Decorated Marine attacked by group of teens outside D.C. McDonald's

I was not 'lecturing' you or anyone else with my post and I never suggested you or your post was racist.

Aside from that, certainly agree with you regarding the empty space taking up the 6" between their ears.
 
If you brutally beat someone and rob them of their belongings because of the color of their skin, you are a fuck racist...period. Yes that is a hate crime, to act as a group and beat and rob someone because of their ethnicity. Yes this incident was completely race based, this decorated Marine said so on live fucking television. He was actually there, the one who was beaten.

@SkewzLoose, your argument is silly and unfounded. You have zero information to argue your POV, and no reason to question or disagree with this (decorated war veteran) Marine.

You have a tendency to makes posts in a lecturing "why do you say this, this is why your wrong manner" backed with no supporting information and normally filled with personal opinions. Hints the responses you receive. So my advice to you is watch the interview of this Marine, the video of him being beaten, and research the federal statutes of what constitutes a "hate crime" and than use that information to comeback and explain to me why this Marine is wrong in his assessment that he is a victim of a hate crime (which I fully agree with dependent on some qualifiers that are unknown to me currently). And if you're unwilling to do so, your argument is bullshit and should really just stop. $.02 ;-)
 
Last edited:
Just throwing it out there that the "knockout game" is very popular along the I-95 corridor. The majority of players are black and victims are white.
 
The decorated Marine angle only plays into this after-the-fact when the media's writing up the copy.

I think being a decorated war veteran Marine, puts a lot of credibility in the Marines side of, how and why he was attacked. A guy who's had to work, fight and bleed next to all ethnicities. Kinda changes perspective on the silly shit life, like someone's skin color, I know it did for me.

Edit: Spelling
 
Last edited:
Just throwing it out there that the "knockout game" is very popular along the I-95 corridor. The majority of players are black and victims are white.

In the interview, the Marine said " I was eating my meal, these kids were running around the restaurant acting like kids, they came to me and taunting me about if black lives matter, I simply ignored them finished my meal and got up to leave, they apparently attacked me at the door".

I guess my irritation here is if these kids didn't want to be considered racists or possibly face federal hate crime charges, why did they use the black lives matter, to initiate their assault and robbery of this man?
 
Brats like that are the quintessential Low Info Voters-to-be and/or Voters (age dependent). They're not going to know all the backstory about BLM, and they probably have no idea who Derray McKesson is. However, they DO know (in their idea of reality) that BLM is something that irritates those "clear" SOB's. That's all that matters to them.

As far as whether or not it was a hate crime, fuck it. Charge'em with it. Rule #4: Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.
 
If you brutally beat someone and rob them of their belongings because of the color of their skin, you are a fuck racist...period. Yes that is a hate crime, to act as a group and beat and rob someone because of their ethnicity. Yes this incident was completely race based, this decorated Marine said so on live fucking television. He was actually there, the one who was beaten.

@SkewzLoose, your argument is silly and unfounded. You have zero information to argue your POV, and no reason to question or disagree with this (decorated war veteran) Marine.

You have a tendency to makes posts in a lecturing "why do you say this, this is why your wrong manner" backed with no supporting information and normally filled with personal opinions. Hints the responses you receive. So my advice to you is watch the interview of this Marine, the video of him being beaten, and research the federal statutes of what constitutes a "hate crime" and than use that information to comeback and explain to me why this Marine is wrong in his assessment that he is a victim of a hate crime (which I fully agree with dependent on some qualifiers that are unknown to me currently). And if you're unwilling to do so, your argument is bullshit and should really just stop. $.02 ;-)
Show me where I said it wasn't a hate crime. It absolutely is. I wouldn't disagree with that at all.
I never questioned or disagreed with the Marine who was involved in the incident. Yes I know he was there and he was the one who was beat up. ;-);-)
I watched the interview, the video and read 5-6 articles on the incident before posting. But again, I never said it wasn't a hate crime. So if you'd care to point out where I said "this is not a hate crime" I'd be more than happy to defend my stance.
 
