Hanging a Noose Can Get You Five Years

[KingMerv00]

Let's see.

From that link:



Whites are responsible for almost 46% of the murders in this country. The vast majority of whites were murdered by other whites. I'm not sure a difference of 6% shows we're a great deal less homicidal than blacks.

Also note that the word is "intra-racial," meaning "within the race."



Which does not necessarily mean they actually committed more crime, but could mean that they were arrested more often for crime. Which would result in large part from racial profiling. If you are looking for more crime amongst a certain group, and at the same time not looking as hard at another group, you're likely to catch more in the former than the latter.

Surprisingly:

More whites were victims of gang-related homicide [57.5% white; 39% black], but more whites were offenders in gang-related homicide [54.3% white; 41.2% black].

Whites also commit more sex-related and workplace homicides than blacks.


(ok, I'm done now; quote away! )


Oops, not quite. One more thing:

You moved the goalposts. We're not talking about who is more likely to murder, but who was more likely to be lynched.

Don't do that. It's poor argumentation.

Sling, you know I love ya but don't let him get off track.

 

[slingblade]

I know, I'm tired. I didn't even realize about the topic change until I responded to it.

I amended.


Mea culpa.

 

[linusrichard]

I love Texas' statistical interpretation:

~12% of the population committing ~52% of murders just proves how murderous black people are, but the same ~12% of the population being ~75% of lynching victims proves that lynching was basically an equal-opportunity affair. Got it.

 

[BPSCG]

Meanwhile, Virginia is facing a budget deficit of $3 billion.

Isn't that a bit of a non-sequitur?

No.

We have real fiscal problems and the legislature wastes its time with feel-good legislation that deals with a problem whose existence is supposedly proved by a single newspaper anecdote.

Local news radio station carried this story and the announcers reading the story editorialized that "it's a big problem," without offering any evidence at all that that was the case.

Look, I think hanging a noose to intimidate someone is repugnant. But I also think this is legislation designed more to get politicians re-elected than to deal with a major social problem.

Balancing a state budget, OTOH, is a serious issue, and it can involve raising taxes or cutting services or firing people. Not nearly as glamorous or as easy to do as throwing Billy Bob in jail for five years for threatening his neighbor. How many votes do you think a state senator will get with the campaign slogan, "He fired teachers to balance the state budget"?

Which brings me to a question: What is the threat implied by a noose? Is lynching still a significant problem anywhere in the U.S.? Is there a message being conveyed by the noose? If so, what is that message, specifically?

 

[slingblade]

Is lynching still a significant problem anywhere in the U.S.?

Those who forget history...are doomed to ask questions such as this one.

 

[BPSCG]

Those who forget history...are doomed to ask questions such as this one.

Believe me when I tell you I haven't forgotten my history; I even read a book about the history of lynching in the U.S. some years ago, and at one time, it was a serious problem.

I'm saying I'm not aware that lynching is still a serious problem. If anyone is claiming that it is, I'd like to see some statistics backing that up.

 

[slingblade]

That I know of, lynching is not a serious problem. How this impacts the issue, I also cannot say.

 

[shemp]

Link.

Most of the time when I hear that someone hung a noose somewhere, it turns out it was done by some idiot who claims he was trying to alert everyone to the prevalence of racism in America.

Feel-good legislation. Meanwhile, Virginia is facing a budget deficit of $3 billion.

Make noose-hanging a $30,000 fine. Arrest and convict 100,000 people for doing it. No more budget deficit.

 

[BPSCG]

Make noose-hanging a $30,000 fine. Arrest and convict 100,000 people for doing it. No more budget deficit.

Why not make it a $100,000 fine? Then you'd only have to arrest and convict 30,000 people.

 

[BPSCG]

That I know of, lynching is not a serious problem.

Then why is this law necessary?

 

[KingMerv00]

No.

We have real fiscal problems and the legislature wastes its time with feel-good legislation that deals with a problem whose existence is supposedly proved by a single newspaper anecdote.

Local news radio station carried this story and the announcers reading the story editorialized that "it's a big problem," without offering any evidence at all that that was the case.

Look, I think hanging a noose to intimidate someone is repugnant. But I also think this is legislation designed more to get politicians re-elected than to deal with a major social problem.

