Hate crime?


PDA






Sportcat
June 30, 2005, 09:21 AM
http://www.thecarolinachannel.com/news/4669267/detail.html


Hate Crime Charges Filed After Baseball Bat Attack

POSTED: 6:59 am EDT June 30, 2005
UPDATED: 7:14 am EDT June 30, 2005

NEW YORK -- A black man is hospitalized with a fractured skull after being beaten by a man with a baseball bat in a largely white section of New York's Queens.

Police said Glen Moore had ventured into Howard Beach with two other men, looking for a car to steal. The men said a white man in a car passed them and exchanged stares, and then returned a few minutes later with two friends in an SUV and began chasing them. Two of the victims got away, but Moore stumbled and was beaten. The other two men got police, who tracked down the SUV, finding Moore's shoes and a bat inside.

Nicholas Minucci has been arrested on hate crime and weapons charges. Police are still looking for accomplices.

Howard Beach is where the infamous 1986 beating of three black men whose car had broken down happened. Mayor Michael Bloomberg calls the latest attack an "ugly incident" but said it won't be allowed to divide the city.

If you enjoyed reading about "Hate crime?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Henry Bowman
June 30, 2005, 09:38 AM
Nicholas Minucci has been arrested on hate crime and weapons charges. The bat? if they had found and evil gun in NYC, they would have said so.

iiibdsiil
June 30, 2005, 09:44 AM
Sounds to me like a hate crime against thieves. I'd bet it had nothing to do with them being black, just them looking out of place and the guy knowing something was up.

Third_Rail
June 30, 2005, 09:44 AM
Police said Glen Moore had ventured into Howard Beach with two other men, looking for a car to steal.

Two of the victims got away, but Moore stumbled and was beaten.


Wait, so the car thief is the victim? Nice.

Kramer Krazy
June 30, 2005, 09:44 AM
Police said Glen Moore had ventured into Howard Beach with two other men, looking for a car to steal.

It's a shame they didn't wait until they found the car they wanted, so he wouldn't be getting prosecuted.

XLMiguel
June 30, 2005, 09:45 AM
Glen Moore had ventured into Howard Beach with two other men, looking for a car to steal

They know this how? If true, maybe they were beaten because they were theives, not because they were black (though given the history of the area, I have my own opinion :scrutiny: ). Sounds like vigilantism, if so.

If it was racially motivated, it's certainly a wrong thing, but I find this whole business of 'hate crime' to be rather troubling. It's a bunch of PC crappola that seeks to make certain groups special/more equal than others. Fairis fair, and equal protection under the law means just that, not special consideration because your in some perceive minority group. AFAIC, assault is assault, there is no acceptable motive. Is mudering someone because of their race or sexual orientation more heinous than killing them to take their sneakers or boombox?

dolanp
June 30, 2005, 10:22 AM
So-called "hate crimes" are unconstitutional if you ask me. Punish for the act committed. Imposing extra punishment because there is a difference in skin color or there is a presumed motivation is just thought crime.

Don Gwinn
June 30, 2005, 10:34 AM
If I had to guess, I'd say they know it because the men with Moore told them so.

As for "knowing he was out of place" and "knowing something was up," how would you distinguish that from racism? I mean, why was he out of place? Because he was black in a neighborhood where black folks shouldn't be?

It does say they exchanged stares. Perhaps their eyes met across a crowded street, and the world seemed to fall away as if they were the only two in it, and in their silent accord they spoke more in a few meaningful glances than most people ever really say in a lifetime.
And then one of them pulped the other one with a bat.

www.overheardinnewyork.com
June 16, 2005
The Bats Turn Them Corky

Caribbean guy: Hey, I'm looking for a Jason Ghi-ambi baseball bat.
Store guy: An autographed bat?
Caribbean guy: I'm not paying fifty dollars for no bat.
Store guy: What do you need the bat for?
Caribbean guy: I just really need to bash someone's head in, you know what I'm saying?
Store guy: You don't need a Jason Giambi bat for that. Any of these bats can be used for bashing someone in the head.

--Triangle Sports, Flatbush


Overheard by: Owen

rhubarb
June 30, 2005, 10:38 AM
Nicholas Minucci has been arrested on hate crime and weapons charges.

Charge him with aggravated assault, battery, attempted murder, or whatever else is applicable. If you can prove that the attack was racially motivated, then take it into consideration in sentencing. A criminal's motivation can justly be used to impose a harsher or lighter sentence within the guidelines of the law. However, to create laws about having the wrong thoughts is going to far toward making everyone a criminal. The weapons charge is along the same lines. If a bad guy uses a judge's robe to strangle someone, then is possession of such a robe a crime? Things or thoughts should never be illegal, only actions.

mete
June 30, 2005, 11:23 AM
See my comment in the 'Bias, what bias' thread . If you know the original Howard Beech story you'll understand. The story was that if the prosecuter did a 'good job' he would become the Brooklyn DA. Yes he now is the DA.

BostonGeorge
June 30, 2005, 11:39 AM
Wait, so the car thief is the victim? Nice.

