Boy set on fire in possible hate crime

[kytwell 179]

Two teenagers allegedly attacked a 13-year-old boy and set him on fire with gasoline in what police in Missouri are investigating as a possible hate crime.

The eighth grader was walking home from Kansas City's East High School around 3 p.m. last Tuesday when he noticed two older teens following him, KMBC reports .

"And they rushed him on the porch as he tried to get the door open," the boy's mother Melissa Coontold KCTV . "One of them poured the gasoline, then flicked the [lighter], and said, 'This is what you deserve. You get what you deserve, white boy'."

Police said that both suspects are black.

Authorities rushed the victim to Children's Mercy Hospital where doctors treated him for first degree burns to the face. Doctors are concerned about injuries to the boy's eyes and lungs, according to KTLA .

The student is now home recovering from the incident, but ####### says her family will never be the same.

"My five year old came in this morning and asked me, 'Mom, am I going to get set on fire today?' I was in tears," the mother told KMBC .

####### said her son will not be returning to the school.

Authorities described the two suspects are about 16 years old with facial hair. One was wearing a black hooded-sweatshirt and dark sunglasses. The other wore a blue jacket, a blue winter hat and blue-green Nike Air Jordan sneakers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/05/teenagers-set-boy-on-fire_n_1320993.html

Not sure if this one has been posted already

[luckytxn 2,263]

Two teenagers allegedly attacked a 13-year-old boy and set him on fire with gasoline in what police in Missouri are investigating as a possible hate crime.

The eighth grader was walking home from Kansas City's East High School around 3 p.m. last Tuesday when he noticed two older teens following him, KMBC reports .

"And they rushed him on the porch as he tried to get the door open," the boy's mother Melissa Coontold KCTV . "One of them poured the gasoline, then flicked the [lighter], and said, 'This is what you deserve. You get what you deserve, white boy'."

Police said that both suspects are black.

Authorities rushed the victim to Children's Mercy Hospital where doctors treated him for first degree burns to the face. Doctors are concerned about injuries to the boy's eyes and lungs, according to KTLA .

The student is now home recovering from the incident, but ####### says her family will never be the same.

"My five year old came in this morning and asked me, 'Mom, am I going to get set on fire today?' I was in tears," the mother told KMBC .

####### said her son will not be returning to the school.

Authorities described the two suspects are about 16 years old with facial hair. One was wearing a black hooded-sweatshirt and dark sunglasses. The other wore a blue jacket, a blue winter hat and blue-green Nike Air Jordan sneakers.

http://www.huffingto..._n_1320993.html

Not sure if this one has been posted already

Can't be a hate crime as the victim was white.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Can't be a hate crime as the victim was white.

Does lying about what 'hate crime' is make you sleep better at night?

If the boy was targeted because of the color of his skin, it certainly can be a hate crime. Poor kid.

We should be openly questioning why there is so much hatred and intolerance in a country that was once the bastion of freedom. Find the answer to that and reasonable solutions, and we'll become the "kinder, gentler nation" that President George Bush Sr. envisioned.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Does lying about what 'hate crime' is make you sleep better at night?

If the boy was targeted because of the color of his skin, it certainly can be a hate crime. Poor kid.

We should be openly questioning why there is so much hatred and intolerance in a country that was once the bastion of freedom. Find the answer to that and reasonable solutions, and we'll become the "kinder, gentler nation" that President George Bush Sr. envisioned.

Because we are no more a bastion of freedom.

We are a society that is taught to hate from the day we are born. We are taught that we're evil if we don't want to give the poor kid money. We get taught that the rich guy is evil for not giving us money, therefore we hate him/her. We hate the "ethnic" groups because they get special treatment.

A free society is not what we are anymore. The intolerance of the "intolerant" has led to the growing animosity we see today and it's only going to get worse.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Because we are no more a bastion of freedom.

We are a society that is taught to hate from the day we are born. We are taught that we're evil if we don't want to give the poor kid money. We get taught that the rich guy is evil for not giving us money, therefore we hate him/her. We hate the "ethnic" groups because they get special treatment.

