0
   

Arrests made in church fires

 
 
Brent cv
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Mar, 2006 11:04 pm
@Drnaline,
Drnaline wrote:
Then explasin why they burned down only baptist churches? They were the only ones they could find?


They were the easiet and the biggest to find
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Mar, 2006 11:08 pm
@Brent cv,
Brent wrote:
They were the easiet and the biggest to find

So if i said they were the most flamboyant gays i could find?
Brent cv
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Mar, 2006 11:13 pm
@Drnaline,
Drnaline wrote:
So if i said they were the most flamboyant gays i could find?


huh???
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Mar, 2006 11:14 pm
@Brent cv,
If i sought out twenty gays and beat the crap out of them and in my defence said they were the easiest to find, would it be a hate crime?
0 Replies
 
ndjs
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Mar, 2006 11:20 pm
@Brent cv,
no, because gays are not the majority...
Brent cv
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Mar, 2006 11:25 pm
@ndjs,
ndjs wrote:
no, because gays are not the majority...


lol exactly.

It depends on if you have a history of hating gays as well.

These kids have no history of being anti Baptist.
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Mar, 2006 11:28 pm
@ndjs,
ndjs wrote:
no, because gays are not the majority...

So the law only applys to the majority?
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Mar, 2006 11:29 pm
@Brent cv,
Brent wrote:
lol exactly.

It depends on if you have a history of hating gays as well.

These kids have no history of being anti Baptist.
There history is in burning down only baptist churches. one after another. Not on the same day.
Brent cv
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Mar, 2006 11:47 pm
@Drnaline,
Drnaline wrote:
There history is in burning down only baptist churches. one after another. Not on the same day.


Their history. That is not enough evidence to say they were only attacking Baptist churches. You are so quick on the gun to accusse them of this with very little backing you up. You have never met these kids and know nothing other than they burned down baptist churches.
Brent cv
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Mar, 2006 11:48 pm
@Drnaline,
Drnaline wrote:
So the law only applys to the majority?


If a straight person goes out and shoots 20 straight people because they were straight and not gay is that a hate crime?

Where do you draw the line.
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Mar, 2006 07:14 am
@Brent cv,
Brent wrote:
Their history. That is not enough evidence to say they were only attacking Baptist churches. You are so quick on the gun to accusse them of this with very little backing you up. You have never met these kids and know nothing other than they burned down baptist churches.
So the fact that only baptist churches were hit means nothing to you. The evidence is overwhelming in my eyes. What if they had burnt twenty mosques, would that be hate? The Liberally media would be all over that story line but because they are christian it must not be so. I can see the hipocracy, funny some can't. What about twenty jewish senagages(sic)? In my town recently a hetero male got into a fight with two homo males and beat the crap out of them. Guess what crime he is accused off? Didn't even have to be a pattern, first time offence but yet there he is. I guess the law only apply to gays and other groups that we are not allowed to pick, like christians. But muslims and jews fall under it?
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Mar, 2006 07:15 am
@Brent cv,
Brent wrote:
If a straight person goes out and shoots 20 straight people because they were straight and not gay is that a hate crime?

Where do you draw the line.
Yes, if they did it specifically because they were hetero. I believe it is hate.
ohiosweetheart
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Mar, 2006 10:14 am
@Brent cv,
so do I
0 Replies
 
ndjs
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Mar, 2006 12:21 pm
@Brent cv,
Good luck convincing a jury of that.

They would argue that the odds of going into the street and shooting 20 people, and having all of them be straight, are in their favor.


To further this analogy: Let's say almost all really tall men are straight. Somebody goes out and shoots 9 people who are above average height. Turns out he shot 9 straight people. Is that a hate crime?

The Baptist churches in this area are the really tall men. They're the HUGE churches. If they got off on the 'thrill' of setting fires, then i believe they'd want to set big ones.
Brent cv
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Mar, 2006 12:39 pm
@Drnaline,
Drnaline wrote:
So the fact that only baptist churches were hit means nothing to you. The evidence is overwhelming in my eyes.


What evidence??? All you know about them is they burned down Baptist Churches in a State where they out number all other churches 3 to 1.

Quote:
What if they had burnt twenty mosques, would that be hate?


You find me 20 mosques in Alabama for them to burn down.

This is not a what if game. What they did was burn down baptist churches in a state that is saturated with them.

Quote:
The Liberally media would be all over that story line but because they are christian it must not be so.


I think your a tad bit over exaggerating with the media now. The media is not out to kill all the Christians and make their life living hell :wtf:

Quote:
I can see the hipocracy, funny some can't.


