Bad Movie Logo
"A website to the detriment of good film"
Custom Search
HOMEB-MOVIE REVIEWSREADER REVIEWSFORUMINTERVIEWSUPDATESABOUT
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 26, 2014, 01:58:48 PM
538185 Posts in 40746 Topics by 5133 Members
Latest Member: FireryMomma
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Other Topics  |  Off Topic Discussion  |  Being ethnic(?) makes you less...human? « previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Author Topic: Being ethnic(?) makes you less...human?  (Read 7121 times)
Menard
Guest
« on: November 15, 2008, 12:42:08 PM »

I think I want to vomit...yet, again.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/13/navarrette.killing/index.html?eref=rss_topstories


Perhaps the charges have something to do with the murderers (and that's what every damn one of them are) being under 18, but it just seems like the legal system, much like our American society of late, is just too sympathetic when a crime is committed in the name of hate.

Quote
If the account given by police and prosecutors is correct, the idea was to assault any Hispanic they could find in a ritual the youths charmingly called "beaner jumping."

The bullies found 37-year-old Marcello Lucero, who was attacked, beaten and stabbed to death. The alleged assailants include Jeffrey Conroy, Jordan Dasch, Anthony Hartford, Nicholas Hausch, Jose Pacheco, and Kevin Shea, all 17, and Christopher Overton, 16.

As the person who authorities allege stabbed Lucero, Conroy is charged with first-degree manslaughter as a hate crime. The others are charged with first-degree gang assault.


Manslaughter and gang assault charges for murdering someone?

Does the victim's ethnicity make it less of a crime than if they had done this to a white person in a nice suburb?

Like I said, the perps' ages may have something to do with the charges, but it overall seems like 7 murderers getting off real easy.

What kind of message does this send?
Logged
Patient7
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 167
Posts: 1618


Mwa Ha Ha Ha Ha


« Reply #1 on: November 15, 2008, 12:46:59 PM »

Wow, that is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard a person do.

"Hey look, that guy is hispanic."
"Kill him."

Jacka$$es.
Logged

Barbeque sauce tastes good on EVERYTHING, even salad.

Yes, salad.
Menard
Guest
« Reply #2 on: November 15, 2008, 01:08:57 PM »

Wow, that is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard a person do.

"Hey look, that guy is hispanic."
"Kill him."

Jacka$$es.

It happened not too infrequently in Mississippi, Alabama, and other states just because a guy was black.

It seems there is no symmetry to progression. We elect a black man for the first time as president, yet there is a growing tide of xenophobia in this country; really, a lot of the same old hating others for their differences.

We've mistakingly thought we had grown beyond this type of society, though we just simply closed our eyes. It is an interesting conflict of evolution where we advanced one step in being able to elect a black man for president in this country and on the same day we moved back two steps when a proposition was passed in California to pave the way for banning gay marriage.
Logged
indianasmith
Archeologist, Theologian, Elder Scrolls Addict, and a
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 1416
Posts: 8345


A good bad movie is like popcorn for the soul!


« Reply #3 on: November 15, 2008, 01:56:59 PM »

I'm on board with you for race hatred, it is a stupid sentiment in this day and age.  On the other hand, not all differences are healthy.  The Muslim tradition, widely practiced in the Middle East, of stoning girls who are victims of rape, for example.  I don't care how time-honored and traditional it is - it is barbaric and purely evil.

On a separate but similar note, while I am against persecution of gays,   I can't agree with the concept of  gay marriage.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.  Period.  Every culture in the history of the world has recognized it as such, even cultures where homosexuality was widely practiced and carried no social stigma.

You can call a cow a pig all day long, it still isn't going to oink.

Calling a homosexual relationship a marriage will never make it one, and I find it remarkably arrogant that our culture wants to change the fundamental nature of the oldest institution in human culture in order to bolster the self-esteem of those who are, by the clinical definition of the term, sexual deviants.

What next?  man-boy marriages?  Man-dog marriages?  Woman-dolphin marriages?

Oh, wait, Hawaii already did that.

Some institutions exist for a reason; messing with them is a fundamentally bad idea.

