Real Jayhawk heroes
Check out the shirt on Ian Grillot who intervened in the shooting last weekend of the two Indian techies. This is what any real Jayhawk would do.
Now let me rant a bit. The man is being charged with a hate crime. That’s fine with me. What’s not fine with me is attaching ‘hate crime’ to certain crimes only. It implies that the thousands who are murdered or assaulted in our country for various other reasons were not victims of hate crimes because there was nothing about them that would make someone hate them. If someone chooses any reason to victimize another isn’t hatred a part of that?
So let’s drop the silly tag hate crime to crimes altogether because they all involve hatred.
Rant over. Would be interested to hear your perspective, maybe it’s different.
nuleafjhawk last edited by
@wissox In my humble opinion, every crime is a hate crime. Hateful people, doing hateful things and getting hateful results. Not trying to be funny.
I was so impressed by this young man. In his first interview he said he stopped by to watch a game and I wondered if it was a ku game-6 pm that pm. Then I saw this.
@nuleafjhawk this was definitely a hate crime!
I live about a mile away from that place which is just East from Olathe South HS and about one mile away from Garmin Headquarters and this is why it is popular with employees of that company.
I had been to Austin’s in the past and their feature used to be a taco bar that eventually went away because we have now so many great Mexican restaurants. We stopped for dinner maybe 3 weeks ago and the service was poor and we had to send the food back because the fries looked like they had been reheated several times and they were soaked in oil and looked like a big lump that was inedible. We decided we would not be going back anytime soon as we have much better sports bars in the area.
I drove by a few times since it reopened and the place appears to be packed; I imagine people showing support and some curiosity seekers.
wissox last edited by wissox
@JayHawkFanToo Garmin still staying afloat? I kind of figured with everyone navigating with their phones nowadays people wouldn’t be using their technology much anymore.
@Crimsonorblue22 By the definition, sure it was a hate crime, but should it receive ‘special’ status because it involved someone shooting someone because of their nationality?
Unfortunately I’ve seen it not applied in cases where’d you swear it should be. “you don’t belong in this neighborhood” was what a man nearby heard before he got beat unconscious and then his wife and teenage daughter as well. I’ve been to that gas station as it’s near one of the schools I’ve taught at. No hate crime applied in that case where someone was attacked for being white. Was that a hate filled attack? Most definitely, but they all are.
Garmin is doing great and expanding; a lot of the technology in cell phones probably originated with Garmin. Also they manufacture navigation systems for airplanes and ships. Keep in mind that many phones use position based on cell tower location and if you are out of signal you cannot navigate since they do not have true GPS chips. Even the iPad does not have a GPS chip unless you buy it from a cell provider and specify you want the GPS chip.
mayjay last edited by mayjay
The reasoning behind hate crimes is to speak as a society against targeting people because of some characteristic–race, religion, national origin, etc–that causes some people to become insensibly enraged.
Groups have been targeted for centuries, and as we saw in Armenia in 1915, or Rwanda in the 1970s, or Nazi Germany in the 30s and 40s, when group hatred gets coupled with power, attempts to exterminate may be not too far behind. We legislate against individual hate crimes to help act as a bulwark against that.
A hate crime is a reaction against that impulse driving the hater that thinks, “That person is ----. They have no right to existence. I can do what I want to them.”
In our country, the hate crime statutes followed decades of unpunished lynchings, where authorities either turned the other way or were powerless to stop a community from acting on its collective hate.
To put it another way, try not to see it as, murder is bad but hate crimes are worse. See it as a reminder that we in society do not condone attitudes that foster hatred of vulnerable groups. It is also a reminder to those groups that they should not have to fear, that we in the majority remember our duty to protect those in the minority.
When society speaks against targeting people, it goes a long way toward stamping out virulent attitudes. Or at least it hopes to make people realize that they are not going to get treated more leniently because “it is just one of them”.
And remember, contrary to what anti-hate crime decriers contend, we punish mental intent differently for similar acts all the time. Murder for financial gain, assault with intent to rape or kill, arson with fraudulent intent, breaking and entering with the intent to steal, etc.
@mayjay Thanks for the lawyer perspective.
mayjay last edited by mayjay
@mayjay Thanks for the lawyer perspective.
In law school we spent hours discussing things like this. One of the big discussions was whether you could be punished for intending to commit a crime when it wasn’t really a crime: breaking into a house that you didn’t know you owned, for example.
That was related to the law of punishing attempted crimes where no crime occurred: shooting, say while hunting, at a silhouette you thought was your enemy but was just a legal deer. Or, trying to kill someone who was already dead.
The classic was shooting a pistol you didn’t know was loaded with blanks at someone falling out of a 20th floor window who might have survived by landing on a stack of mattresses but they died of fright when they saw you shoot on the way down.
And you thought lawyers learned how to do wills and crap like that. No, we learned about REAL world things.
@mayjay Wow, didn’t know ya’ll discussed things like that! Sounds interesting.
Conversation between coach and referee…
Coach: Hey ref, we are not getting any calls…
Ref: I call the like I see them, now sit down or you might get a “T”
Coach: Can you give me a “T” for what I am thinking?
Ref: I cannot give you a “T” for what you are thinking…that would be silly…
Coach: I am thinking you are an idiot!
@JayHawkFanToo I think that’s the way officials referee frequently! They think there’s something so they call a foul, guessing on the intent. Believe it or not last night in yet another Badger debacle, there was a whistle, foul against a Badger player who got elbowed in the face and fell down. So I guess when they call a foul they can’t reverse it. So the Badger coach starts arguing for a flagrant 1 against the Iowa player. To the monitor they go and they call a flagrant foul on the Iowa player all the while maintaining that the Badger player fouled him in the act. The two FT’s that Iowa got out of that play with less than 4 minutes left cost us the game in a two point loss.
mayjay last edited by
@wissox Faces are dangerous weapons. My father in law always said mine was killing him.
In reality faces are one of the more vulnerable parts of the body, one punch can break an eye socked, cheek, nose or jaw; all very serious injuries. On the other hand the top of the head is one of the hardest and it is basically like armor. Rule 1 of street fighting, if you see a punch coming towards your face lower your head and let him hit you on the top of the head…you will smart for a while but the other party will likely break his hand. In practice, easier said than done unless you have practiced before.