Racist attack

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

This guy was annoying me so I punched him in the face but if it had been a girl I wouldnt have hit her because hitting girls is wrong, ergo this constituted a sexist/sexually motivated attack and the sentence should be increased

but thats totally different am i rite

No, thats not different at all.

The gender of the target made you act differently, thus your actions were heavily affected by gender, and thus genderist (sexist). Now in this example of course, society reacts quite differently, firstly becaue your act was negative (I will NOT hit her because she is a women) as opposed to positive (I WILL hit him as he is a black man), but also because society regards a certain amount of gender descrimination as acceptable and even encouraged.

In this case, the race of the target made you act differetly, thus your actions were heavily affected by race, and thus racist.

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by CrashTester

In this situation no one has admitted to hitting someone else on the basis of them being black, they was hit because they hit a sibling first not because of their colour. That's the first point you miss.

Wrong. You were upset because a sibling was hit first, but you quite clearly state that you hit them because they were black. I quote: "because they were black/asian I hit them instead."

Next you fail to see the part that says they may or may not have been treated differently because of colour, something that is not and cannot be proven one way or the other.

Wrong again. You admitted that your motivations were racial, thats generally known as a confession, and that makes things quite easy to prove.

[Intrepid00]

I love it when people are told what they where or are thinking.

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by Intrepid00

I love it when people are told what they where or are thinking.

I have no idea what Crash is thinking, nor do I care to. I do know what he typed. If his text did not reflect what he actually meant to say, whose fault is that, and how am I, or anyone, supposed to know?

We go by what is typed on these forums, nothing else. I amswered his text, not his thoughts.

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by Intrepid00

I love it when people are told what they where or are thinking.

in court one has to use the evidence to construct what the perpetrator was thinking. Sadly thought is subjective, wheras evidence is intersubjective. If he foolishly says "I hit him because he was black" then that is evidence of his racism, whether or not that was his intent.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by CrashTester

how can this be considered racially motivated since the only certain thing was that I hit him because he hit a sibling first and not because of race or colour?

This was the first ****ing point I addressed in the thread. The law works on the avaliable evidence. If someone admits to doing something criminal - or, in this case confess to an underlying motivation for their actions - then the police - heaven knows why - generally tend to use this as 'evidence.'

If you do lie to the police about a crime, incidentally, you will be commiting - and may be liable - for a host of other offences, so I wouldn't particularly recommend it.

[CrashTester]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

Crash, I acn only assume you are confused or being unclear, because otherwise you contradict yourself with every statement. You hit a guy because you were mad. The reason you were mad is irrelevant. You became mad and you hit a person. You hit him because he was black, and if he had not been black, you would not have hit him.

Then you claim this was clearly not a racist attack.

If he was white you would not have hit him. However, he was black, so you hit him.

Please carefully and deliberatly explain your logic, because many people here are not getting it.

OK, ive got to rush but I will try and clarify. Firstly, this is hyperthetical, I have not hit anyone - just so we are all clear Im not a criminal.

In this situation the attack took place because he hit a sibling, that was the only reason not based on colour. If he hadnt have hit the sibling I wouldnt have hit him for being black/asian. Im asking though that if after a period of time while talking about it someone asks 'did his colour/race make you hit him' and I thought about it and concluded that possibly if the guy was white I would have given him a stiff talking to, could the initial attack be considered racially motivated.

I dont believe it is since the attack occurred because of something that was not racially motivated and it is only after when pressed that race/colour is brought into it. And even then there is only a chance that it would have influenced the decision to attack the person since the reason for the attack was not race related at all.

Its all hyperthetical and not based on real events. Hope this helps.

[Add]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

Crash, I acn only assume you are confused or being unclear, because otherwise you contradict yourself with every statement. You hit a guy because you were mad. The reason you were mad is irrelevant. You became mad and you hit a person. You hit him because he was black, and if he had not been black, you would not have hit him.

Then you claim this was clearly not a racist attack.

If he was white you would not have hit him. However, he was black, so you hit him.

Please carefully and deliberatly explain your logic, because many people here are not getting it.

irrespective of if it was a racist attack or not, on your understanding here he hit him because he was mad, not because he was black.

From what i can see, it is fairly simple: the assault was racial, but it was not racially motivated. That is to say, if the victim had been white he would not have been hit, yet the motivation behind the attack was not based on his colour.

[CrashTester]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

Wrong. You were upset because a sibling was hit first, but you quite clearly state that you hit them because they were black. I quote: "because they were black/asian I hit them instead."

All I clearly state is that I may have treated a white person differently, I dont say I would (unless you choose to only quote a few words of the whole sentence in which case I can be made to look racist).

Originally Posted by Vermillion

Wrong again. You admitted that your motivations were racial, thats generally known as a confession, and that makes things quite easy to prove.