Apparantly no car was stolen. It sounds to me that the victims were just very forthcoming to police about they're reason for being in that area. Most likely it was in response to a "what were you doing here anyway, what are you guys, crazy?" type of question. We don't know what evidence caused the police to charge this as a hate crime, but my money goes on the fact that the perpetrator was yelling something along the lines of, "stay the heck out of my neighborhood you effing n****r," while beating him about the head with a baseball bat.

peacefuljeffrey
June 30, 2005, 11:44 AM
"Hate crime" laws increase the penalty for attacking someone based on their race.

They are hardly ever used against the perpetrator of a ____-on-white crime.

It is well-known that they enhance the penalty for committing an attack.

So it is clear that I, as a white male, am not afforded equal protection under the law: everyone knows that it will cause them less jail time if they attack me than if a white guy attacks any other race. The deterrent effect of the law provides an increased deterrent to protect minorities than it does me and other white people. That's unequal.


-Jeffrey

GT
June 30, 2005, 12:12 PM
what jeffrey said


G

one-shot-one
June 30, 2005, 12:18 PM
is who of us (here at thr, mostly rational folk) would act violently towards another person if, at least for the moment, didn't hate them or their actions.
i would personally never intentionaly hurt someone if i was not mad (hate) at them.

BostonGeorge
June 30, 2005, 12:23 PM
The whole "reverse racism" argument is meritless. Anyone with even sub-par intelligence can realize that racism revolves around oppression, and you cannot be the victim of racism as minorities do not have the power to oppress you. I am of mixed race (latino/white) and can easily pass for either. I have lived both suburban/upper middle class, and urban/ghetto and feel I can truly see both sides of the argument. When you have truly been a victim of racism (and you will never be) you may have some standing to speak on the issue.

White on Black does not constitute a hate crime. There are plenty of instances of cross-racial violence, I would guess a majority, that do not qualify as hate crimes. If the burden of proof does not support the charge, then no addition penalty could be levied.

mmike87
June 30, 2005, 12:30 PM
Men looking to commit a crime are assualted and suddenly become victims. What a wonderful country we live in.

Matthew748
June 30, 2005, 12:30 PM
I have never bought into the hate crime mumbo jumbo that is continuously rammed downed the publics’ throat. I agree that hate can play a part in establishing motive, but to punish a heinous crime more harshly when race is involved, and less harshly when it is not, is ludicrous and contrary to the whole concept of equality.

mmike87
June 30, 2005, 12:34 PM
When you have truly been a victim of racism (and you will never be) you may have some standing to speak on the issue.

So, who gets to decide when I "truly" have been a victim of racism?

mmike87
June 30, 2005, 12:40 PM
I have never bought into the hate crime mumbo jumbo that is continuously rammed downed the publics’ throat. I agree that hate can play a part in establishing motive, but to punish a heinous crime more harshly when race is involved, and less harshly when it is not, is ludicrous and contrary to the whole concept of equality.

Of course it's a hate crime. People don't commit crimes against people they like. Calling it a "hate crime" is just silly.

Hate crime laws were established for one reason - for the supposed "oppressors" to show the supposed "oppressed" that they are doing "something" about the problem.

Now, when a white-on-black crime occurs, folks try to "find the hate" just to justify the stiffer penalties of a "hate crime."

WayneConrad
June 30, 2005, 12:43 PM
We have a long tradition of varying the penalty for crime because of what was in the criminal's head: 1st and 2nd degree murder. That is exactly as far as a jury should care about what's in your head, and no farther.

Other than that, no thought, no matter what it is or when it was thought, should be punishable or should change the punishment for a crime.

one-shot-one
June 30, 2005, 12:46 PM
we are all affected (i wont say "victims") of racism nearly every day.
i see people who look at me differently because i'm not the same race as them, some even talk about me (i a language i do not understand all of) right there in front of me.
but if a man beats me or kills me i want him punished the same no matter what race he is. if someone comits a crime against someone of their race why should he get off easier than if he comits it against a different race?

one-shot-one
June 30, 2005, 12:48 PM
your quick on the key board, reposted before i could, looks like we agree and i missunderstood your pervious post!?!? :p

mmike87
June 30, 2005, 12:54 PM
one-shot-one - I am at a keyboard all day, every day and into the night. I can type quickly! :)

Flyboy
June 30, 2005, 12:56 PM
BostonGeorge:
Anyone with even sub-par intelligence can realize that racism revolves around oppression, and you cannot be the victim of racism as minorities do not have the power to oppress you.
Isn't one of the very definitions of the word "oppression" related to unequal treatment at law?

Addition:
BTW, my dictionary has, as the first definition of "racism:"
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
That's the classical definition. No oppression involved; I don't have to have anything to do with another person to be a racist, just think I'm better than him because he's different.
The second definition is:
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
This one is more modern, and makes "racism" synonymous with "prejudice," "bigotry," and "discrimination." While this is incorrect (they are all distinct words with distinct meanings), certain political elements *cough* have confounded the words in order to bolster the emotional impact of their claims. Even with this definition, though, there's no need for "oppression" per se, just pre-judgement.

