12-31-2013, 11:13 AM
I get what you're saying, Six.
But, when you do that research later, legally, the key is whether any of those blacks prosecuted for assault instead of "hate crime" essentially handed authorities a confession that they planned to target victims of a specific race. Is there any evidence of that which would stand up in a court of law?
Barrett, we know, painted a target on his own chest. The dipshit recorded himself saying that he planned to assault a black man specifically, recorded himself committing the crime, bragged about it to strangers...
I can't say for a fact, but I'd imagine the other knock-out artists weren't, by their own admissions, looking for national attention - they were more likely trying to avoid being caught. I'd be surprised if they were carrying around a shitload of evidence against themselves right there on their persons.
If the criminally stupidest of the knock-out artists to be caught thus far happens to be white, that's the way it is.
Also, as I posted upthread, there may be more evidence that we haven't heard about yet. For example, if Barrett also taped himself or told others that he planned to target a handi-capped vet to get national attention, or a Catholic nun to get national attention...it might make it less likely that his targeting of a black man will be seen as a hate crime in the eyes of a jury, and instead more of an attention-seeking crime. On the other hand, if he's on record as having said that all black people are shit and deserve to be used as punching bags and that he wouldn't knock-out anyone til he secured a black target, he's effin' history, IMO.
I think there are more factors than Barrett being white to consider when contemplating why he's the only knock-out artist thus far to be charged with a hate crime. I'm interested in what your research reveals, but think it might not make too much difference until we know the full case against Barrett.
But, when you do that research later, legally, the key is whether any of those blacks prosecuted for assault instead of "hate crime" essentially handed authorities a confession that they planned to target victims of a specific race. Is there any evidence of that which would stand up in a court of law?
Barrett, we know, painted a target on his own chest. The dipshit recorded himself saying that he planned to assault a black man specifically, recorded himself committing the crime, bragged about it to strangers...
I can't say for a fact, but I'd imagine the other knock-out artists weren't, by their own admissions, looking for national attention - they were more likely trying to avoid being caught. I'd be surprised if they were carrying around a shitload of evidence against themselves right there on their persons.
If the criminally stupidest of the knock-out artists to be caught thus far happens to be white, that's the way it is.
Also, as I posted upthread, there may be more evidence that we haven't heard about yet. For example, if Barrett also taped himself or told others that he planned to target a handi-capped vet to get national attention, or a Catholic nun to get national attention...it might make it less likely that his targeting of a black man will be seen as a hate crime in the eyes of a jury, and instead more of an attention-seeking crime. On the other hand, if he's on record as having said that all black people are shit and deserve to be used as punching bags and that he wouldn't knock-out anyone til he secured a black target, he's effin' history, IMO.
I think there are more factors than Barrett being white to consider when contemplating why he's the only knock-out artist thus far to be charged with a hate crime. I'm interested in what your research reveals, but think it might not make too much difference until we know the full case against Barrett.