Richard Barrett, White Supremacist Leader, Killed By Black Neighbor Vincent McGee

• Ok! so some body tell me how and when he was killed this guy. I hop Taylor get out soon!

• There is a trial starting on Monday, May 3. It is of the fourth suspect in the torture-murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom in Knoxville, Tennessee. The female victim, Channon Christian, was raped orally and anally, drain cleaner pourd down her throat (to remove DNA), and stuffed into a garbage can to suffocate. The male victim, Christopher Newsom, was raped anally with an object, dragged barefoot by a dog leash around his neck to a railroad track, and shot three times. The killers made his death as slow and painful as possible. There was more done to the victims I haven't mentioned. These two young people, age 23 and 21, died after hours of agonizing torture. The victims were white, the four suspects black. Will this case be mentioned on this site?

• I agree. I hate crime too!

• Not ALL violence is due to hatred. You have Self defense, which is often violence committed out of fear for ones life/safety. In spontaneous domestic homicides there is usually no hatred present and the individual feels remorse afterwards. The same thing goes for incidents that involve two friends getting into a drunken argument that escalates into a fight, which ultimately leads to homicide. SO no...Not ALL violence is a product of hatred. Still I can see the point being made.

• Agrees with Minnie......I agree with Minnie! One less racist & one less gang banger-- I'm content!

• Doesn't matter if it was a hate crime or not, Barrett got what he deserved, that's one less racist that people of color have to worry about, and Mcgee goes back prison for life, case close..next case!!!

• @Joe, you are seeing the problem in defining hate crimes that are subjective and too often used. Just because one race is in the majority does not make their crimes a hate crime if it committed on a minority, but it is often portrayed as such. The ratio of whites in jail to the size of the white population is less than the ratio of blacks in jail to the black population. "At midyear 2006 more black men (836,800) were in custody in State or Federal prison or local jail than white men (718,100) or Hispanic men (426,900) (table 13). Black men comprised 41% of the more than 2 million men in custody, and black men age 20 to 29 comprised 15.5% of all men in custody on June 30, 2006. "Relative to their numbers in the general population, about 4.8% of all black men were in custody at midyear 2006, compared to about 0.7% of white men and 1.9% of Hispanic men. Overall, black men were incarcerated at 6.5 times the rate of white men. The incarceration rate for black men was highest among black men age 25 to 29. About 11.7% of black males in this age group were incarcerated on June 30, 2006. Across age groups black men were between 5.7 and 8.5 times more likely than white men to be incarcerated." Source: Sabol, William J., PhD, Minton, Todd D., and Harrison, Paige M., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2006 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, June 2007), NCJ217675, p. 9. Does that mean most blacks are criminals NO. It is an easy justification to label white on black as a hate crime because of the warped sense of white guilt that people have. I don't know your race and I don't care its not important, but I was making a point and you have confirmed it that the media and others believe it is only a hate crime if it is white on black or straight on gay. And if this crime was because of a sexual advance by a homosexual man on a straight man resulting in violence because of the man's anger of being hit on by a homosexual man, whom before now he had been working for according to the article above, then by your own definition then it was a hate crime "the violence of intolerance and bigotry, intended to hurt and intimidate someone because of their race, ethnicity, national origin, religious, sexual orientation, or disability", but I doubt it will be called as such because the man was a white supremacist. This designation of a hate crime were made up for the protected classes because of the injustice of the past. That is all it is. This is why I dislike it because it is a simple excuse to have different standards for the same crime depending on the race or orientation of the victim and the criminal. I don't want this to be labeled a hate crime, I don't want any crime to be labeled a hate crime, a crime is a crime. That is the point I am trying to make that you don't seem to understand.

• @JG No, you're oversimplifying again. Now you're making it person of sexual orientation x kills person of sexual orientation y = hate crime. There's nothing, that I've seen at least, stating his motive was racially or sexual-orientation motivated. It was motivated by unwanted sexual advances throwing him into a rage that caused him to kill Barrett (purportedly). Hate crimes are in the motives really, regardless of how the media portrays (or how you think they portray) events between different races. It may be a term used too liberally by some, but that doesn't mean it's completely nonsense. Furthermore, if it seems like the media portrays more hate crimes perpetrated by whites on minorities, maybe that's because there ARE more hate crimes perpetrated by whites on minorities. White-Americans constitute 66% of the population (per wikipedia) so based on that alone it's not unreasonable for them to perpetrate more hate crimes than the other 33% of the population.

• Joe, first of all yes it was an oversimplification because that is usually the qualification of white on black is usually considered a hate crime because of the way the media portrays things. Second you say that it was because of sexual advances then wouldn't that be considered a hate crime because of homosexuality is a protected status against sexual orientation, something which you stated? Because I was making a point that violent crime is a "hate crime" in its simplest since I find the use ridiculous. So if it was because of sexual orientation and you say that is a qualifier for hate crime status then why do you say that it is nowhere near a hate crime if that story is true?

• When there is a black on white murder, the authorities ALWAYS bend over backwards to say it "was not racial." They use terms like "carjacking gone awry" or "robbery gone bad." The media takes the same line.

• And I bet the lawyers are making a mint ,telling the court it was an accident.

• I think you guys are missing the point of hate crimes. The U.S. DOJ defines hate crime as, "the violence of intolerance and bigotry, intended to hurt and intimidate someone because of their race, ethnicity, national origin, religious, sexual orientation, or disability". Saying it as person of race x kills person of race y = hate crime is a gross oversimplification I wouldn't expect of the usually rational commenters on here. Though it's not really much more than hearsay, a local news station is stating the motive was sexual advances made by Barrett. Make of that what you will but, if true, that's nowhere near a hate crime. http://www.wlbt.com/Global/story.asp?S=12367018

• qwerty, Actually, that IS the best argument I've heard for the hate crime designation. I mean, I'm sticking to my guns too, but that's not bad.

• Moet, I am in agreement with you. However, in the Cheyenne (last name?) thread someone recently implied that designating a hatecrime would make it harder for a bigoted judge to mishandle a case, possibly by involving the federal government. I have no idea if it's true, but that would be perhaps the first good argument I have heard for the whole concept of hate-crime when the crime itself is already serious.

• lol Jennie, okay I'll be careful!

• Now Moet, just watch your typing and don't get yourself killed!! I enjoy your posts too much!!! k thx by

• I agree, JG. I hate the "hate crime" concept. I hate that it would be LESS of a crime for someone of the same race to murder me than if they were of a different race. "*gasp!* Someone murdered Moet!" "Yeah, but they were of the same race and sexual orientation so that means there was no hate involved with the crime." It just doesn't make sense to me.

• Well said JG. I couldn't agree more!!!

• And if the situation was reversed skinhead with a Black Panther leader, hate crime would have been said before they even found out who had committed the crime. Hate crime is a stupid concept, all violence against another is out of hate, rational or irrational. You don't commit violent crimes when you are happy with the other person.

• And the White Supremacist had no idea he was hiring a Vice Lords gang member, for yard work? Uh-huh, something isn't getting mentioned here.

TotalComments: 20