Am I, then, of sub-par intelligence?

mmike87
June 30, 2005, 12:59 PM
Isn't one of the very definitions of the word "oppression" related to unequal treatment at law?

Yes. But only the oppressed can claim that they are treated unequally by the law and call it oppression.

If you are not oppressed, then you cannot claim that unequal treatment by the law is indeed oppression.

:banghead:

My point is that some people will never be considered "oppressed" regardless of how oppressed they may actually be.

peacefuljeffrey
June 30, 2005, 01:00 PM
The whole "reverse racism" argument is meritless. Anyone with even sub-par intelligence can realize that racism revolves around oppression, and you cannot be the victim of racism as minorities do not have the power to oppress you.

That's crap. It does not have to be systemic, society-wide racism for it to be true racism. What if I went into Riviera Beach here (very high crime, very black area) and just walked around like nothin' doin'? I'd get my ass beat, or shot, or killed, that's what. And why? Because I'm white, and they have the power to "oppress" me.

When you have truly been a victim of racism (and you will never be) you may have some standing to speak on the issue.

I will also never be raped by a woman. Does that mean I am not allowed to have an opinion on rape of women? Pretty please? Come on, I'm begging you, George -- allow me to have an opinion. :rolleyes:


Some of the most sickening bu!!s#it I see is when people in a racial minority claim that they cannot be racists/bigots, because, well, for no other reason than there are more whites in political power than blacks. That's crap. Anyone can hate another person, and make decisions based on that hate, based on a person's race. That's all you need to be a racist. You don't need political or social power. What if I were at the DMV, and the black woman behind the counter gave favored treatment to a black person in line but then acted like there was nothing she could do to help me with my particular problem, just because she saw me as "privileged white boy." She can't exert power over me?


-Jeffrey

BostonGeorge
June 30, 2005, 01:05 PM
Hate crime laws were established for one reason - for the supposed "oppressors" to show the supposed "oppressed" that they are doing "something" about the problem.

No, that is wholly incorrect. The Federal Government established "hate crimes" aka civil rights violations because the states were refusing to enforce their own laws. It had nothing to do with pleasing the public, because if TPTB decided to leave things alone, I don't think that there was anything people of color could do about it. In this context, the "hate crime" rider is simply based on motive. Would you like to be charged with same crime while brandishing a handgun in self defense as someone who did it with the purpose of robbing, raping, or injuring somebody (firearm in commission of a felony?)

mmike87
June 30, 2005, 01:06 PM
That's crap. It does not have to be systemic, society-wide racism for it to be true racism. What if I went into Riviera Beach here (very high crime, very black area) and just walked around like nothin' doin'? I'd get my ass beat, or shot, or killed, that's what. And why? Because I'm white, and they have the power to "oppress" me.

No, you had it coming. You're not allowed to be oppressed after being raised in an assumed life of wealth and privilage.

Sarcasm aside, I agree with you. ANYONE certainy CAN be oppressed. Considering yourself oppressed does not give you the right to guard the door at "Club Oppression" and regulate who gets to come in. That in itself could be considered oppression.

I can and will decide if I feel oppressed. Regardless of what race or gender I am.

Sportcat
June 30, 2005, 01:06 PM
Countdown to my thread being closed...

3...

2...

mmike87
June 30, 2005, 01:10 PM
No, that is wholly incorrect. The Federal Government established "hate crimes" aka civil rights violations because the states were refusing to enforce their own laws. It had nothing to do with pleasing the public, because if TPTB decided to leave things alone, I don't think that there was anything people of color could do about it. In this context, the "hate crime" rider is simply based on motive. Would you like to be charged with same crime while brandishing a handgun in self defense as someone who did it with the purpose of robbing, raping, or injuring somebody (firearm in commission of a felony?)

Hey, anyone who commits a violent crime needs to goto the slammer. However I do not feel that if a guy beats a little old black lady and steals her purse vs. a guy who beats a little old white lady and steals her purse should have a different sentence.

We had some crimes locally here in Charlottesville involving some black students who beat a white student. Some folks thought that it should be considered a "hate crime" - however the authorities said that was simply ridiculous. Would not even look into it.

Is that fair? Nope.

BostonGeorge
June 30, 2005, 01:11 PM
Sportcat: I don't feel that's neccesary, we're simply having a spirited discussion.

That's crap. It does not have to be systemic, society-wide racism for it to be true racism. What if I went into Riviera Beach here (very high crime, very black area) and just walked around like nothin' doin'? I'd get my ass beat, or shot, or killed, that's what. And why? Because I'm white, and they have the power to "oppress" me.

Sounds like a hate crime to me. That is if there was evidence of the motive.

BostonGeorge
June 30, 2005, 01:13 PM
Hey, anyone who commits a violent crime needs to goto the slammer. However I do not feel that if a guy beats a little old black lady and steals her purse vs. a guy who beats a little old white lady and steals her purse should have a different sentence.

I wholeheartedly agree with you. But I don't think you're example is fair. It seems that the intent in both cases is robbery, and not racially motivated.

mmike87
June 30, 2005, 01:24 PM
I wholeheartedly agree with you. But I don't think you're example is fair. It seems that the intent in both cases is robbery, and not racially motivated.

