where an enraged white dude killed an MMA-trained 17-year-old). So the national media shouldn't give this any air time, nor should the President feel he needs to insert his opinion on race relations. Police: Soldier Fatally Stabbed; May Be Hate Crime Posted: Oct 05, 2013 9:41 PM EDT Updated: Oct 05, 2013 9:41 PM EDT Pierce County - Authorities say a soldier was fatally stabbed alongside a Lakewood street, and investigators are examining whether the attack was a racially motivated hate crime. The Lakewood Police Department said the stabbing occurred early Saturday morning as the 20-year-old soldier was walking with two of his friends from Joint Base Lewis-McChord. Authorities are looking for five black men who they say were driving in the area and shouted a racial comment toward the white soldiers. Authorities say the group from the vehicle stopped and surrounded the soldiers but began to leave when one of them realized the soldiers were combat veterans. Police say the suspects were leaving the area when one of them appeared to bump into the victim. As the car left, the soldier fell to the ground and his friends discovered he had been stabbed. (Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)
hhunaeh Posted October 6, 2013 Posted October 6, 2013 So the "zimmerman" in this case will find public support and will be found not guilty?
Brainfade Posted October 6, 2013 Author Posted October 6, 2013 So the "zimmerman" in this case will find public support and will be found not guilty? The point is that - from the very day the Z-M incident occurred, the media was all over it, and our esteemed President felt the urge to insert his racial comments within a day or two. To your tangential point: if the prosecution f***s up this case like they did with Z, who knows?
hhunaeh Posted October 6, 2013 Posted October 6, 2013 Zimmerman was released under florida's law by the cops which led to the media coverage. Let me know when someone is taken into custody and later released by the cops in this case.
Brainfade Posted October 6, 2013 Author Posted October 6, 2013 Zimmerman was released under florida's law by the cops which led to the media coverage. Let me know when someone is taken into custody and later released by the cops in this case. What Florida law? At the time of his arrest, stand-my-ground was not evoked. Nor was it invoked during the trial. Z was handcuffed, taken into custody, questioned for 5 hours, and when it was evident that he had acted in self-defense (bloody nose, bloody head), they cut him loose. Later, due to pressure from the Feds, they charged him with murder and eventually lost the case. But don't let facts get in the way of a good story. What grates on me is the free pass that the President got after his ridiculous insertion of race into the case. If he felt so strongly that an AA victim looked like his son, he must feel just as strongly about every AA murderer, too, right? A statesman cannot take selective ownership of his racial status when it suits him, while not owning it when it is inconvenient. Oh ... and have you heard of the Roderick Scott case? I didn't think so. Look it up. AA man. White unarmed 17-yo victim. AA man felt threatened and shot the kid dead. Taken in custody. No evidence that he acted in self-defense (unlike Z). Tried for 2nd degree manslaughter (unlike Z, who was charged with murder). Found NOT GUILTY. Not a whisper in the media outside of local reports. Why? It does not fit the "we are a racist society" narrative of the politically correct media.
CSK Fan Posted October 6, 2013 Posted October 6, 2013 What Florida law? At the time of his arrest, stand-my-ground was not evoked. Nor was it invoked during the trial. Z was handcuffed, taken into custody, questioned for 5 hours, and when it was evident that he had acted in self-defense (bloody nose, bloody head), they cut him loose. Later, due to pressure from the Feds, they charged him with murder and eventually lost the case. But don't let facts get in the way of a good story. . Yes, please completely ignore the fact that it is not the duty of the police to be the judge, jury and executioner and release a suspect but it's the court's job. Completely ignore the fact that even during the court case it took days of examining the evidence before the jury gave the benifit of the doubt. No, lets just shut down all the courts of the country and let the police decide on the basis of couple of hours of questioning Secondly, in no other country of the world (except the middle east ones) will human life be so cheap that there is no punishment for taking one. So he had a bloody nose and bloody head, heck almost all teenagers get into street fights and get bloody noses. I would have been dead several times in my life if the price of a street fight with someone following me was death The very fact that you are constantly defending the taking of a 17 year old's life for such flimsy reasons tells a lot about you as a human being As for you OP, no where related to the Zimemrman case at all. If police catch the black suspects and then let them go after a couple of hours of interrogation, then you can say its the same thing. then obviously you might see the furore and the media sensation and a sound byte from the President too. But we all know thats never going to happen
vvvslaxman Posted October 6, 2013 Posted October 6, 2013 How can we equate that incident to this incident. That incident was more to do with taking law into own hands in the name of "neighbourhood watch" and killing an unarmed innocent boy by chasing down. If you are going to make this issue into a big one.. there are many such incidents happen (white attacking black, asians, black attacking white,asians every day.
Brainfade Posted October 6, 2013 Author Posted October 6, 2013 How can we equate that incident to this incident. That incident was more to do with taking law into own hands in the name of "neighbourhood watch" and killing an unarmed innocent boy by chasing down. In this case, an innocent unarmed white soldier was chased down and stabbed by a bunch of black guys. How is it that much different? If you are going to make this issue into a big one.. there are many such incidents happen (white attacking black, asians, black attacking white,asians every day. Exactly my point. How come the President singled out that one incident to identify "his son?" If that wasn't race-baiting, what was? And the media gave him a free pass. That is my main point.