There, I stated my conservative opinion.  Let the blowback hatred begin! TeddyR
Logged

"Carpe diem!" - Seize the day!  "Carpe per diem!" - Seize the daily living allowance! "Carpe carp!" - Seize the fish!
"Carpe Ngo Diem!" - Seize the South Vietnamese Dictator!
ghouck
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 583
Posts: 3750


Afro-Mullets RULE!


WWW
« Reply #4 on: November 15, 2008, 02:14:24 PM »

The problem is that murder charges require some degree if intent. If a lawyer can convince a jury (which they do on a regular basis) that there wasn't any INTENT, and that a MINOR is not in complete control of their faculties, the kid walks. Also, juries are MUCH more sympathetic to young offenders the get long sentences, and often nullify. Manslaughter still gets a person a decent chunk of time, which I believe we all will agree is better than a walk.

Quote
Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.  Period.  Every culture in the history of the world has recognized it as such, even cultures where homosexuality was widely practiced and carried no social stigma.

You can call a cow a pig all day long, it still isn't going to oink.

Calling a homosexual relationship a marriage will never make it one, and I find it remarkably arrogant that our culture wants to change the fundamental nature of the oldest institution in human culture in order to bolster the self-esteem of those who are, .

I find that entire statement arrogant. "by the clinical definition of the term, sexual deviants"? That's the stupidest, sheepish thing I've heard this week. Aren't the "clinicians" that decided this the same ones that were all for pumping kids with Ritalin on every whim? Every culture? Yea, we did lots of things in the past, were all of those right? "Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.  Period." I'm glad you profess to speak for everyone in one sentence, and accuse others of arrogance in the next, makes you easy to spot in a crowd.

Quote
What next?  man-boy marriages?  Man-dog marriages?  Woman-dolphin marriages?

Oh, wait, Hawaii already did that.

Lol, now you're stretching it quite a bit. You really can't convince me you believe that argument, yet are still capable of tying your own shoes.
Logged

Raw bacon is GREAT! It's like regular bacon, only faster, and it doesn't burn the roof of your mouth!

Happiness is green text in the "Stuff To Watch For" section.

James James: The man so nice, they named him twice.

"Aw man, this thong is chafing my balls" -Lloyd Kaufman in Poultrygeist.

"There's always time for lubricant" -Orlando Jones in Evolution
Menard
Guest
« Reply #5 on: November 15, 2008, 02:16:11 PM »

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.  Period.  Every culture in the history of the world has recognized it as such, even cultures where homosexuality was widely practiced and carried no social stigma.

You can call a cow a pig all day long, it still isn't going to oink.

Calling a homosexual relationship a marriage will never make it one, and I find it remarkably arrogant that our culture wants to change the fundamental nature of the oldest institution in human culture in order to bolster the self-esteem of those who are, by the clinical definition of the term, sexual deviants.

What next?  man-boy marriages?  Man-dog marriages?  Woman-dolphin marriages?

Oh, wait, Hawaii already did that.

Some institutions exist for a reason; messing with them is a fundamentally bad idea.

There, I stated my conservative opinion.  Let the blowback hatred begin! TeddyR

No blowback hatred here.

The problem with opposition to gay marriage based on 'what has always been should always be' is exactly the same problem with racism.


Some institutions exist for a reason; messing with them is a fundamentally bad idea.

So is a black president a bad idea simply because the institution has been a white male president?

The arguement against gay marriage as 'we should not mess with an institution' and 'it has been good enough for me, why should it be given to them' is holding on to bad ideas.

Bad ideas are that women are inferior to men; that people are inferior to other people based on their differences.

A marriage is okay if one partner beats the other, so long as it's a man beating a woman? But damned if it's between two people who love one another regardless of their sexes?

Perhaps the next step should be to ban interracial marriages. They certainly aren't part of the institution.

Logged
Menard
Guest
« Reply #6 on: November 15, 2008, 02:25:35 PM »

The problem is that murder charges require some degree if intent. If a lawyer can convince a jury (which they do on a regular basis) that there wasn't any INTENT, and that a MINOR is not in complete control of their faculties, the kid walks. Also, juries are MUCH more sympathetic to young offenders the get long sentences, and often nullify. Manslaughter still gets a person a decent chunk of time, which I believe we all will agree is better than a walk.