YES! But the problem is that when a white person commits a crime against a black person, it seems like people are TRYING to prove it a hate crime.

Just as you stated - in my example race was likely not relevant to the assualt at all (the old ladies). But in the local case here (stedents), they would not even CONSIDER that fact that the assualts against the white students were racially motivated. I believe that had it been the other way around, then a hate crime would have been considered.

Sure, motive has always been a factory in punishment in this country. But the rules need to be equally applied. "Hate crime" is seen by many as something only typically applied to white people, straight people, etc. The "minority" is seldom perceived as potential committer of a hate crime.

BostonGeorge
June 30, 2005, 01:31 PM
I hear you Mike, and that is certainly a problem. Certainly race can be a factor in a black on white case, and I'm sure it has been in the past. But this problem is not with the law per se, but with the application. In my experience I haven't really seen the situation you describe, but I'm sure it's out there. I mean, out here at least, I see white people walking through the 'hood' and although I might find it strange, I haven't heard of any violence associated with it. I often see white kids and asian kids shopping on 125th in Harlem, and there's no problem, but I imagine if some kids from Harlem showed up in Benson Hurst for an espresso, things may be a little different.

middy
June 30, 2005, 02:41 PM
I often see white kids and asian kids shopping on 125th in Harlem, and there's no problem, but I imagine if some kids from Harlem showed up in Benson Hurst for an espresso, things may be a little different.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that in 1999, there were about 657,008 blackonwhite crimes of violence, as compared to some 91,051 of the whiteonblack variety. The population of whites is approximately 6 times the population of blacks. Doing the math to figure out how much more likely a black person is to commit interracial violence is left as an exercise for the reader.

BostonGeorge
June 30, 2005, 02:50 PM
The Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that in 1999, there were about 657,008 blackonwhite crimes of violence, as compared to some 91,051 of the whiteonblack variety. The population of whites is approximately 6 times the population of blacks. Doing the math to figure out how much more likely a black person is to commit interracial violence is left as an exercise for the reader.

The statistic you state is of no consequence to the discussion at hand. We are talking about racially motivated attacks, not interracial violence.

middy
June 30, 2005, 03:24 PM
FrontPage Article: The Truth about Hate Crime Statistics (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1388)

BostonGeorge
June 30, 2005, 03:36 PM
In 1999, lawenforcement agencies nationwide reported a total of 7,876 hate crimes to the FBI, of which 4,295 (or 55 percent) were motivated by racial bias. Because some of those victimizations involved more than one offense (e.g., assault and robbery), the 4,295 incidents actually encompassed 5,240 separate offenses. If we exclude all racially motivated offenses whose perpetrators are categorized as being of "unknown race," and focus specifically on those offenses definitely involving both blacks and whites, we find that blacks were victims of 2,030 racially motivated offenses committed by whites, while whites were victims of 524 racially motivated offenses committed by blacks. Thus whites were responsible for 79.5 percent of these interracial hate crimes, and blacks 20.5 percent.

I'm sure this is the statistic you meant to quote, right? :rolleyes: :uhoh:

middy
June 30, 2005, 03:52 PM
Continue reading, Einstein.

BostonGeorge
June 30, 2005, 03:56 PM
I read it. I am not a statistician, nor do I play one on TV. I cannot confirm nor deny the author's conclusions. I never refuted and stats other than the fact that the ones you provided initially were not applicable.

Flyboy
June 30, 2005, 03:59 PM
I'm still waiting for a rebuttal of my comments.

one-shot-one
June 30, 2005, 04:14 PM
Don’t see any thing to refute, other than you don’t like the “modern” definition of racism. Me the only thing I hate more than P.C. speak is semantics. But we are allowing thread drift here, the question is should I be punished more severely for hitting an asianblackhispanicetc. Than I would for hitting an Irishman or an Englishman? And why?

BostonGeorge
June 30, 2005, 04:20 PM
Flyboy: I must have missed your post, and I never quoted the definition, I only gave my opinion on the practical application of racism.

One-shot: I don't think anyone here will support the harsher punishment based on race alone. The law only applies (or should apply) when the motive is one based on race.

BostonGeorge
June 30, 2005, 04:24 PM
Well, I'm on my way out the door, but I'll check back. It seems like we're more or less on the same page anyways.

odysseus
June 30, 2005, 04:43 PM
Outside of reviewing the true results of jurisprudence on this issue, my 2 cents on the issue is that a "hate crime" needs to be applied to cases where an association of the crime is directed at that victims race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

So in this case of the thread, it would seem that the accused had to have maybe said slurs or acted on a racial bias to be proven in a court of law. Often I think DA's throw this one at it anyway in certain communities to see if it will stick or not. Anyway, it makes the DA look heroic.

Also on the stats going around, interracial violence does not denote a "hate crime" simply because multi-ethnic people are involved.

AK-74me
June 30, 2005, 05:25 PM
odyessus said-

"Also on the stats going around, interracial violence does not denote a "hate crime" simply because multi-ethnic people are involved."

