Politically motivated violence thread

[jamil]

Amazing that Harris used this as a springboard to push the anti-lynching legislation... almost perfect timing.
A little too perfect... could it be? Nah. Right?

Also is this REALLY going on so frequently today that there needs to be some new law? Really?

About the anti-lynching legislation. Judging from twitter, many preople must believe that lynching is legal, and that we need a law to finally make it illegal. No. Seriously. They tweet **** like that. And then you have Twitter’s equivalent of Denny replying, uh, lynching is kinda covered under the assault and murder laws, so, totally not legal.

 

[Mongo59]

Could it be that the last TV personality you could trust is Lassie? I had to disqualify Mr Ed and "My Mother the Car" as tending to be self serving...

 

[KG1]

It now looks like we know who all the actors are and I guess culpability for the roles they all played/or not will have to be determined by the evidence. The Nigerians allegedly claim that Smollet played a part and Smollet denies.

My only question is when will a statement be released exhonerating "White racist, homophobic MAGA supporters"?

Exerpt of statement released by Smollett's attorney's:

As a victim of a hate crime who has cooperated with the police investigation, Jussie Smollett is angered and devastated by recent reports that the perpetrators are individuals he is familiar with. He has now been further victimized by claims attributed to these alleged perpetrators that Jussie played a role in his own attack. Nothing is further from the truth and anyone claiming otherwise is lying.
One of these purported suspects was Jussie’s personal trainer who he hired to ready him physically for a music video. It is impossible to believe that this person could have played a role in the crime against Jussie or would falsely claim Jussie’s complicity.

Link provided for an update and full statement: https://deadline.com/2019/02/jussie...e-statement-chicago-police-empire-1202559103/

 

[Mongo59]

About the anti-lynching legislation. Judging from twitter, many preople must believe that lynching is legal, and that we need a law to finally make it illegal. No. Seriously. They tweet **** like that. And then you have Twitter’s equivalent of Denny replying, uh, lynching is kinda covered under the assault and murder laws, so, totally not legal.

What could further legislation do, require dental floss to be sold in pieces 6 inches long or less?

 

[jamil]

What could further legislation do, require dental floss to be sold in pieces 6 inches long or less?

I haven’t read the proposal, but my guess is that if a rope used in an assault against a black person, they get to tack on years to the sentence. I guess because without that legislation, “lynching” is totally legal.

 

[Mongo59]

And we all know how laws are the only thing that makes a good citizen. Well that and disarming them. Maybe branding them, holding them down and poking them with a stick. Heck, just reverse the whole process and make it illegal to possess an identity...

 

[Mongo59]

Get your non-binary gender, racial obscuring body concealment bags here. It comes with the mandatory rocket pack that blasts you away to some deserted wasteland as soon as anyone is able to guess who or what you are...

 

[jamil]

So I finally read the anti-lynching legislation. It makes it a federal crime to form a group and murder a person [STRIKE]of color[/STRIKE] by lynching, because of race. Apparently they thought that state's laws prohibiting murder murder were not sufficient. It also classifies such as a hate crime which allows enhanced sentences. It should fail in the Senate. The enactment of "hate crimes" is absurd. Enhancing punishment is fine if there's something about the case that deserves extra punishment. But calling it a hate crime is overly political. But anyway, murder laws in all the states are sufficient that a national law is unwarranted. And, if local or state governments pull the Jim Crow level **** to protect lynchers, there are already ways the federal government can intervene. Criminal justice belongs mostly in the states. There are few crimes which should be prosecuted at the federal level.

Since murder and conspiring to commit murder are both against the law in every state already, I don't see a purpose for this legislation other than to accomplish political advantages. First, to establish social justice cred for the bill's authors--current presidential candidates. Second, to paint Republicans who don't support the bill as racists. As if there's not a non-racist reason not to support it (multiple negatives added to confuse T.Lex).

 

[Hkindiana]

So I finally read the anti-lynching legislation. It makes it a federal crime to form a group and murder a person of color by lynching. Apparently they thought that state's laws prohibiting murder murder were not sufficient. It also classifies such as a hate crime which allows enhanced sentences. It should fail in the Senate. The enactment of "hate crimes" is absurd. Enhancing punishment is fine if there's something about the case that deserves extra punishment. But calling it a hate crime is overly political. But anyway, murder laws in all the states are sufficient that a national law is unwarranted. And, if local or state governments pull the Jim Crow level **** to protect lynchers, there are already ways the federal government can intervene. Criminal justice belongs mostly in the states. There are few crimes which should be prosecuted at the federal level.

Since murder and conspiring to commit murder are both against the law in every state already, I don't see a purpose for this legislation other than to accomplish political advantages. First, to establish social justice cred for the bill's authors--current presidential candidates. Second, to paint Republicans who don't support the bill as racists. As if there's not a non-racist reason not to support it (multiple negatives added to confuse T.Lex).

So, let me get this straight, IF the law passes and a straight white male accidentally takes an East St. Louis exit and hits a child riding a bicycle and is lynched by a mob of color, then the anti-lynching legislation would NOT apply?