The problem with that (not your analysis, which is very pertinent, but the way it looks) is that 6 young black men assault a white boy in Jena, over a blatantly racist incident, and get charged with attempted murder, initially. 7 white boys murder an Hispanic man and one gets charged with manslaughter, and the others with assault.

Attempted murder because the victim was white, and was able to attend a party later that same day?

Murdering an Hispanic man is an assault charge, manslaughter at best?

Is there an inherent bigotry with our system when the punishment fits the skin, not the crime?
Logged
ghouck
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 583
Posts: 3750


Afro-Mullets RULE!


WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 15, 2008, 02:38:06 PM »

Picking two crimes out of the millions that happen doesn't really speak for the state of our system. The point is, that if the prosecutor KNEW, by knowing his jury pool, that those kids would WALK on murder charges, and walk because the jury will let them walk, then they were right in going for manslaughter. It all comes down to the juries in the end. There's also the exact circumstances that come into play. IIRC, wasn't there someone that overheard the Jena 6 speak of "going to kill"? You gotta realize how powerful these are in a juries eyes.

Yes, there is an inherent bigotry, juries do it all the time. We can blame the system all we want, but it all comes down to the jury, and what the prosecutor believes will or will not fly. Look at the OJ trial, , as the jury walked out of the courtroom, a Black male juror gave OJ the "fist across the chest" sign.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2008, 02:42:04 PM by ghouck » Logged

Raw bacon is GREAT! It's like regular bacon, only faster, and it doesn't burn the roof of your mouth!

Happiness is green text in the "Stuff To Watch For" section.

James James: The man so nice, they named him twice.

"Aw man, this thong is chafing my balls" -Lloyd Kaufman in Poultrygeist.

"There's always time for lubricant" -Orlando Jones in Evolution
Menard
Guest
« Reply #8 on: November 15, 2008, 02:54:21 PM »

Picking two crimes out of the millions that happen doesn't really speak for the state of our system. The point is, that if the prosecutor KNEW, by knowing his jury pool, that those kids would WALK on murder charges, and walk because the jury will let them walk, then they were right in going for manslaughter. It all comes down to the juries in the end. There's also the exact circumstances that come into play. IIRC, wasn't there someone that overheard the Jena 6 speak of "going to kill"? You gotta realize how powerful these are in a juries eyes.

Yes, there is an inherent bigotry, juries do it all the time. We can blame the system all we want, but it all comes down to the jury, and what the prosecutor believes will or will not fly.

I don't entirely disagree with you on that, and certainly not in basis.

I don't have to search very far, or just contrast the Jena case with this one to find an extreme injustice; this country is still littered with such.

You make a good point of pointing out my error in referring to the legal system when the majority of the problem most likely lies with us who make up juries (I am just being inclusive to not be separatist).

It seems, though, that as in the Jena case (more appropriately: The Jena Injustice) that the prosecutor could have started with a higher charge, and plead it down if necessary. It comes off to me that the authorities themselves don't think of an Hispanic laundry worker as much of a victim.

I openly accept that I could be way off, but the message this case sends, especially in the light of the Jena case having been in the public eye, is just messed up. Perhaps, though, if this case is more in the public eye, it might send a wake-up call; doubtful, but hopeful.
Logged
ghouck
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 583
Posts: 3750


Afro-Mullets RULE!


WWW
« Reply #9 on: November 15, 2008, 03:07:02 PM »

Quote
It seems, though, that as in the Jena case (more appropriately: The Jena Injustice) that the prosecutor could have started with a higher charge, and plead it down if necessary.

The PROSECUTOR, , should have PLEAD IT DOWN. . . Sorry, I got a bit of a laugh out of that. That's not a prosecutor's job, that's not how it works. The defense presents a case to try and give the prosecutor belief that he will fail. If the defense can convince the prosecutor he can't win at the higher charge, then it gets lowered, or, if the stakes are low enough, if saving the people's tax dollars warrants the agreement, then it can be settled. It's not the Prosecutor's job to "plead it down", or should he have taken THAT upon himself just this once?

Logged

Raw bacon is GREAT! It's like regular bacon, only faster, and it doesn't burn the roof of your mouth!

Happiness is green text in the "Stuff To Watch For" section.

James James: The man so nice, they named him twice.

