So What Happens Now?

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally posted by shinerbock
Chaos, I actually agree with much of that. The idea of "hate crimes" is so ridiculous it sickens me, and I'm amazed that our legal system has allowed such an obscene law to continue. As to the racial slurs, that may or may not be true, but that doesnt mean we should turn this into a white v. black debate. The fact is, a crime may have happened, and it should be viewed as that, just a crime (which would go back to my idea about hate crimes).

Hate crime laws are only obscene if the crime isn't motivated by group-specific hate. Some women's rights and rape victims rights activists were/are angered by the fact that this was being approached as a hate crime. Their main argument is that rape is about power regardless of race, sexual orientation, or social class. This would essentially make all rape cases "hate crimes" since women are most often the targets. That's a whole new topic that I won't be discussing any further.

Sorry to break it to you, but the perception of racial impropriety will make a racialized country such as this view such issues with a racial lens. Some people will verbalize it, some people will just THINK it but verbally deny the existence of it, and the remainder will be perfect human beings who don't use socio-demographics to categorize anything. The last category constitutes about <1% of humanity and even this is often based on group position.

Moving on.

[macallan25]

Yes, I do realize that that may not be the stance from every black/white person, thats why I said TV. Other than that, I mostly agree with what you responded to me with.

Originally posted by DSTCHAOS
Hate crime laws are only obscene if the crime isn't motivated by group-specific hate. Some women's rights and rape victims rights activists were/are angered by the fact that this was being approached as a hate crime. Their main argument is that rape is about power regardless of race, sexual orientation, or social class. This would essentially make all rape cases "hate crimes" since women are most often the targets. That's a whole new topic that I won't be discussing any further.

Sorry to break it to you, but the perception of racial impropriety will make a racialized country such as this view such issues with a racial lens. Some people will verbalize it, some people will just THINK it but verbally deny the existence of it, and the remainder will be perfect human beings who don't use socio-demographics to categorize anything. The last category constitutes about <1% of humanity and even this is often based on group position.

Moving on.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally posted by macallan25
Yes, I do realize that that may not be the stance from every black/white person, thats why I said TV.

My larger question is: What's the significance of the observations that you and shinerbock are making?

[shinerbock]

I agree with your stance on how race is viewed. Maybe we should start a thread on the legality and reasoning behind hate crime legislation.

[valkyrie]

Originally posted by shinerbock
Chaos, I actually agree with much of that. The idea of "hate crimes" is so ridiculous it sickens me, and I'm amazed that our legal system has allowed such an obscene law to continue. As to the racial slurs, that may or may not be true, but that doesnt mean we should turn this into a white v. black debate. The fact is, a crime may have happened, and it should be viewed as that, just a crime (which would go back to my idea about hate crimes).

The thing is, even if we ignore the concept of "hate crimes" for a minute, and even if we disregard the allegations of racial slurs, race still is an issue here. In the criminal justice system, race often is an issue one way or another -- it affects everything from police stops to charges to hearings and trials to plea agreements and verdicts to sentencing (at least in my experience). So much of what happens in the criminal arena IS some form of white v. black debate.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by shinerbock
I agree with your stance on how race is viewed. Maybe we should start a thread on the legality and reasoning behind hate crime legislation.

In the AKA forum there is a thread on this where they repeatedly bring up race and seem pretty one sided on the issue - not a wait until charges, a trial, and evidence but a "Those white players are guilty" view.

-Rudey

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally posted by valkyrie
The thing is, even if we ignore the concept of "hate crimes" for a minute, and even if we disregard the allegations of racial slurs, race still is an issue here. In the criminal justice system, race often is an issue one way or another -- it affects everything from police stops to charges to hearings and trials to plea agreements and verdicts to sentencing (at least in my experience). So much of what happens in the criminal arena IS some form of white v. black debate.

[shinerbock]

There is a difference between bringing race in as a motive, and having unaffected black leaders use this issue as the beginning of a broad racial debate.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally posted by shinerbock
There is a difference between bringing race in as a motive, and having unaffected black leaders use this issue as the beginning of a broad racial debate.