I think the point of those stats was to point out that if the majority of crimes is commited black on white rather than white on black, how come you only hear hate crime when a white person commits a violent act against a black person. Is racial motivation what is behind every white on black crime and never or rarely the other way around? I don't think so!

odysseus
June 30, 2005, 05:44 PM
Yeah - it's a point of value. Not sure where it can go.

I will mention having spent sometime around Oakland/Richmond California at one time, there is no doubt that I was profiled by my lighter skin tones, clothing, and demeanor. I have piles of stories about those times...

One must be creative when one can't have a CCW. :uhoh:

308win
June 30, 2005, 05:57 PM
If you are not oppressed, then you cannot claim that unequal treatment by the law is indeed oppression.
I am sure that Vicky Weaver would appreciate this subtle nuance if only she were here to have the opportunity.

dasmi
June 30, 2005, 06:00 PM
I am against hate crime laws. All they do is further the idea that people of different races, or sexual orrientations are different. Why should the penalty for killing a gay person be worse than a straight person? Or a black person worse than a white person? People are people, period.

one-shot-one
June 30, 2005, 08:09 PM
my point is i do not care what the motive is unless it is a defense (like self protection) but if it is a crime i could care less the race or sexual orentation of the actors. you know something about equal protection (and punishment) under the law. oh wait that is a truly unbiased stand how foolish of me! :banghead:

Standing Wolf
June 30, 2005, 08:26 PM
Police said Glen Moore had ventured into Howard Beach with two other men, looking for a car to steal.

Try that in my neighborhood, and you'll be lucky if you don't end up playing toe tag at the morgue.

DarthBubba
June 30, 2005, 08:41 PM
My way of thinking is this: Any violent crime against another person is an act of hatred.
So hate crime charges are redundant.

Borders, Language, and Culture.

DarthBubba :banghead:

BostonGeorge
June 30, 2005, 10:46 PM
my point is i do not care what the motive is unless it is a defense (like self protection) but if it is a crime i could care less the race or sexual orentation of the actors. you know something about equal protection (and punishment) under the law. oh wait that is a truly unbiased stand how foolish of me!

How about murder cases? Can you not differentiate pre-meditation? How about depraved indifference? Criminal Negligence? They're all dead right?

I am against hate crime laws. All they do is further the idea that people of different races, or sexual orrientations are different. Why should the penalty for killing a gay person be worse than a straight person? Or a black person worse than a white person? People are people, period.

Some people seem to be having a really hard time understanding these laws. Killing a gay guy is not neccesarily a hate crime. It must be qualified by intent. Maybe you'd understand the difference if you received the death penalty for somebody tripping on a loose brick on your front steps, or feeding an allergic person something with peanuts in it. Dead is dead, right?

AK-74me
June 30, 2005, 11:18 PM
I think we understand but it is still ridiculous. If I hate you enough to kill you because of your race, why should that be any different than me killing you for stepping on my shoes? They are both ridiculous reasons. Yet in the first case the person should recieve a harsher penalty because he committed the crime strictly based on race? What about the poor guy that stepped on the shoes and got capped for that? Shouldn't he have that extra protection too? :rolleyes:

BostonGeorge
June 30, 2005, 11:33 PM
I think we understand but it is still ridiculous. If I hate you enough to kill you because of your race, why should that be any different than me killing you for stepping on my shoes? They are both ridiculous reasons. Yet in the first case the person should recieve a harsher penalty because he committed the crime strictly based of race. What about the poor guy that stepped on the shoes and got capped for that. Shouldn't he have that extra protection too?

Can't really argue with that.

Fluffster
July 1, 2005, 07:10 AM
The whole "reverse racism" argument is meritless. Anyone with even sub-par intelligence can realize that racism revolves around oppression, and you cannot be the victim of racism as minorities do not have the power to oppress you. I am of mixed race (latino/white) and can easily pass for either. I have lived both suburban/upper middle class, and urban/ghetto and feel I can truly see both sides of the argument. When you have truly been a victim of racism (and you will never be) you may have some standing to speak on the issue.
What kind of PC groupthink is that? I am of mixed race(icelandic/japanese, an ethnic group of circa 30 people worldwide) and can't really say that I have an ethnic identity or that I have ever felt the need for one.
If I'm being beaten to a pulp by a group of thugs, it doesn't matter a lot whether I think of myself as a representative of an ethnic group or an individual. It's still me getting hurt.

As far as I know, black people have never been oppressed in Iceland as a group, perhaps because there haven't been any here until a few years ago. So if a group of whites here decide to beat up a black person because they don't like the colour of his skin, is he not a victim of hate crime?

Balkanizing society by demanding that people be treated as representatives of their ethnic group rather than individuals does nothing but ensure that racism will fester and grow.

WT
July 1, 2005, 10:41 AM
Give Minucci a medal. He's a stand up guy, protecting his neighborhood.

middy
July 1, 2005, 10:51 AM
Balkanizing society by demanding that people be treated as representatives of their ethnic group rather than individuals does nothing but ensure that racism will fester and grow.
Well said, Fluffster. Identity politics is just a way for cynical politicians to get votes and $... it is counterproductive to the American way.