I can't see nothing but you accussing a couple of kids of targetting Baptist churches when you know nothing more than what they burned down about them :dunno:

Quote:
What about twenty jewish senagages(sic)? In my town recently a hetero male got into a fight with two homo males and beat the crap out of them.


What were his reasoning for beating the crap out of the two gay guys? It would happen to be because he has a history of hating gays would it?

Quote:
Guess what crime he is accused off? Didn't even have to be a pattern, first time offence but yet there he is. I guess the law only apply to gays and other groups that we are not allowed to pick, like christians. But muslims and jews fall under it?


Nope, you show me actual proof that they targetted only Baptist churches and I will give you credit. Until then the only "overwhelming" evidence you have is 3 guys burning down Baptist churches where they are the easiest churches to find.
0 Replies
 
Brent cv
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Mar, 2006 12:40 pm
@Drnaline,
Drnaline wrote:
Yes, if they did it specifically because they were hetero. I believe it is hate.



Prove they did it because of hate though and not because the first 20 people they saw were hetero.
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Mar, 2006 03:48 pm
@ndjs,
ndjs wrote:
Good luck convincing a jury of that.

They would argue that the odds of going into the street and shooting 20 people, and having all of them be straight, are in their favor.


To further this analogy: Let's say almost all really tall men are straight. Somebody goes out and shoots 9 people who are above average height. Turns out he shot 9 straight people. Is that a hate crime?

The Baptist churches in this area are the really tall men. They're the HUGE churches. If they got off on the 'thrill' of setting fires, then i believe they'd want to set big ones.
Still does not explain churches. If that were the case and they wanted to see really big fires then why not state building, really big private homes? They didn't, they picked with malious intent over a dozen Baptist churches. If they were all on the same street or in the same town then there might be an arguement. They were not! They physically had to look for them, in that course i'm sure they ran accross other churches and throogh there own dicretion they bypassed them.
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Mar, 2006 03:53 pm
@Brent cv,
Brent wrote:
Prove they did it because of hate though and not because the first 20 people they saw were hetero.

The proof in the the burnt churches, all of them baptist. The proof of the hetero would be in the selection of them. If they were all in a general area and they were killed there then that would be by chance. What are the chances of those kids running accross all those churches without seeing others of different faiths? My answer is plenty. They chose baptists for there fire fancy.
Brent cv
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Mar, 2006 04:10 pm
@Drnaline,
Drnaline wrote:
The proof in the the burnt churches, all of them baptist.


That is not proof. That is coinciendence until you bring other information forward to proof that they did do it because of hate toward baptists.

Quote:
The proof of the hetero would be in the selection of them. If they were all in a general area and they were killed there then that would be by chance. What are the chances of those kids running accross all those churches without seeing others of different faiths?


Pretty good. Especially if they were trying to throw off police after they realized that the first church they burned gained media attention. That first just happened to be baptist so now they targetted Baptists to make it sound like a hate crime. A hate crime would throw off police in their mind since they have no previous history of hating baptists.

In my mind that is just as valid of a reason as any of them right now. You do not know what was going on in their head anymore than I do. I just fail to see a bunch of kids targetting baptists only. Doesn't make sense.

Quote:
My answer is plenty. They chose baptists for there fire fancy.


Again no proof to back that up other than they were all Baptists. Only thing you got. The police even ruled out they were targetted for their denomination
ndjs
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Mar, 2006 06:55 pm
@Drnaline,
Drnaline wrote:
Still does not explain churches. If that were the case and they wanted to see really big fires then why not state building, really big private homes? They didn't, they picked with malious intent over a dozen Baptist churches. If they were all on the same street or in the same town then there might be an arguement. They were not! They physically had to look for them, in that course i'm sure they ran accross other churches and throogh there own dicretion they bypassed them.

I'm not following you.

Do you believe that it was a hate crime because it was churches that were targeted or because it was primarily Baptist?

The reason churches were burned that were out of the area was because they were trying to throw police off the trail. If they hadn't tried to throw police off, then they would have all been in the same area. The reasons that the later churches were burned were not the same as the reasons the first ones were.
 

Related Topics

What is the most valuable thing you own? - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
Has there been a roll call? - Discussion by gustavratzenhofer
Here's another Trump thread... - Discussion by tsarstepan
Should I be offended? - Question by the prince
How desperate can a christian get? - Discussion by reasoning logic
Is A2K A Religion? - Question by mark noble
Top o' the Mornin' to Ya! - Question by Transcend
8/31/05 : Gas Prices - Discussion by Ken cv
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/05/2024 at 11:41:54