Well what the hell is your argument? If it is a hate crime, than you would have to agree that these kids were racist (or at the very least that they acted based on race?) would you not? You've made posts telling us how un-racist these kids are, lecturing us on race and how it is applied and or not, but now you don't disagree that its a hate crime?

So what I gather here, is that you were unwilling to do a google search on the federal and state statutes on the legal definition for prosecution of a hate crime? And are now backing out of your silly argument that these kids are not racist, by attempting to change the argument, stating that "you didn't say that this wasn't a hate crime"?

Lame...

FYI: I actually gave you a very easy out and "turn this around and toss it in my face" by telling you to research it. The case doesn't meet the legal definition for prosecution for federal felony hate crime, as a deadly weapon, arson or explosives, were not used, excluding a lesser misdemeanor charge of hate crimes. I took the time to read the law earlier yesterday, but didn't have time to come back and correct myself, as I am now.

You failed......good day!

ETA: Your quote bellow says it all...
A hate crime, really? I don't see it as any different if the roles are reversed.
So check this out, as Agoge alluded to, I don't see race in all this or anywhere else for that matter until you bring extremists into the conversation. I'd be willing to bet you, and everyone else here, a soda that these idiots don't even know where Black Lives Matter came from, its context or anything else other than it was a hashtag they saw on Twitter or FB. The story as is, is dumb kids doing stupid shit. The kids called the Marine a racist, probably completely un-based. So fucking what? I wish the Marine had been armed and had sent them all to the hospital vice what actually transpired. My comment would be the same if the Marine was black and the kids were white...brown Marine, white kids...yellow Marine, black kids...red Marine, yellow kids...doesn't matter much to me. If you're being a shit head, I don't care what color your skin is, you're being a shit head and you deserve to be dealt with accordingly. These kids weren't spouting off about racial superiority, they were being shit heads.
Someone who once fought for equality (not the race baiting assholes that exist today) made a passing comment about being judged not by the color of one's skin, but by the content of their character. So I guess that's what I'm doing here. These kids character has been found severely wanting. I could give a shit less about the color of their skin.
 
Last edited:
Go back and look at the post I was responding to.
"A hate crime, really" was in response to OcokaOne's statement that if the roles were reversed it would be racism AND a hate crime. It was not in response to the incident itself. That's why I quoted and bolded that part of his post when I responded.
 
And here is the difference, I made a mistake in calling this a hate crime, but researched the law and have since corrected myself. You caught yourself up and are continuing to argue it, and any blind man could see right through it.

However unimportant it is. The overall point is that you took a stance that these kids are "oxygen thieves" but not racist, while any reasonable person would say that anyone of any skin color who attacks and steals the stuff of another person, based on that other persons skin color is in fact, a racist.
 
18 U.S. Code § 249 - Hate crime acts

Overview

the definition of hate crime

Definition of HATE CRIME

the definition of racist

racist - definition of racist in English from the Oxford dictionary

racist Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

It would appear that, according to the law, and several other web-based definitions of "hate crime" this was a hate crime. In case you didn't see it, there's an "or" before "through use of fire, firearm, dangerous weapon or an explosive or incendiary device" in the legal definition.
And for the sake of not arguing with you anymore, I'll call the kids racists although, in my opinion, only part of the definition applies to them. Their actions were based on race, intolerance and prejudice. However, in my opinion, based on the articles I have read, it does not appear that they were trying to promote or instill their belief that their race is superior to the next. Each one of the definitions begins with "the belief that". You, I or anyone else can't know what they were thinking or not thinking when they attacked this Marine. Therefore, I'm left to conclude that the prejudice is obvious but the other half of the definition of racism is not. So we can agree to disagree on that point.
 
According to the first article I read on this, the victim was hit in the back of the head with a pistol. If the CCTV feed bears that out, there's your firearm. Just because they didn't shoot him doesn't negate its use if it was there. Hate crime could still be charged. Rule #4 is still in play.
 
Back
Top