Skunkabilly
July 1, 2005, 11:12 AM
Well...

They hate crime. So yeah, it's a hate crime.... :rolleyes:

MAUSER88
July 1, 2005, 11:46 AM
The so-called Hate Crime law is a complete sham. It should be abolished if not used equally which it isn't. Anyone remember the Carr brother's or what just happen to the 3 White girls in Marine Park in Brooklyn? Total friggin SHAM of a BS law!!

GunGoBoom
July 1, 2005, 12:27 PM
The whole idea of hate crimes burn me up, for reasons noted above. But also because of the fluid and vague meaning of what KIND of hate can constitute a hate crime, and the application of this term stretched to include those 'wackos' who *hate* a large federal government. For example, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and Morris has fleas Dees, classifies "militia" groups as "hate groups" (nevermind that militia groups are authorized; nay mandated by FEDERAL LAW). Presumably what militia groups 'hate' is an overly large, intrusive, rogue, tyrannical federal government. So if one so 'hates' such a government, whether or not in a militia group, then any crime that can be remotely connected to such a 'hate' enhances the sentence. This hardly seems fair to me when such a 'hate' is patently warranted, given the size of the fedgov and its clear transgression of powers way past what the founders had imagined and set forth in the US Const. Why is it 'wrong' to hate a large fedgov, but 'right' to hate other things? For example, people in MADD (mothers against drunk driving) 'hate' drunk driving, do they not? So if a drunk driver kill a child through negligent operation of vehicle, and said child's mother takes revenge and hire people to break the guy's legs, wouldn't her sentence be enhanced as a hate crime? It should be, if you accept Morris Dees' definition of what a 'hate group' is, stretching it way beyond its intent to be limited to hate induced by reason of race, ethnicity, national origin, or sexual orientation, or whatever. There is a slippery slope to stretch it beyond protection of the intended minority groups, to include any people who are considered not politically correct by elitist blissninnies like Dees, and therefore 'hate' the wrong things (notwithstanding the clearly good REASON to hate those things). So the danger in hate crimes is several-fold. First, it's a problem of DEFINITIONS, as just described - where does one draw the line on 'hating'? Second, it ripe for abuse for using the hate-crime enhancement on shaky evidence of alleged motivation by hate, even if the crime victim is a member of an intended-to-be-protected minority group, and the motivation is arguably hate of that group. Third, there's 2 problems of prinicipal involved - one is, why should we punish motivations, not just actual actions, since it's the *actions* that lead to the harm which society is seeking to prevent? and secondly, there's the mentioned arguable inherent unfairness of protecting a minority group, while at the same time not protecting the majority groups, even when the crime is clearly motivated by hate against a RACE, let's say, but just not the minority/protected race... i.e. "I hate all crackers, boom, take that, whitey."

BostonGeorge
July 1, 2005, 12:34 PM
Give Minucci a medal. He's a stand up guy, protecting his neighborhood

Yeah, just like Roy Bryant and the rest of the good ole boys were protecting his wife from Emmett Till.

BostonGeorge
July 1, 2005, 12:43 PM
So if a drunk driver kill a child through negligent operation of vehicle, and said child's mother takes revenge and hire people to break the guy's legs, wouldn't her sentence be enhanced as a hate crime? It should be, if you accept Morris Dees' definition of what a 'hate group' is, stretching it way beyond its intent to be limited to hate induced by reason of race, ethnicity, national origin, or sexual orientation, or whatever.

Did Morris Dees rewrite the statutes and I missed it?

Third, there's 2 problems of prinicipal involved - one is, why should we punish motivations, not just actual actions, since it's the *actions* that lead to the harm which society is seeking to prevent?

So, let's get this straight, you feel that someone who has a ND, killing someone (at most criminally negligent homicide, if that) should receive the same penalty as someone who plans and carries out an assasination? They both performed the same *actions* of loading the gun and pulling the trigger.

thorn726
July 1, 2005, 03:48 PM
Sounds to me like a hate crime against thieves

yep..

media loves to call race on race violence racist, but it isnt always

one-shot-one
July 2, 2005, 10:21 AM
BostonGeorge, the difference there is intent not motivation, if i intend to kill you i should be punished the same no matter what my motive was. you being the same race as me or not my INTENT was to kill you so my punishment should be for murder if i am successful. the reason (motive) can be used to help convict but should not effect the sentence. would it matter to you if i came to kill you because your a different race than me or if you were the same race only richer, married to someone i wanted etc?