Balancing a state budget, OTOH, is a serious issue, and it can involve raising taxes or cutting services or firing people. Not nearly as glamorous or as easy to do as throwing Billy Bob in jail for five years for threatening his neighbor. How many votes do you think a state senator will get with the campaign slogan, "He fired teachers to balance the state budget"?

The noose law is definitely a political move and is almost certainly redundant.

That being said, this has nothing to do with the budget. Yes, financial responsibility is important but that does not mean that the legislature must focus 100% of their time on money issues. I'll bet they can walk and chew gum at the same time too.

Which brings me to a question: What is the threat implied by a noose? Is lynching still a significant problem anywhere in the U.S.? Is there a message being conveyed by the noose? If so, what is that message, specifically?

The message is "I will kill you."

I truly do not understand the problem people are having. A noose can be used as a weapon and in the right circumstances I can threaten you with a one. It is irrelevant whether or not lynching is a significant problem.

 

[Texas]

Let's see.

From that link:



Whites are responsible for almost 46% of the murders in this country. The vast majority of whites were murdered by other whites. I'm not sure a difference of 6% shows we're a great deal less homicidal than blacks.

Also note that the word is "intra-racial," meaning "within the race."



Which does not necessarily mean they actually committed more crime, but could mean that they were arrested more often for crime. Which would result in large part from racial profiling. If you are looking for more crime amongst a certain group, and at the same time not looking as hard at another group, you're likely to catch more in the former than the latter.

Surprisingly:

More whites were victims of gang-related homicide [57.5% white; 39% black], but more whites were offenders in gang-related homicide [54.3% white; 41.2% black].

Whites also commit more sex-related and workplace homicides than blacks.


(ok, I'm done now; quote away! )


Oops, not quite. One more thing:

You moved the goalposts. We're not talking about who is more likely to murder, but who was more likely to be lynched.

Don't do that. It's poor argumentation.

Scroll down to stranger on stranger murders which are 25% of total murders. Black on white consists of 20% of that category. BTW enough with the insults.

 

[gumboot]

This thread reminds me of something. One of those suspected of involvement in the July 7 London Bombings was found with an Al Qaeda training manual - an offense that apparently carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. I myself have the Al Qaeda Manual on my computer - it has been quite a useful aide in my 9/11 related research.

 

[BPSCG]

Yes, financial responsibility is important but that does not mean that the legislature must focus 100% of their time on money issues. I'll bet they can walk and chew gum at the same time too.

Evidence?

The message is "I will kill you."

Is it?

How do you know it isn't simply, "I hate n***ers"?
Or, "I would like to kill you"?

I truly do not understand the problem people are having. A noose can be used as a weapon and in the right circumstances I can threaten you with a one. It is irrelevant whether or not lynching is a significant problem.

No, it's quite relevant.

If I say, "I am going to kill you with this rifle," that's a plausible threat, and should be treated as such.

If I say, "I am going to kill you with this banana," (pace, Monty Python) that is not a plausible threat, and should not be treated as such.

And if I say, "Look at this noose I hung up on your front porch," that's not a plausible threat to lynch someone. Because if it were, "lynching" would show up somewhere in these FBI murder statistics (or "rope" would show up as a significant murder weapon).

So this is nothing but feel-good legislation, aimed at people's emotions, serving little purpose except to get the politicians re-elected.

 

[KingMerv00]

This thread reminds me of something. One of those suspected of involvement in the July 7 London Bombings was found with an Al Qaeda training manual - an offense that apparently carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. I myself have the Al Qaeda Manual on my computer - it has been quite a useful aide in my 9/11 related research.

The analogy doesn't seem appropriate. People in America are still allowed to own nooses.

Is it?

How do you know it isn't simply, "I hate n***ers"?
Or, "I would like to kill you"?

Could be. But a terroristic threat does not necessarily require intent to carry out the threat. Take this for example (I know it is CA law, I'm only using it as an example):

A Los Angeles Superior Court jury considered the five elements of a “terrorist threat,” which the Legislature has since renamed “criminal threat”:
•willful threat of a crime which would result in great bodily injury;
•specific intent that the statement be taken as a threat, whether or not the perpetrator intended to carry it out;
•the threat, under the circumstances, conveyed a “gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat”;
•the threat actually caused the person threatened to be in sustained fear; and
•the threatened person’s fear was reasonable under the circumstances.
Judge L. Jeffrey Wiatt instructed the jury in the offense, but also in the lesser included offense of attempted criminal threat.

