NYC offers deal to bias attackers
Patrick Gallahue:
A group of teenage girls accused of a racially motivated attack on six Catholic schoolgirls have been offered a deal that could land them in jail for up to a year and a half.
City lawyers put out the offer yesterday, but the five suspects and their attorneys have until their next scheduled court appearance on June 1 to accept or reject the offer for a guilty plea of assault as a hate crime.
The charge carries an 18-month maximum sentence, but the judge in the case could impose a lighter sentence.
The five suspects — ages 13 and 14 — were allegedly part of a pack numbering as many as 30 kids that jumped six white girls in the Marine Park JHS basketball court on March 30.
The teens — identified by the city's Law Department as Sadira M., Akeylah P., Jessica P., Kedne L., and Vanna W. — shouted "black power" and "white crackers," according to the victims.
Cops nabbed five of the girls alleged to have been in the group but did not charge them with a bias attack, infuriating the victims' parents and roiling racial tensions in the neighborhood.
But on April 8, the city's Corporation Counsel Office — which prosecutes juvenile cases in family court — upped the charges to assault and menacing, including some counts as hate crimes.
The way liberals have perverted the justice system in New York I doubt that any of these thugs will see jail time.
posted by Adam Lawson @ 11:15 AM
2 comments
2 Comments:
"jail time"
Perhaps this is one reason why (?):
"ages 13 and 14"
I mean, it isn't really so clear, at least to me, that locking girls this age up...wherever, e.g. in some sort of juvenile facility perhaps, is the right thing to do, despite the heinousness of their actions. Is it?
Now I'll make another comment that has been on my mind for a while now...
"liberals"
You often throw this out as some kind of epithet, blaming (exclusively, it seems) people you label as "liberals" for various ills. Most often (but not always, as here) I've seen it connected with stories about immigration; I could cite several recent examples, but why bother? It's your blog (and a good and interesting one at that), so you know them as well as I do.
But I don't think the situation is quite so simple. George Bush is a member of the Republican party, which is (nominally) the mainstream 'conservative' party in America, and yet his views on immigration are as (offensively) 'liberal' (some might say libertarian) as those of people you would call "liberals". Right? Chris Cannon, R-UT, is a big pusher of AgJobs. Witness the recent actions of John McCain, also a Republican.
I could go on (and on), but I think you see my point.
It's just that I've come to see this sort of thing, which I definitely see a lot of (too much, actually), as, to use perhaps an overused word, polarizing, in what seems to me an unnecessary and mean-spirited way.
Added to this is the fact that I am not sure exactly what I am -- 'liberal' or 'conservative'. I think abortion is immoral, which I guess makes me 'conservative'. Yet I don't think it ought to be illegal, which means I'm a 'liberal'. I think America's current immigration policy is crazy, so I'm back to being a 'conservative' again. But I'm also an uncompromising environmentalist, and am not so sure the young teenage girls you blog about above belong behind bars, which means I'm a 'liberal', I guess.
So if I had a blog (and I just might soon), I would stay far away from such rhetoric. Instead, if I saw a story that interested me, I would blog about it, concentrating on the issue, being careful to say exactly who said or opined what, and why I disagreed, and completely avoid such blanket labels.
Anyway, think about it.
Also, (even more) personally I would never link to front page magazine dot com, as I find a lot (i.e. too much) of the material there offensive, and they are most certainly a prime offender when it comes to (hatefully) labeling and demonizing others, even to the point of calling people who thought the Iraq war was a bad idea (like me) "traitors" etc, or worse.
There is some good in the Republican Party(Tom Tancredo, for example).The Dems (and GWB) have virtually no redeeming social value. Both the Bush Administration and the Democratic Party as a whole adhere to the ideologies of globalism, Multiculturalism,"Diversity" and PC. Their differences are minor. With respect to Iraq: recall how Kerry continually waffled on the issue during last year's campaign.
Post a Comment
<< Home