Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: miko2d on December 19, 2002, 01:53:32 PM
-
November 6, University of Mississippi (notable graduate - Trent Lott).
Three freshmen were accused of scrawling racist graffiti on the doors of two black students in the Oxford campus including phrases: "F*****g N****r" and "F*****g Hoe N****r." They also drew pictures on the walls - a figure hanging from a noose off a tree, also vulgar depictions of genitalia. Total property damage estimated $600.
The school's president took his time before apologizing for the racial slurs - for which he got blasted by activists. Activists also called for criminally prosecuting the perpetrators under state felony laws.
Despite that, college will not be bringing criminal charges against the trio. Instead, each suspect faces charges involving five violations of the student code of conduct - not only for the racially explosive vandalism, but also for allegedly making false and misleading statements to investigators. The most serious consequence suspects face is expulsion.
I am not saying "put them away for life", but isn't some jail time in order - even probation, with a criminal record to remind them for the rest of their lives?
miko
-
Make them pay for the damages and file charges for vandalism.
That should be enough.
-
GtoRA2: Make them pay for the damages and file charges for vandalism. That should be enough.
What about distress and mental anguish of the black students? It counts for nothing? Only college property loss?
Basically, you would say that the perpetrators caused $600 damage by painting an innocent grafitti somewhere out of sight on the college property would be as guilty as those guys that drew scary words/pictures on the people's doors?
miko
-
If the black students want to sue over it fine.
What if they had these messages on posters and marched outside the dorm? Same mental anguish, no broken law.
The content of the grafiti should not matter unless it says
"hey we are going to kill you" ETC.
-
GtoRA2: If the black students want to sue over it fine.
There is a good reason why it's the society (state, federal authorities) who is pressing charges in case of a felony - in a person of District Attorney, etc, rather than relying on a victim to do so.
Relying on a victim for law-enforcement would create immediate motivation for criminals to terrorise victims even further to dissuade them from pressing prosecution.
Those accused must have some friends on campus. If it's the two poor victims who are held responcible for sending them to jail, rather than the impersonal law - they can be subject for threats and retribution.
That's pretty much what any rapist says to a raped woman - do not tell the cops or I will kill you or my friends will.
miko
-
Its not a crime to insult somebody. If it were, Don Rickles would be out of work you billiardball.
-
If the DA wants to prosecute them for vandalism fine, it's a misdimeaner, fine them and move on.
They are prettythangholes no doubt. But it is just vandalism untell they hurt someone, while hating them.
They have a right to beleive what they do. If the other students think it damaged the somehow they can sue them, thats a civil case about money, not about enforcing the law.
-
Expell the little tards from school, make 'em pay for the property damages, and put it in their permanant record. They'll pay plenty from that.
I feel a good beating is also in order, but the black members of that campus will have to organize that for themselves, as the law has no provisions for this.
SOB
-
Originally posted by miko2d
What about distress and mental anguish of the black students? It counts for nothing? Only college property loss?
Distress and mental anguish as a reason to put someone in jail. Thats rich.
So your saying that if I hurt your wittle feewings I should go to jail?
Ok miko fess up... are you a lawyer or practicing to be a politician?
-
Did they threaten anyone? Did they hurt them?(feelings don't count)
NO!
Punish them for the crime they commit and move on!
-
Originally posted by Tumor
Distress and mental anguish as a reason to put someone in jail. Thats rich.
So your saying that if I hurt your wittle feewings I should go to jail?
Supreme Court just decided a case for state for Virginia in which cross burning is not considered "harmless first ammendment expression" rather intimidation.
Falls in the same category.
miko, i agree with you. As for punishment, community service in black neighbourhood would do nicely.
-
Did they confess? If not, it's likely there is insufficient evidence to prosecute them.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
GtoRA2: Make them pay for the damages and file charges for vandalism. That should be enough.
What about distress and mental anguish of the black students? It counts for nothing? Only college property loss?
Basically, you would say that the perpetrators caused $600 damage by painting an innocent grafitti somewhere out of sight on the college property would be as guilty as those guys that drew scary words/pictures on the people's doors?
miko
I'm with GtoRA2 on this one, and I suspect that Miko (at least Miko I know from his previous posts) is too. He's simply trolling.
Payments for anguish?? Absurd. PC gone bonkers.
Content is irrelevant. It's vandalism
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
The content of the grafiti should not matter unless it says
"hey we are going to kill you" ETC.
Right.
-
moral relativism at its best.
If it was couple arabs who painted "F****g J**s" etc, all of you would be yelling to point it out as a proof of how horrible arabs really are.
Wake up and smell the coffee.
White bigot doesn't make all whites bigots.
Black bigot doesn't make all blacks bigots.
Arab bigot doesn't make all arabs bigots.
And if this is news to you, get your head checked.