For further commentary:

The person making the threat must have the specific intent that his statement "is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out Cal. Penal Code 422. Consequently, if someone points an imitation firearm at another and threatens to shoot, it is no defense that the threatener knew that his gun was harmless. If his purpose is to make the other person feel threatened, the specific intent element is satisfied.

No, it's quite relevant.

If I say, "I am going to kill you with this rifle," that's a plausible threat, and should be treated as such.

If I say, "I am going to kill you with this banana," (pace, Monty Python) that is not a plausible threat, and should not be treated as such.

So you are saying a noose isn't a deadly weapon?

And if I say, "Look at this noose I hung up on your front porch," that's not a plausible threat to lynch someone. Because if it were, "lynching" would show up somewhere in these FBI murder statistics (or "rope" would show up as a significant murder weapon).

You can't be serious. Lynching hasn't been around for awhile so it qualifies as implausible?

So this is nothing but feel-good legislation, aimed at people's emotions, serving little purpose except to get the politicians re-elected.

I already agreed with you on that. I think you you are letting the motives of the legislators blind you to the fact that nooses can be weapons.

 

[BPSCG]

the threat, under the circumstances, conveyed a “gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat”;

"...immediate prospect of execution of the threat..."

So I walk out onto my porch one fine morning and find some anonymous coward hung a noose there overnight. This puts me in fear of an "immediate prospect of execution of the threat?"

Sorry, that doesn't do it. You know what would put me in fear of an "immediate prospect of execution of the threat?" A guy angrily walking towards me with a noose, with an angry mob behind him. Because unless I'm very much mistaken - and I bet I'm not - lynchings are generally done by mobs, not by individuals sneaking onto your porch in the middle of the night because they're afraid of getting caught if they do it any other time.

So you are saying a noose isn't a deadly weapon?

The pen on my desk in front of me is a deadly weapon, but you're not proposing to make leaving a pen on a co-worker's desk out to be a hate crime, are you? Anything can be a deadly weapon; the question is, is simply displaying a noose or a pen sufficient to establish the intent to use it as a weapon?

You can't be serious. Lynching hasn't been around for awhile so it qualifies as implausible?

The threat isn't plausible. It's not easy these days to get a lynch mob up, it's kinda fallen into social disrepute, like smoking, or speaking favorably of George Bush in Manhattan.

 

[shemp]

Why not make it a $100,000 fine? Then you'd only have to arrest and convict 30,000 people.

What the hell, make it a $3 billion fine and convict Bill Gates.

 

[Texas]

"...immediate prospect of execution of the threat..."

So I walk out onto my porch one fine morning and find some anonymous coward hung a noose there overnight. This puts me in fear of an "immediate prospect of execution of the threat?"

Sorry, that doesn't do it. You know what would put me in fear of an "immediate prospect of execution of the threat?" A guy angrily walking towards me with a noose, with an angry mob behind him. Because unless I'm very much mistaken - and I bet I'm not - lynchings are generally done by mobs, not by individuals sneaking onto your porch in the middle of the night because they're afraid of getting caught if they do it any other time.

The pen on my desk in front of me is a deadly weapon, but you're not proposing to make leaving a pen on a co-worker's desk out to be a hate crime, are you? Anything can be a deadly weapon; the question is, is simply displaying a noose or a pen sufficient to establish the intent to use it as a weapon?

The threat isn't plausible. It's not easy these days to get a lynch mob up, it's kinda fallen into social disrepute, like smoking, or speaking favorably of George Bush in Manhattan.

I think we should make a law that it is a felony to display a guillotine since it intimidates aristocrats.

 

[slingblade]

BTW enough with the insults.

There were no insults in my post.

 

[slingblade]

"...immediate prospect of execution of the threat..."

So I walk out onto my porch one fine morning and find some anonymous coward hung a noose there overnight. This puts me in fear of an "immediate prospect of execution of the threat?"

No. You're not black.