Man beaten with hard iced-tea after saying n-word to gas station customer

~ I wonder if it was black or green tea .. . ?

 

Markeis McGlockton is a fine example of why you shouldn't resort to violence in response to people's words. Michael Drejka's mistake in that case was not that he shot McGlockton, but that he hesitated to do so. The time lapse between McGlockton's assault on Drekja and Drejka's gunshot were his undoing.

 

~ This today is what passes as "journalism". Editors don't think very far when they post these headlines .

 

You dont get to claim SD when you provoke it to begin with.

 

~ The "kid" made several aggressive moves - he kicked at the man as he bent to pick up his tea from the floor. Then again after the "tea-to-face" defense move.
This kid is lucky he is not in the hospital. He could have easily been another COVID death !

 

I respectfully disagree. While the government can't punish for these words I fully support punishment. I notice all the bystanders supported the man giving the punk a good lesson in attitude.

 

ok I was not aware of that....

 

You support lynching too? how about rioting, looting? Government has all that red tape and loopholes that interfere with a community wanting to exact punishment. A good beating can often be very popular - at least with the people nearby.

 

Nah just a smack up the side of the head.

 

Its not a crime to hate a group of people, or to say naughty things about a class, or to use slurs, but we have always explored the broader circumstances including motive in sentencing, and that is all this hate crime business really is. It just an aggravating factor (as opposed to a mitigating factor in sentencing) and the DA has to prove the agravating factor separate and apart from the underlying crime by the same reasonable doubt standard used to prove the elements of the crime. First you prove the crime by reasonable doubt. Then you prove the aggravating factor for enhanced sentencing by a reasonable doubt.

Use of a racial slur in the heat of the moment is just not enough to prove class animus was the motive. It has to be why you picked that victim over another. But in conjunction with other evidence of class animus when you are not drunk, not trying to provoke or incite, not engaged in revenge or jealous, or trying to steal money, that can meet the burden. Maybe you have KKK literature on your desk at home. Maybe you have been trash talking blacks at the local bar or on your facebook page. Now you may have a problem.

 

No difference. Mob rule is mob rule. the law of the jungle is the law of the jungle. People are allowed to call other people bad names in this country. Its protected speech. People are not allowed to physically attack people. That is not protected conduct. If I were DA, I would seriously consider prosecuting anyone who engaged in violence to punish the use of unpopular and socially shocking works, and deal with any mitigating factors in sentencing hearing..

 

It’s not protected speech. No constitutional right to talk **** to people. Only protection from the government.

There are many instances throughout history of people getting their ass kicked for running their mouth where the ass kicker didn’t get any charges.

 

i understand what you are saying but I still do not accept that motivation should enter into the calculous of deterring guilt or in sentencing. If a husband decides to murder his wife because he thinks she was cheating on him or if he murders his wife in an attempt to collect life insurance proceeds it is still a murder and she is still dead.

 

I would be willing to speculate that the drunk kid may very well never pop off at someone like that again. I've been in a few fights and a few of them were life changing.

I made a new thread for it! Come tell your stories!

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/fight-stories.582988/

 

Disagree!

Support responsible behavior while intoxicated.

 

And the guy who hit him should be arrested for and charged with assault.

See, that's -exactly- what would happen if a white guy hit a black guy like that.

 

The right to swing your hard iced-tea ends where the racists nose begins.

 

Its the first question that defense counsel asks. Why would he do it? What would his motive be? Often defense works very hard to suggest that someone else had motive means etc to commit the crime. You can't seriously be saying those are illegitimate questions for the jury to consider. These had better be questions the prosecutor has an answer for. That means state of mind/ motive are crucial to the whole process. You sure cannot be in favor of any insanity defense if you are not in favor of looking at what a defendant is thinking or believing when he commits a criminal act. It means the defense cannot bring up the fact that the bread, cheese, and ground beef that were stolen, was taken because there were hungry children at home that the defendant was desperate to feed. Crimes like terrorism, and treason demand evidence of motive and knowledge as elements of the crime. If you leave the classified dossier on your desk because there was a fire drill distracting you, it probably means you had no desire to aide an enemy. If you left it there because you knew a Russian spy was going to walk in 15 minutes later..... What you were thinking matters.

Now if motive can be a mitigator it also follows that motive can be an aggravator.

 

´~ Just think ... How would things have turned out if bread and butter were selected instead of hard tea ?

 

Did you start all of them? I wouldn't be surprised if you say yes.

 

Some of the examples you mentioned could have motive as a factor but if someone kills a Black man who happens to step on your grass because he is Black what difference does it make what motivated you to kill him he is just as dead.

Motive is the reason why someone engages in criminal conduct. So the reason you committed the act of murder does not make your victim any deader.

 

I don't see on Twisted Tea's webpage any mention of the type of tea they use:
https://www.twistedtea.com/

Idiot was lucky the man who hit him had a can of Twisted Tea, not a bottle.

 

If the black guy was a white catholic priest, and the drunk a black man calling him a pedophile, I think you would have a different opinion.

 

This may come as a surprise to many snowflakes, but using the N word, even by a white guy, even directed at a black guy, is 100% legal.