"Aw man, this thong is chafing my balls" -Lloyd Kaufman in Poultrygeist.

"There's always time for lubricant" -Orlando Jones in Evolution
Captain Tars Tarkas
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 76
Posts: 411



WWW
« Reply #10 on: November 15, 2008, 03:13:13 PM »



Perhaps the next step should be to ban interracial marriages. They certainly aren't part of the institution.



The fact that I am in an interracial marriage (which was illegal until the late 1960's!) is part of the reason I am pro-gay marriage, the other is I don't believe in taking away basic rights from people.  Who two people choose to get married to is none of your business.  
Logged

Menard
Guest
« Reply #11 on: November 15, 2008, 03:20:12 PM »

Quote
It seems, though, that as in the Jena case (more appropriately: The Jena Injustice) that the prosecutor could have started with a higher charge, and plead it down if necessary.

The PROSECUTOR, , should have PLEAD IT DOWN. . . Sorry, I got a bit of a laugh out of that. That's not a prosecutor's job, that's not how it works. The defense presents a case to try and give the prosecutor belief that he will fail. If the defense can convince the prosecutor he can't win at the higher charge, then it gets lowered, or, if the stakes are low enough, if saving the people's tax dollars warrants the agreement, then it can be settled. It's not the Prosecutor's job to "plead it down", or should he have taken THAT upon himself just this once?



Pardon my ignorance, I had not realized that plea was past and present tense.
Logged
indianasmith
Archeologist, Theologian, Elder Scrolls Addict, and a
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 1416
Posts: 8345


A good bad movie is like popcorn for the soul!


« Reply #12 on: November 15, 2008, 03:21:00 PM »

OK, GHouck, no hate, but let me respond to a couple of things you said:

"I find that entire statement arrogant. "by the clinical definition of the term, sexual deviants"? That's the stupidest, sheepish thing I've heard this week. Aren't the "clinicians" that decided this the same ones that were all for pumping kids with Ritalin on every whim?"

Words mean things.  Deviancy is a significant departure from a biological norm.  The biological norm for the humans species is heterosexuality; that is why about 95% of humans are heterosexual (I know Kinsey said that 10% of the population are gay, but modern studies have shown that finding to be inflated, probably because he oversampled convicts in his original study, where homosexuality is much more common as an adaptation to a single-sex environment).  Deviancy, in its proper clinical usage, is not a perjorative term but a statistical one.

Menard:  "Perhaps the next step should be to ban interracial marriages. They certainly aren't part of the institution."

That's an apples-to-oranges comparison.  Interracial marriages are common in many cultures and go back thousands of years.  Heck, read Deuteronomy.  Moses was married to an Ethiopian.  The aversion to interracial marriages  is a relatively recent development in cultures that were, frankly, strongly racist in their views, like the American South historically has been.


Menard:  "A marriage is okay if one partner beats the other, so long as it's a man beating a woman? But damned if it's between two people who love one another regardless of their sexes?"

Again, an irrelevant argument.  All relationships have problems; those which become abusive or co-dependent obviously need to be terminated.  However, again, you're using a basically unrelated issue - that some marriages are abusive - to prove, or defend, your idea that society can simply redefine the oldest institution in human society at will with no thought for the consequences.  The point is not whether or not all marriages are free of abuse and misuse, the question is, what defines a marriage?

GHouck:  "You really can't convince me you believe that argument, yet are still capable of tying your own shoes. "

(That was in reference to this comment that I made:  "What next?  man-boy marriages?  Man-dog marriages?  Woman-dolphin marriages?")


Think again.  A piece of anti-sexual discrimination legislation proposed by Ted Kennedy a few years back would have banned ALL discrimination based on "sexual preference."  But it did not provide a DEFINITION of sexual preference.  Had that well-intentioned but disasatrously worded bill become law, you would have immediately had every form of sexual deviant (or to use the old term, pervert) imaginable applying for Federal protection.  It would have made anti-pedophile legislation impossible to enforce, and given every nutjob who enjoys having sex with sheep, shoes, corpses, farm animals, heads of lettuce, or hollowed-out pumpkins an opportunity to clog up the legal system with claims of discrimination.