 

[KG1]

So I finally read the anti-lynching legislation. It makes it a federal crime to form a group and murder a person of color by lynching. Apparently they thought that state's laws prohibiting murder murder were not sufficient. It also classifies such as a hate crime which allows enhanced sentences. It should fail in the Senate. The enactment of "hate crimes" is absurd. Enhancing punishment is fine if there's something about the case that deserves extra punishment. But calling it a hate crime is overly political. But anyway, murder laws in all the states are sufficient that a national law is unwarranted. And, if local or state governments pull the Jim Crow level **** to protect lynchers, there are already ways the federal government can intervene. Criminal justice belongs mostly in the states. There are few crimes which should be prosecuted at the federal level.

Since murder and conspiring to commit murder are both against the law in every state already, I don't see a purpose for this legislation other than to accomplish political advantages. First, to establish social justice cred for the bill's authors--current presidential candidates. Second, to paint Republicans who don't support the bill as racists. As if there's not a non-racist reason not to support it (multiple negatives added to confuse T.Lex).

Is this a prevalent concern anymore? I mean I'm not aware of mass incidents of this kind of thing happening. If it is and someone can point them out to me then maybe I haven't been paying close enough attention to the issue and I would like to give it the proper credence it deserves.

 

[Kutnupe14]

So, let me get this straight, IF the law passes and a straight white male accidentally takes an East St. Louis exit and hits a child riding a bicycle and is lynched by a mob of color, then the anti-lynching legislation would NOT apply?

No, Jamil took some license with his post. White people would be just as protected if they were lynched by a group of Black people.

Here's the text if you care to read it:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/3178/text/es

 

[printcraft]

Literally or figuratively? Because I have news you can use.

 

[Hkindiana]

No, Jamil took some license with his post. White people would be just as protected if they were lynched by a group of Black people.

Here's the text if you care to read it:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/3178/text/es

OK, thanks. I thought maybe it was similar to some people who claim ONLY whites can be racist, and they were saying ONLY whites were capable of lynching. I think EVERY human is capable of the EXACT same things when it comes to emotions and motives.

 

[printcraft]

Is this a prevalent concern anymore? I mean I'm not aware of mass incidents of this kind of thing happening. If it is and someone can point them out to me then maybe I haven't been paying close enough attention to the issue and I would like to give it the proper credence it deserves.

This ^^^^^^^^

If this were happening it would be front page news every day and twice on Sundays.

 

[Leadeye]

To my way of thinking murder is murder regardless of what tool is used, maybe that's an outdated concept these days.

 

[2A_Tom]

Amazing that Harris used this as a springboard to push the anti-lynching legislation... almost perfect timing.
A little too perfect... could it be? Nah. Right?

Also is this REALLY going on so frequently today that there needs to be some new law? Really?

The new law is needed to redefine the word.

lynch:
verb, transitive

1. originally, to hang a person without a trial, (of a mob) kill (someone), especially by hanging, for an alleged offense with or without a legal trial.
   [COLOR=#878787 !important]"her father had been lynched for a crime he didn't commit"
   [/COLOR]
2. New meaning: any violence against a minority.
3. any slang expression used as a disparagement of a minority.
4. being white.

 

[2A_Tom]

Jussie Smollet:

WOLF!
WOLF!
RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!
WOLF!

Great career opportunity, he could be on the Comcast anti-ATT lying about internet speed commercials.

 

[jamil]

So, let me get this straight, IF the law passes and a straight white male accidentally takes an East St. Louis exit and hits a child riding a bicycle and is lynched by a mob of color, then the anti-lynching legislation would NOT apply?

It's doubtful that such a thing would be prosecuted under this law, but the way the law is written, it's not specific to race. I've updated my post to reflect this. So black people lynching white people could be prosecuted under this law.

Is this a prevalent concern anymore? I mean I'm not aware of mass incidents of this kind of thing happening. If it is and someone can point them out to me then maybe I haven't been paying close enough attention to the issue and I would like to give it the proper credence it deserves.

It's a law that probably had relevance up through the 1960s. Today? Well, I guess if it's something that spans states, I can see the need for a federal law. But otherwise it belongs in the jurisdiction of the state.

No, Jamil took some license with his post. White people would be just as protected if they were lynched by a group of Black people.

Here's the text if you care to read it:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/3178/text/es

No, jamil didn't take license. What jamil did was trust an article which took license in its reporting of the bill. Incidentally the article was presented in a pro-passage sense. Basically Dems are saints for penning it, and Republicans are evil if they don't vote for it. When I saw HK's post, I looked up the actual text of the bill and corrected my post. Sorry for posting the wrong information.

 

[jamil]

OK, thanks. I thought maybe it was similar to some people who claim ONLY whites can be racist, and they were saying ONLY whites were capable of lynching. I think EVERY human is capable of the EXACT same things when it comes to emotions and motives.

Well the article I got that from kinda presented it that way. At least that's how it read to me.

 

[printcraft]

Harris is just pushing this for brownie points. Anybody who thinks she was doing this out of a concern for "all people" is smoking the same ganja she is. It's COMPLETELY political and hollow.