Is there?

[ilikehazing]

I agree.

Worthless scum like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton will undoubtedly use this as part of the "race card".

[valkyrie]

Originally posted by shinerbock
There is a difference between bringing race in as a motive, and having unaffected black leaders use this issue as the beginning of a broad racial debate.

Why shouldn't this begin a broad racial debate? I don't see any problem with that.

I look at it like this -- I would never make any assumptions as to the guilt or innocence of anybody who might be or has been charged with a crime. That's because of my background and experience, from which I've formed my own understanding of criminal justice and racial issues. That understanding is different from yours or that of anybody else in the world. In a different world, or with a different background and experience, my understanding of and reaction to this case would be different as well. As long as the participants respect that we're all coming from different points, discussion and/or debate can serve to increase our understanding of each other and the issues in cases like this, which I think is a good thing.

[mccoyred]

Originally posted by Rudey
lol I mean how exactly would strippers stay in business if groups of guys didn't hire them?

And again she worked for an escort agency so she also worked as a prostitute. Both are good professions

It's also important to note that the DA is running for re-election and needs to get as much press time as possible and to be "loved" by a community that has taken the prostitute's/stripper's side.

-Rudey

pros·ti·tute ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prst-tt, -tyt)
n.
One who solicits and accepts payment for sex acts.
One who sells one's abilities, talent, or name for an unworthy purpose.


strip·per ( P ) Pronunciation Key (strpr)
n.
One that strips, as one that strips photographic negatives or positives.
A chemical product for removing a surface covering, such as paint or varnish, from furniture or floors.
One who performs a striptease.
An oil well that produces ten barrels or fewer per day.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by mccoyred
pros·ti·tute ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prst-tt, -tyt)
n.
One who solicits and accepts payment for sex acts.
One who sells one's abilities, talent, or name for an unworthy purpose.


strip·per ( P ) Pronunciation Key (strpr)
n.
One that strips, as one that strips photographic negatives or positives.
A chemical product for removing a surface covering, such as paint or varnish, from furniture or floors.
One who performs a striptease.
An oil well that produces ten barrels or fewer per day.

SHE WORKED FOR AN ESCORT AGENCY.

If there is nothing wrong with calling her a stripper, there is nothing wrong with calling her a prostitute. It's a profession. Deal with it already. If she doesn't want people to know she's a prostitute, perhaps she could work at a library and not for an escort agency.

-Rudey
--I put it in caps just to make sure you saw it.

[mccoyred]

Originally posted by Rudey
SHE WORKED FOR AN ESCORT AGENCY.

If there is nothing wrong with calling her a stripper, there is nothing wrong with calling her a prostitute. It's a profession. Deal with it already. If she doesn't want people to know she's a prostitute, perhaps she could work at a library and not for an escort agency.

-Rudey
--I put it in caps just to make sure you saw it.

There is nothing wrong with calling her a stripper because that is what 'exotic dancers' do. However, there has not been anything presented that she 'solicits and accepts payment for sex acts'.

A receptionist works for the Escort Agency does that make her a prostitute, too? What about the accountant or attorney, I guess they are prostitutes, too?

SAY WHAT YOU MEAN AND MEAN WHAT YOU SAY. Note that I refuse to comment anymore on the facts until I know more. But I refuse to let you or anyone else get away with this type of ignorant language.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by mccoyred
There is nothing wrong with calling her a stripper because that is what 'exotic dancers' do. However, there has not been anything presented that she 'solicits and accepts payment for sex acts'.

A receptionist works for the Escort Agency does that make her a prostitute, too? What about the accountant or attorney, I guess they are prostitutes, too?

SAY WHAT YOU MEAN AND MEAN WHAT YOU SAY. Note that I refuse to comment anymore on the facts until I know more. But I refuse to let you or anyone else get away with this type of ignorant language.

"8:30 p.m.: The accuser is called by her escort agency and told to report to the Buchanan Boulevard house that night."

You're right. The escort agency sends their receptionists out at 8:30 PM.

What ignorant language? There is nothing wrong with being a prostitute or a stripper in my book.

-Rudey