Ultimately, all jokes and politics aside, what this debate boils down to is a question that is as old as mankind:  Are sexual behaviors inborn, or are they chosen?  I have a difficult time with the idea that we should grant civil rights protection based on the way someone chooses to achieve orgasm.  Or with the idea that we have the right to redefine such an ancient and honored institution as marriage is just so a tiny fraction of the population can feel good about themselves.

And by the way, a woman in Hawaii really did "marry" a dolphin a year or so ago. It was in the news at the time. I wonder - if it doesn't work out, will he make alimony payments in Mackerel, or Herring?


Logged

"Carpe diem!" - Seize the day!  "Carpe per diem!" - Seize the daily living allowance! "Carpe carp!" - Seize the fish!
"Carpe Ngo Diem!" - Seize the South Vietnamese Dictator!
Menard
Guest
« Reply #13 on: November 15, 2008, 03:37:51 PM »

Quote
It seems, though, that as in the Jena case (more appropriately: The Jena Injustice) that the prosecutor could have started with a higher charge, and plead it down if necessary.

The PROSECUTOR, , should have PLEAD IT DOWN. . . Sorry, I got a bit of a laugh out of that. That's not a prosecutor's job, that's not how it works. The defense presents a case to try and give the prosecutor belief that he will fail. If the defense can convince the prosecutor he can't win at the higher charge, then it gets lowered, or, if the stakes are low enough, if saving the people's tax dollars warrants the agreement, then it can be settled. It's not the Prosecutor's job to "plead it down", or should he have taken THAT upon himself just this once?



Sorry to have misused the term.

I realize the prosecutor/defense relationship; plea was the first word that came to mind, but was not appropriate.
Logged
trekgeezer
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 0
Posts: 4969


We're all just victims of circumstance


« Reply #14 on: November 15, 2008, 03:41:12 PM »

I will state my opinion on the whole gay marriage subject.  I live in a state that has already outlawed any kind of civil union to keep gays from marrying .

This year they passed a bill disallowing any non-married couples from serving as foster parents to prevent gays from being as foster parents.  Yeah , that's really going to help the Children's services out, by cutting the number of eligible foster parents.   The whole thing about gays raising children to be gay  is pretty preposterous consideriing that the vast majority of gays are raised in heterosexual households.

People who oppose gay unions seem to have an irrational fear or doubt about their own sexuality.   You know gays don't have much to work with as a recruiting slogan.

Come on an join us , get your ass kicked on a regular basis, be ostracized from your family, be discriminated against in the work place and society.


I just don't understand the obsession some straight people have about this subject.  Some gay couple getting married has no effect on my marriage or anyone else's.  


Oh and just because something is not normal, doesn't disqualify it from being natural.

 



Logged




And you thought Trek isn't cool.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Other Topics  |  Off Topic Discussion  |  Being ethnic(?) makes you less...human? « previous next »
    Jump to:  


    RSS Feed Subscribe Subscribe by RSS
    Email Subscribe Subscribe by Email


    Popular Articles
    How To Find A Bad Movie

    The Champions of Justice

    Plan 9 from Outer Space

    Manos, The Hands of Fate

    Podcast: Todd the Convenience Store Clerk

    Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

    Dragonball: The Magic Begins

    Cool As Ice

    The Educational Archives: Driver's Ed

    Godzilla vs. Monster Zero

    Do you have a zombie plan?

    FROM THE BADMOVIES.ORG ARCHIVES
    ImageThe Giant Claw - Slime drop

    Earth is visited by a GIANT ANTIMATTER SPACE BUZZARD! Gawk at the amazingly bad bird puppet, or chuckle over the silly dialog. This is one of the greatest b-movies ever made.

    Lesson Learned:
    • Osmosis: os·mo·sis (oz-mo'sis, os-) n., 1. When a bird eats something.

    Subscribe to Badmovies.org and get updates by email:

    HOME B-Movie Reviews Reader Reviews Forum Interviews TV Shows Advertising Information Sideshows Links Contact

    Badmovies.org is owned and operated by Andrew Borntreger. All original content is © 1998 - 2014 by its respective author(s). Image, video, and audio files are used in accordance with the Fair Use Law, and are property of the film copyright holders. You may freely link to any page (.html or .php) on this website, but reproduction in any other form must be authorized by the copyright holder.