Racial Cuckoldry is Now State-Sanctioned

submitted by EthnocratArcheofuturist from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (18 children)

There is absolutely no evidence that this or much else is anti-white hatred. Stop creating a problem that doesn't exist.

[–][deleted]  (17 children)

[deleted]

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (16 children)

    Certainly not. I merely described the law with regard to shooting an unarmed man who is attacking you. You and the OP (and DAR) are concerned with skin color, which is unrelated to the law. Cranston will likely walk free. I know someone who shot and killed a person who came at him with an axe, and there were no witnesses, and he got 2nd degree manslaughter and a year in a low security mental health facility. Stop trying to make this about race. It's not.

    [–]EuropeanAwakening14 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    How is this not about race? Of course, when it's a White person being attacked by a non Whites then it's not about race. The reverse is always about race, though. Standard anti White lines. Jesus, you have to be a troll account at this point.

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Seriously? Where is there a law about 2nd degree murder that mentions race? My reference here and above is to the law. Why is it so difficult to understand the law? A troll is likely to bring up the law? Really?

    [–][deleted]  (13 children)

    [deleted]

      [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

      If you and the OP wish to insist that concerns about race will influence the law, be specific about how that would work. Perhaps an all white jury? Or an all black jury? Or a mixed-race jury that is selected by white nationalists? Or a mixed-race jury selcted solely by BLM protestors? But the bottom line is: the LAW naturally applies to everyone in the same way regardless of race. If there is an unfair trial, because of the influence of racism, this too is against the law. The fact is - if you've ever seen how the court system works - there is a formula for selecting punishments for some kinds of crimes, and everyone in the court system knows this formula, which is based on previous cases. Cranston will be offered a sentence that relates to that formula. Thre is nothing in that formula that relates to race, though many have argued that blacks are treated unfairly in that system.

      [–][deleted]  (10 children)

      [deleted]

        [–][deleted]  (9 children)

        [deleted]

          [–]Yin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

          .

          [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

          I accidentially deletedd my comment, in order to write a better comment that's not so sarcastic. I had no idea you'd respond so quickly. But the same comment still applies:

          Again - I am mentioning the law. If there is suspected racial bias in a jury process, this too is against the law.

          If we want to talk about racial bias (INSTEAD of the law), whites are historically and still given preferential treatment in court, and especially whites who can afford a lawyer. The real bias in courts is against those who cannot afford lawyers.

          [–]Yin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

          whites are historically

          "Historically" is a deflection term the way you're using it. What matters is the current era because people have to live in the current era.