Too Many Choices!?
July 2, 2005, 02:06 PM
Hate crime is motivated in HATE!!!! They are the definition of evil... This guy that some here claim as a ,"Hero" and only ,"Protecting his neighborhood", left from where he saw what was(supposedly), in his mind, SUSPECT activity(being Black in the wrong place is still SUSPECT, like Driving while Black in certain areas), and he left to get two ,"Friends", while no crime had been commited and no evidence of a crime going to be commited. He did not call the police. He then chose to confront ,"Car thieves", that had not stolen anything, after getting two friends and a baseball bat! He left and got two friends, and a weapon people! While no crime was going on! Which qualifies as pre-meditated assualt in my mind. If he waits until evidence of a crime,"Hoorah!" they are heroes. If he calls the police, directs them to the guys,and it turns out he was correct in assuming they were up to no good,"Hoorah!", they are heroes! If he jumps these guys with two friends and a baseball bat, on the idea that he thinks he knew they would commit a crime, then is he clarvoyant(sp?), or did he call Ms. Cleo to see the future, or do the facts speak for themselves? Other than the media-nese fluff, here is what was stated in the story, between the lines..."Hero", saw Black men in his neighborhood, they exchanged funny(odd) looks, then he went to get some friends, a bat, and dish out a Black ass whoopin'. Later after the Black guys call the police, police say the Black guys intended to steal a car AFTER LOCATING(implies "Hero", never called the cops about this incident) the beaten man's shoes in the ,"Heroe's", SUV along with the assualt weapon :uhoh:! Who called the police again? Who STOLE the beaten guys shoes? Who left the scene of a crime, or attempted crime depending on the version you believe(The 'Heroes" also failed to render aid but reading through media-nese is a hard. The ever changing LANGUAGE is hard to master).Sounds like the actions of a Band Of Heroes to me:scrutiny:...I swear people read and hear what they want to, even when the facts are clear :banghead:!

Too Many Choices!?
July 2, 2005, 02:59 PM
Hate crimes is just a category like premeditated murder, aggravated assualt, or any other clarification of intent :banghead: ! Now if you hate the way the system is abused that is one thing, but if you hate the idea of using motive in judging sentences you are wrong, plain and simple. Evil intent deserves a more severe punishment, IMHO. Yes murder is murder and that is fine and good, most penalties for murder(intentional killing of another) are usually severe enough :eek: , duh. Now the penalty for aggravated assualt(which is what these scumbags above would've received) is not enough for a premeditated assualt, with failure to render aid, and then stealing the guys shoes, not enough by far. All based on seeing Blacks in his neighborhood and exhchanging a glance. That had to be the straw that broke the camel's back, and clearly makes this a hate crime! So I don't know how else you would classify the above behavior, but I think scumbag sums it up nicely :fire: !

torpid
July 2, 2005, 03:35 PM
Note to deranged homicidal evildoers:

Be sure to remember, as you are murdering your innocent victim, to scream, "I LOVE YOU!"

.

Barbara
July 2, 2005, 04:16 PM
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21943

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, blacks make up 12.8 percent of the population -- or about 35.4 million of the country's 280 million people -- so, given the arrest rate versus population percentage, the data indicates that blacks are one-and-a-half times more likely to be arrested for a "hate crime" than whites.

No, this is the one he meant to quote. :)

Too Many Choices!?
July 2, 2005, 04:48 PM
Nobody wants to talk about how this guy stole the beat up man's shoes and did not call the cops, or an ambulance and had to be tracked down? :scrutiny: :)

Barbara
July 2, 2005, 04:51 PM
Heh..I just love stats. :)

As for hate crimes, the whole idea is bad. Actions may be crimes, but thoughts never should be.

BostonGeorge
July 2, 2005, 04:57 PM
See you guys were right, the law is not being enforced fairly. Apparently whites aren't getting charged enough

And while we're giving out medals, I have a few nominees.

http://www.ac-nancy-metz.fr/pres-etab/Charlema/Bac9euro/dossier1/images%5Callemagne%5Chitler.jpg

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2005/01/10/killen_narrowweb__200x388.jpg

http://www.newenglandfilm.com/news/archives/03september/images/big-lynching.jpg

Too Many Choices!?
July 2, 2005, 04:58 PM
Whites are 1 1/2 times more likely to be serial killers. Just some food for thought on statistics... I don't have my site, but give me some time and I will find them : ... :)

Barbara
July 2, 2005, 04:59 PM
Each of those men were murderers, a charge that should bring the death penalty.

If I'm killed because I'm a woman, rather than because someone wants my wallet, am I more dead?

Too Many Choices!?
July 2, 2005, 05:07 PM
You know that is a silly question and was posed only for shock value....
But the fact that this guy killed you soley because you are a woman,Black, gay, or straight, would make me want him more dead :evil: ....

You see it is easier to kill an evil bastard and then get to sleep at night :) ...

peacefuljeffrey
July 2, 2005, 05:37 PM
One thing we are missing in this discussion is the reason behind making certain crimes into "hate crimes." Why did they legislate it?

What I have read is that they made the "hate crime" designation to enhance penalties for certain attacks because they want to deter the "message-sending" crimes. They call "hate crimes" a kind of terrorism and say that they are designed to send a message to others of the race of the person/people who were attacked.

I see major flaws in this thinking.

Let's say I was a huge bigot (I'm not) and I went out one night with my friends to beat up some "n!@@ers". And we found some black guys we didn't like the looks of, and we beat them up. That is not a crime trying to send a "message" to anyone, or to other blacks. It would most likely be a crime of "we beat up THESE guys"! :banghead:

I think that you can be charged with a hate crime because the courts attribute motives to you ("sending a 'fear me' message to others of your victim's race/sexual orientation/gender/etc.") that you did not necessarily intend.

