Should the Whites start burning and destroying Long Beach?

Question

Black-on-white attackers get probation, house arrest
Mob severely beat 3 women on Halloween– judge picks 'least restrictive disposition' CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS??? If this was the opposite, meaning white attackers on black girls there would be a major outcry and probably some destruction.

To be clear, that is an actual headline that I copied and pasted...the first part before the caps. I am being facetious about burning and destroying, merely trying to point out how imbalanced things are.

Reinzi: AGAIN, I copied and pasted the HEADLINE, so you repeadedly telling me that I did not state the facts is of no merit. Had stated some of the facts but not all, it would make sense. Anyhow, to your point we should check all facts prior to going out and rioting and burning down/destroying things. Do you think that these crazy people that do such things "check all the facts" first?? Somehow I doubt it.

Answer 1

I don't think that whites should start rioting. There are many blacks that are angered by this as well. My neighbor, who is black, wrote a letter to the Long Beach Press-Telegram about the incident stating that this sets a horrible example for young blacks. You can beat someone severely and the worst you will get is some time at home and some anger management classes.

As for the claims that this was the best the judge could do under sentencing guidelines, consider the following. In November of 2004, three teenage boys broke into the Aquarium of the Pacific and killed three sharks. The penalty for their crime was as follows (taken from the Long Beach Press-Telegram):

"After spending over 108 days in jail, they were sentenced to nine months in a military-style boot camp program designed for violent offenders."

This was in the same juvenile court that the Halloween attackers received their sentence in. So, the moral of the story is that killing sharks will get you hard time as a violent offender whereas a racially motivated beating of a human will get you time at home with your X-Box and some time in a class on racial sensitivity and anger management.

Answer 2

I think that the fact that the asker and the answerer (reinzi) are using a newspaper as their source of "fact" shows how ignorant they both are...... Media is written to GET the headline not give the facts.....Anyone who beats another human or participates OR stands there and lets others beat another human are as guilty and the beater themselves. This is WRONG.... "least restritive disposition"??? what the H-E- double toothpicks is that??? does the judge not have ULTIMATE authority in their courtroom??? and "possibility of rehab" ?? follow up on the beaters of the poor truck driver in the LA riots and see how "rehabbed" they were after their "sentence".....

Answer 3

You've left out some facts that have a bearing on your allegation that black-on-white assaults are treated more leniently than white-on-black.

First fact: Ten kids were charged with the assault, including a 12-year old. So the first thing is, the very fact that the case was brought to trial undercuts your allegation that black-on-white assaults are not treated as seriously as white-on-black.

Second fact: Eight of the 10 kids were charged with hate crimes, which also undercuts your allegation.

Third fact: This was in juvenile court, which has different standards for convictions than adult court. You fail to mention that in your statement.

Fourth fact: The judge - rightly or wrongly - believed she was restricted in the sentencing she could deliver. So it wasn't that the judge "picked" the least restrictive disposition, it was that the judge believed she was *required* to deliver the least restrictive disposition, based on the defendants' past records and other data.

Fifth fact: You fail to mention that all of the defendants had been in juvenile custody between the time of their arrest and their trial, for a total of about three months.

Do I think the sentencing was appropriate in this particular case? I don't know; I don't have all of the facts that the judge had.

But I don't think black-on-white assaulters get treated more leniently than white-on-black assaulters.

Other readers can check on my facts for themselves here: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lbhate3feb03,0,2245473.story?page=1&coll=la-default-underdog

2/10/07: @ Asker: The premise of your question is that black-on-white assault is treated more leniently than white-on-black assault. My responses addressed this premise; I paid no attention to the burning/destroying Long Beach comment.

I could respond to your comment about the "headline," but I think that, too, is a distraction from your central premise, so I'll just leave that alone.

Answer 4

Oh chill, don't see white people doing this in Europe.

Answer 5

I don't get it.I hate the beach anyway.

Answer 6

you guys can try..... I doubt if you'll be successful though.

Sorry.