See above.

[CrashTester]

Originally Posted by Add

irrespective of if it was a racist attack or not, on your understanding here he hit him because he was mad, not because he was black.

From what i can see, it is fairly simple: the assault was racial, but it was not racially motivated. That is to say, if the victim had been white he would not have been hit, yet the motivation behind the attack was not based on his colour.

I would agree with this entirely except for one part: if the person was white there is not guarantee anything would have been different, trhe original topic stated that there was a possibility, but nothing definate.

[Bob The Scutter]

i havent read all this.... but is it another CT doesn or is thinking about doing something, so he comes on here, asks for advice and THEN does something insanely daft and makes a big thread about how 'it shouldve been done for the good of man'?

if anyone answers yes, im not going to read any of the above

plsthxbye

[Add]

Originally Posted by CrashTester

I would agree with this entirely except for one part: if the person was white there is not guarantee anything would have been different, trhe original topic stated that there was a possibility, but nothing definate.

let's base it on the extremes for the sake of argument. he would have been treated differently if he was white - you may have still hit him but you would have stopped to think about it first.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by CrashTester

In this situation the attack took place because he hit a sibling, that was the only reason not based on colour.

I'm sorry, I was going by the second paragraph of the original post, which extrapolated on the original post in a manner that tended to indicate, both in content and language, that it had been racially motivated

If it is not the case - hypothetically - then the comments about the law taking your statement into full account still apply.

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by CrashTester

In this situation the attack took place because he hit a sibling, that was the only reason not based on colour. If he hadnt have hit the sibling I wouldnt have hit him for being black/asian. Im asking though that if after a period of time while talking about it someone asks 'did his colour/race make you hit him' and I thought about it and concluded that possibly if the guy was white I would have given him a stiff talking to, could the initial attack be considered racially motivated.

I dont believe it is since the attack occurred because of something that was not racially motivated and it is only after when pressed that race/colour is brought into it. And even then there is only a chance that it would have influenced the decision to attack the person since the reason for the attack was not race related at all.

OK, now based on this clarification:

The origin of your anger is in many ways irrelevant, assuming that the basis for your anger had nothing to do with race.

The fact is, given a situation, you would react with violence against a black person, and reason and discussion against a white person. It doesnt matter if the reason you were mad was because somebody hit your brother, or somebody scratched your car, or smebody looked at you funny, or whatever.

The fact is, given a situation where you will be mad at an individual, you stated that your reactions would depend on their race, that is of black then you would resort to violence.

Thus, clearly this hypothetical is a racially motivated attack. It was an attack which would not have taken place had the person been of a more 'acceptable' race to you.

Anger, whatever the cause, it simply the catalyst which makes the choice necessary, violence or diplomacy? The act that hypothetically you make this decision based on race makes it an attack based on race.

Racial violence is almost always caused by anger, usualy by a threat or an incident, real or perceived. What is at issue here is not the way you react to a sibling being struck, but the way you react to race.

Given stimulus which necessitates a reaction (relative in danger) you react differently to different races, and not just a little differently either, there is a big difference between giving someone a talking down to, and attacking them...

[JonnyBGood]

Next time do the job properly and kill him.






Christ but appointing me admin was a woeful idea.

[Bunga]

/agree

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

No, thats not different at all.

The gender of the target made you act differently, thus your actions were heavily affected by gender, and thus genderist (sexist). Now in this example of course, society reacts quite differently, firstly becaue your act was negative (I will NOT hit her because she is a women) as opposed to positive (I WILL hit him as he is a black man), but also because society regards a certain amount of gender descrimination as acceptable and even encouraged.
.

Neither of them are positive or negative. The race one can be viewed as negative (I will NOT hit him because he is white), and the sex one can be viewed as positive (I WILL hit him because he is male).

Originally Posted by Vermillion

but also because society regards a certain amount of gender descrimination as acceptable and even encouraged.

I know this. As long as people freely admit that their beliefs are completely irrational and hypocritical here, I'm cool.







edit: Also, he never said he hit him "because he was black", he said that if he had not been black, he wouldnt have hit him. Theres a big difference. If he felt that he would objectively (lol) be justified in hitting him, but chose not to on account of reason X, then this is obviously different than hitting someone in a situation where he felt it couldnt be justified. Refusing to give someone a punishment for an irrational reason doesnt mean that the punishment wasnt deserved in the first place.

"He stole my wallet so I was going to shoot him, but he was my brother so I never". This doesnt mean that if he had shot him, his reason for shooting him was "because he wasnt my brother" - his reason would obviously have been "because he stole my wallet". Likewise, here we have "I hit my little sister so I hit him, but if he had been white I wouldnt have done so". As above, this doesnt mean that his reason for hitting him was "because he wasn't white" - it was "because he hit my little sister".