A free society is not what we are anymore. The intolerance of the "intolerant" has led to the growing animosity we see today and it's only going to get worse.

Equating a sense of social morality to hate is like believing that Santa Claus is a communist because he wears red and gives toys away to poor children.

Edited March 26, 2012 by Mister Fancypants

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Equating a sense of social morality to hate is like believing that Santa Claus is a communist because he wears red and gives toys away to poor children.

You forget something. Social morality is an opinion of an individual. Nothing more and nothing less. While you might believe doing one thing is "socially moral" another person has another definition of that.

The moment that you force your morals down someone else's throat and force them to do something they may not want to do, is the instant to create a resentment and even a hatred towards yourself and those like yourself.

If people would worry about doing what they think is the right thing on their own, instead of forcing everyone else to obey what their idealism is in moral standing, then we'd be a far better/loving society.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The Libertarian mantra of "do no harm to others" is a moral statement. Does that morality extend to indirect harm? That's when Libertarian fanboisism falls apart because most Ayn Randian cultists can't abstract that concept into a social context. They fail to recognize the complexities of interdependency and how much others are effected by our actions and inaction.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

The Libertarian mantra of "do no harm to others" is a moral statement. Does that morality extend to indirect harm? That's when Libertarian fanboisism falls apart because most Ayn Randian cultists can't abstract that concept into a social context. They fail to recognize the complexities of interdependency and how much others are effected by our actions and inaction.

Indirect harm might be harm, but you're there again arguing a moral standpoint of your own personal opinion. Just because you think it's "harmful" doesn't mean someone else thinks it's harmful. It's only harmful to the person who is harmed, not anyone else.

You cannot go through life without directly or indirectly harming people. It's just not possible.

You also misunderstand Ayn Rand's ideas when it comes to "indirect" harm of others. Ayn shows the points that of direct and indirect harm in her loathing of government. It's not the government she loathes either. It's the influence of business over government that she loathes. Rand understood that government has a purpose, but also understoodd that it is easily corrupted by Lobbyists/special interests. Government becomes an enemy of the indiviudal because it can be bought and sold with ease. We see this each and every day across all aspects of the political spectrum yet we choose to ignore the parts that don't "directly" effect ourselves because we are gaining from it or it's not bothersome.

Take Obamacare for prime example. You might believe it's helpful, you might believe it benefits everyone. However those who you think it's benefitting and many others don't feel the same way. Some people do and many agree with you, however there are plenty who do not and plenty who feel they are being slapped in the face. Yet you on your high horse don't care, because YOU feel that it's the right thing. Your "social morality" falls thin when someone argues against it, because you think you know what's better for someone else. That make you the selfish one who ignores the needs of others.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Indirect harm might be harm, but you're there again arguing a moral standpoint of your own personal opinion. Just because you think it's "harmful" doesn't mean someone else thinks it's harmful. It's only harmful to the person who is harmed, not anyone else.

You cannot go through life without directly or indirectly harming people. It's just not possible.

You also misunderstand Ayn Rand's ideas when it comes to "indirect" harm of others. Ayn shows the points that of direct and indirect harm in her loathing of government. It's not the government she loathes either. It's the influence of business over government that she loathes. Rand understood that government has a purpose, but also understoodd that it is easily corrupted by Lobbyists/special interests. Government becomes an enemy of the indiviudal because it can be bought and sold with ease. We see this each and every day across all aspects of the political spectrum yet we choose to ignore the parts that don't "directly" effect ourselves because we are gaining from it or it's not bothersome.

Take Obamacare for prime example. You might believe it's helpful, you might believe it benefits everyone. However those who you think it's benefitting and many others don't feel the same way. Some people do and many agree with you, however there are plenty who do not and plenty who feel they are being slapped in the face. Yet you on your high horse don't care, because YOU feel that it's the right thing. Your "social morality" falls thin when someone argues against it, because you think you know what's better for someone else. That make you the selfish one who ignores the needs of others.

If you going to make the argument that 'harm' is subjective, then at least you'll see that you now have a problem with pleading your case against policies which, in your opinion, cause harm. Now you're back to square one. Everything is relative.

[slim 1,514]

Where's Al Sharpton on this one?