-
Originally posted by fd ski
If it was couple arabs who painted "F****g J**s" etc, all of you would be yelling to point it out as a proof of how horrible arabs really are.
How horrible I think they are is my opinion, not my right to see them put in jail for saying something.
-
Originally posted by fd ski
moral relativism at its best.
If it was couple arabs who painted "F****g J**s" etc, all of you would be yelling to point it out as a proof of how horrible arabs really are.
Do me a favor and point out ANY post of mine that would lead you to reasonably believe I would do this.
SOB
-
Originally posted by fd ski
Supreme Court just decided a case for state for Virginia in which cross burning is not considered "harmless first ammendment expression" rather intimidation.
Falls in the same category.
miko, i agree with you. As for punishment, community service in black neighbourhood would do nicely.
I can't find a single reference to the Supreme Court having decided that case.
I'd make an exception though. Make burning the Flag of the U.S. a jailable offense and I'll agree with the cross burning thing too.
-
Our higher learning at work LOL!!
I n this day and time we still jack with people over the color of there skin?
Hard to believe But the moron is among us all.
Yes I have used the N word and have felt like a total redneck dumbchit for doing so!
Yes I for One do think that the little boys and thats what they are!! should be held liable to the black students in question!
Its easy for us who are white to say that words dont mean much.
But try telling that to a black person whos family has been hearing the same old crap over and over!!
I would think its gets very old dont you?
And dont forget the message behind there little bit of art work.
HATE!!!! Ask your self how would you feel if you knew some people hated you having not even knowing you just cause your
of a different culture or race?
Ps.
If I was Pres of this great country the 1st thing i would do is ban the term african american!
Crap that sounds as silly as me saying im german jew dutch american LOL.
You live here you pay taxes your a citizene by gawd your an american!
Amen sermen over:p
-
Just kick them out and make them pay for the damages.
Some comunity service in black neiborghs would be nice too.
-
They can be prosecuted under racial vilification laws here where they could be fined or jailed or both, surely there is some type of equivalent law there.
I would think exspulsions' a gimme.
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by miko2d
What about distress and mental anguish of the black students? It counts for nothing? Only college property loss?
Yup.
-
Those students should be expelled and made to pay the damages. There may be no law in Mississippi against what they did, other than vandalism. They should be charged with that, at the very least.
Here in Alabama, I'm not so sure but that what they did could be prosecuted as an assault. I know for a fact that flipping someone the "bird" is considered assault in Alabama, if done menacingly, and you can go to jail for it. It happened to one of my friends. He heard the police were looking for him, so he turned himself in. He didn't get in a lot of trouble for it, but it is on his record, plus it cost him a $500.00 fine. It came back to haunt him about a year later when he went to buy a new deer rifle, because the charge was assault, and the store almost didn't sell him the rifle, 'til they learned the "assault" only involved flipping someone the bird.
You better not flip this guy the bird now, because he'll call the police on you. He has also mellowed out quite a bit since going through that.
Anyway, what these students did is much more serious. They went into college dumb, and will come out that way too.
Les
-
Originally posted by fd ski
moral relativism at its best.
If it was couple arabs who painted "F****g J**s" etc, all of you would be yelling to point it out as a proof of how horrible arabs really are.
Not me.
As GtoRa2 (and I agreed) said before, the content is irrelevant, vandalism is the issue.
Arabs attacking Jews
Jews attacking Arabs
Black attacking Whites
Whites attacking Blacks
Christians attacking Muslims
Muslims attacking Christians
What difference does it make? Who cares about the so called "message"?
All of us have a constitutional right to offend anyone we please (in speach). The Constitution allows you to say anything you want, but... it also allows everybody else to not listen to it.
In other words, we have a right to speak, but we have no right to be heard.
As a matter of fact, if someone whined to me "I was offended by what this guy said", my reaction would be: "why the hell did you listen to it"?
"Mommy, he is looking at me"!
Back to the topic.
Punishing these guys for anything more than vandalism is a thought control.
So called "hate" crimes (as oppose to "love" crimes, I guess) are the best example PC going ape.
Note:
Having a right to do something does not imply an immediate exercise of it. We all have a right to be rude/nasty, but each one of us can choose or choose not to exercise it.
-
Originally posted by Leslie
I know for a fact that flipping someone the "bird" is considered assault in Alabama, if done menacingly, and you can go to jail for it.
you are surely joking (or at least I hope you are)
"If done menacingly"??? who the hell is going to decide that?
If this is true, we are so screwed.
-
Originally posted by Leslie
Those students should be expelled ...
Well...???
If this is a private school and they have explicit rules what you can and can't do.... yes I agree. The school decides the punishment, but...
If this is a public place... no "thought police" is allowed. Vandalism? yes. Anything more is a discrimination.
-
BTW, is University of Mississippi private or public entity?