Brainfade Posted October 6, 2013 Author Posted October 6, 2013 Yes, please completely ignore the fact that it is not the duty of the police to be the judge, jury and executioner and release a suspect but it's the court's job. Completely ignore the fact that even during the court case it took days of examining the evidence before the jury gave the benifit of the doubt. No, lets just shut down all the courts of the country and let the police decide on the basis of couple of hours of questioning Secondly, in no other country of the world (except the middle east ones) will human life be so cheap that there is no punishment for taking one. So he had a bloody nose and bloody head, heck almost all teenagers get into street fights and get bloody noses. I would have been dead several times in my life if the price of a street fight with someone following me was death The very fact that you are constantly defending the taking of a 17 year old's life for such flimsy reasons tells a lot about you as a human being As for you OP, no where related to the Zimemrman case at all. If police catch the black suspects and then let them go after a couple of hours of interrogation, then you can say its the same thing. then obviously you might see the furore and the media sensation and a sound byte from the President too. But we all know thats never going to happen mtc, you are mistaken. I have not defended Z at all. And I am not defending him now. On this board, I have posted many times that he should be behind bars for his atrocious crime. And I have nagged a million times that the only reason he is roaming free is because the prosecution got greedy and hit him with trumped-up charges. They should've stuck with manslaughter charges and put him away for 25 - 30 years. The big difference in the 2 cases is just this: Z was bleeding profusely and that served as evidence that he acted in self-defense. You are forgetting that he was re-arrested and tried in court. In the case from the OP, there was no such excuse for the assailants. They went after the unarmed, innocent white guy for the only reason he was white. And no one hears about it. The only reason the President made it such a huge deal at that time was to fan racial flames and make it an issue during election time. And that is shameful.
coffee_rules Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 The only reason the President made it such a huge deal at that time was to fan racial flames and make it an issue during election time. And that is shameful. C'mon, the country's first black president had rarely uttered quotes on anything remotely racial or connected with black. When he said something about 2009 Harvard professor, republicans made it a racial issue. Apparently, he and the White house were under immense pressure on such a sensitive issue and he had to say something about the incident. Under the circumstance, his quote seems appropriate. He wanted to people to do some soul searching on how it affects them personally. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-if-i-had-a-son-hed-look-like-trayvon/2012/03/23/gIQApKPpVS_story.html The new approach is at once deeply personal and completely universal, and avidly avoids taking sides in a political fight. His appeal Friday was to the parents. “I can only imagine what these parents are going through,” he said. “And I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this, and that everybody pulls together — federal, state and local — to figure out exactly how this tragedy happened.” Embedded in his remarks in the Rose Garden was a particular message about being a black parent. “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” Obama said. “When I think about this boy, I think about my own kids.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/23/obama-trayvon-martin_n_1375083.html The statement by Obama came after he introduced Dartmouth President Jim Kim to be the next head of the World Bank during an appearance in the Rose Garden. He took only one question before heading back into the West Wing -- signaling that both he and his press handlers were feeling pressure, coming from black activists and others, to make a public comment on the Martin case. Obama was careful not to get too far ahead of events. He said he was wary of "impairing" an ongoing legal process but praised the fact that federal, state and local law enforcement are now working together on Martin's death. "Obviously, this is a tragedy," he said. "I can only imagine what these parents are going through, and when I think about this boy, I think about my own kids, and I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this, and that everybody pulls together -- federal, state and local -- to figure out exactly how this tragedy happened." He went on. "I think all of us have to do some soul searching to figure out how does something like this happen," said Obama. "And that means we examine the laws and the context for what happened, as well as the specifics of the incident." Shooting happened in Frb and his quote was n March and happened to be a election year. He didn't say it in Sept/Oct to make it an election issue. I think you are trolling esp when it comes to Obama. His quotes on the bail-out of auto industry was an election issue, not certainly this quote on Trayvon.
vvvslaxman Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 In this case, an innocent unarmed white soldier was chased down and stabbed by a bunch of black guys. How is it that much different? Exactly my point. How come the President singled out that one incident to identify "his son?" If that wasn't race-baiting, what was? And the media gave him a free pass. That is my main point. No you are twisting the facts here. Doing racial profiling on the spot and deciding to chase an innocent boy down and killing in the name of acting as a vigilante and getting away with that is whole different issue. The 5 guys who attacked him never claimed that they were protecting the "law" like Mr.Zimmerman claims . They are outlaws who did an unlawful things. You think black men never get beaten up by white men in other areas. No such incident had more light than this because of the pecularity of the case.
vvvslaxman Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 cricaddict you have become lunatics like your fellow republicans.. trying to find needle in haystack to promote your agenda. sorry dude. We are not buying it.
Brainfade Posted October 7, 2013 Author Posted October 7, 2013 cricaddict you have become lunatics like your fellow republicans.. trying to find needle in haystack to promote your agenda. sorry dude. We are not buying it. I disagree. I was born crazy :-)!! I have no agenda. I think the President made a bad comment, and needs to be criticized, which his minions are unwilling to do. To be fair, though, several liberals on this board called him out for it. Here's the last thing I will say about this - in response to you and c-r. As far as I am concerned, malicious killing is malicious killing, and it is all bad. Be it a vigilante or a spontaneous hate-crime or a home invasion or a drug killing. To me, they must all be condemned just the same. Obviously, you feel that one type of killing is more excusable than others. More than anything, I expect my President to be the President of all people. At no time should he have yielded to the pressures of race-baiters and made the "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon" comment. It was an obvious reference to Trayvon's race. Given the same circumstances, except the boy being of a different race, w/could he have chosen to say something like that? Every boy - black, white, Hispanic, Asian - should be like "a son" to him. While I can understand how a black boy's death would affect Mr. Barack Obama more, it is different when he is President Obama. I wonder how people would react if GWB would only consider a white methodist boy's death worth of an "if I had a son ..." emotion.
Recommended Posts