-
Ummm, yoo-hoooooo. The "vandals" in question are, ummm, Black(aka "African-Americans"). Not widely "reported" in the "un-biased" Leftist-Liberal Media...............
Nice attempt at inciting a riot and painting White students as "racist" . Just a "harmless prank", though........
Cabby
-
All vandalism is a "hate crime"..... it is, by it's nature, distressing to those vandalized. I don't believe in special sentences for special groups based on skin color.
make em pay damages and kick em out of school if that is the norm in cases of vandalism... as for communityu service in a black neiborhood.... no. they should do it the same as anyone else... jump suits raking leaves in the park under guard or whatever.
You want to see "hate crimes" as they really are? Tell the "blacks" that these guys will be working in their "neiborhood" unguarded. Course that wouldn't be considered "hate" by our twisted interpretation these days... only whites can hate.
lazs
-
Tumor: Distress and mental anguish as a reason to put someone in jail. Thats rich.
So your saying that if I hurt your wittle feewings I should go to jail?
Of course not. But a threat is a punisheable offence. When someone threatens a person, it is not treated as a free speech.
If someone tells you "move out of this neighbourhood, I will hurt you", do you have any recourse or does the law have to wait untill you are really hurt?
You may be inclined to take a threat more seriusly than a police officer and move out before your body becomes an evidence sufficient to prosecute.
Offense would not make you act contrary to your interests and rights that but a threat would.
There is no big difference in forcing someone to act against his/her will by violence or by a threat of it.
So this was not a troll, mietla - I am all for a free speech but there is a distinction between a freedom of expression and using vocal/writing facilities of a body in committing a crime. Shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater is an old example.
Threat, planning a criminal act, etc. are done verbally or in writing. But they are parts of a criminal act. Granted, sometimes the distinction seems blurry - in which case I would advocate with "Free Speech" rather that "punish them".
BTW, both cross burning and the college case involved more than freedom of expression even for the 1st Amendment purists - they all included real invasions of private domain.
The cross was burned on the black man's lawn - obviously without his permission. The messages were written on the victim's doors - which, while rented from the college, are somewhat "their". Makes a difference.
When someone posts an offencive slogan on his property, like "Tumor, go away!" - fine, freedom of speech.
When a neighbour's kid throws a ball/stone through your window, that's an innocent minor property damage to be paid by parents.
When that someone wraps that offencive slogan and throws it through your, Tumor's window, it's not freedom of speech combined with minor property damage. That's a credible threat combined with invasion.
The major goal of this post though was to check how many people would care enough to check out this un-reported story by themselves. Cabby.
Those three perpetrators were black.
There was a lot of racial disturbance on campus with all whities appologising and many blacks demanding the most strict criminal punishment for the perpetrators and mandatory sencitivity reeducation for faculty and students - untill the identity of the vandals was discovered.
Of course now it's all down. Their only offence (besides scaring the victims and damaging property) seems to be trying to incite anti-white racial riots - maybe for that they should be forgiven the other two.
It does seem to make sence to replace the term "hate crime" with "white crime".
miko
-
Originally posted by Cabby44
Ummm, yoo-hoooooo. The "vandals" in question are, ummm, Black(aka "African-Americans"). Not widely "reported" in the "un-biased" Leftist-Liberal Media...............
Nice attempt at inciting a riot and painting White students as "racist" . Just a "harmless prank", though........
Cabby
LOL, nice stringer you got there, Miko!
Cobra
-
a figure hanging from a noose off a tree
Read it. This is basically saying 'die you cupcake, this is what we want for you'.
In DK they'd do jail time for this.
-
Originally posted by StSanta
a figure hanging from a noose off a tree
Read it. This is basically saying 'die you cupcake, this is what we want for you'.
In DK they'd do jail time for this.
The perps are black
-
It doesn't matter if the perps are black. That's a threat right there.
And, oddly enough, racism can take place within a 'race' as well. I've reead a report about recism within the black community - apparently those that are totally black are sometimes being discriminated against those that somewhere in the history of things have had ancestors that have made them a little less coloured.
But it ain't abouty racism. The threat alone is enough for jail time here. Not much jail time, but 30-90 days. A woman that threatened to seek out and kill my mother got this for simply saying "I'm gonna seek you out and break your neck" when she (the woman, not my mother :D) was drunk and angry.
-
Quote:
"It doesn't matter if the perps are black."
Oh yes it does. Instead of an "un-biased" Media mega-splash a-la-Trent Lott of "outraged Black Leaders" calling for hanging the evil perps and race-baiting scum like the Clintons all over the TV demanding "justice", the story is quietly buried.
Can you say "Liberal-Leftist Double Standard propagating Racial Hatred in the pursuit of political power by any and all means necessary "???
I thought you could..........
Cabby
-
Cabby for me it's about one thing: a threat. Race doesn't even enter the equation for me. Nor does political affiliation.