And since when is being feared something you can be charged with? I mean, if I read about a guy in the paper, a black guy who robbed and beat and stabbed a white guy, even if he did it strictly for robbery purposes, shouldn't I have a reasonable fear of that guy if I happen to run into him? Why is that fear (of being robbed by the guy) to be taken less seriously just because it does not target due to race?

We're trying to protect people from having to worry that they'll be targeted for their group associations, but we ALL are the "target group" of people who rob, rape, stab, shoot and kill. Any crime that is not directed at a person specifically because of race, etc., should be considered a hate crime against humans in general -- and I call that WORSE.

If a guy will rob, rape, stab, shoot and kill people of ANY race, he is more dangerous to society as a whole than a guy who singles out blacks, or whites, or asians, or jews... He is more randomly dangerous to more people!

-Jeffrey

one-shot-one
July 2, 2005, 07:47 PM
"You see it is easier to kill an evil bastard and then get to sleep at night"
problem is i see them all as evil bstrds black white yellow or red and all those in between, special right of some special prosecution for others. i'll just have to get use to being "racist” i guess.
oh by the way count down to thread lock.......

XLMiguel
July 2, 2005, 09:37 PM
Assault is assault.
Robbery is robbery.
Rape is rape.
Muder is murder.
Who the hell cares about the motive, it's all criminal! None of it is socially acceptable. While there may or may not be extenuating circumstances, none of the above is acceptable behavior.

I guess we've got to let 'the system' sort it out, but throwing in a bunch of PC-bovine excrement does not help the process.

torpid
July 3, 2005, 05:18 PM
"Well your honor, I killed him, but I didn't enjoy it."

"Well that's a positive revelation in this grisly case! You just got ten years knocked off of your sentence, Mr. McKiller."

"Thank you, your honor. I may be a murderer, but thank heaven I'm not a racist."

:rolleyes:


.

NIGHTWATCH
July 3, 2005, 05:27 PM
The two individuals who were with the "victim" admitted that they were looking for a car to steal. They (he) deserved a bat to the head. The mistake was to use the "N" word before swinging the bat. Otherwise this whole thing would have never been known. :rolleyes:

Too Many Choices!?
July 3, 2005, 10:03 PM
You may be right, I can admit that, but still as in one of my previous posts, If these guys wait till a car is broken into, then act,they are heroes. If they call the police and everthing works out, they are heroes. If somebody beat up a criminal(busted his head with a a bat no less), then took his shoes, and did not call the police or an ambulance for the guy,after leaving the scene, that is a little ruff; as these were probably some punk kids and not real gang bangers or somebody woulda got ,"Capped" :uhoh: !

AK-74me
July 4, 2005, 07:53 AM
Whites are 1 1/2 times more likely to be serial killers. Just some food for thought on statistics... I don't have my site, but give me some time and I will find them : ...
What is the point of making that statement, I think everyone knows that, but it has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

NIGHTWATCH
July 4, 2005, 08:26 AM
Whites are 1 1/2 times more likely to be serial killers. Just some food for thought on statistics... I don't have my site, but give me some time and I will find them

Yeah, and 75% of all inter-racial crimes committed in this country are by blacks on whites, but what does that have to do with what occurred here?

A good well deserved ass whooping. :neener:



FYI: Im not white. :cool:

308win
July 4, 2005, 08:43 AM
A good well deserved ass whooping.

+1 By their own admission they weren't there to do good deeds so what is with all of the hand wringing?

Don Gwinn
July 4, 2005, 09:26 AM
:scrutiny:

I can't believe what I'm reading on this thread. As near as we can tell, Minucci had NO IDEA that his victim was a car thief. Too many of you are advocating letting this thug walk free after he did his level best to murder someone in the street with a baseball bat, and for what?

Because he "lucked out" and his victim just HAPPENED to be a guy who would have stolen a car at a later time? So what?

If we don't charge criminals when they hurt other criminals, something like 80% of our murderers will get to go free. Criminal-on-criminal crime is by far the most common, but so freaking what?

I'm disappointed.

308win
July 4, 2005, 09:33 AM
Criminal-on-criminal crime is by far the most common, but so freaking what?
Two bad apples rub together in the barrel and one of them gets bruised - how unfortunate! :banghead:

AK-74me
July 4, 2005, 09:39 AM
If we don't charge criminals when they hurt other criminals, something like 80% of our murderers will get to go free. Criminal-on-criminal crime is by far the most common, but so freaking what?

I don't disagree with that. I just disagree with it being called a hate crime and the whole ideaology of them.

And although you are right about him "getting lucky" so to speak. Knowing now what he didn't know then, I feel no sympathy for the "victim" here.

Sportcat
July 4, 2005, 09:40 AM
There was an article on CNN how this guy shot paintballs at a Sihk (sp?) temple the afternoon of Sept. 11.

Apparently he had another "hate crime-ish" charge as a youth.

I agree... this guy is a bad apple.

Too Many Choices!?
July 4, 2005, 10:57 AM
Still no one has talked about our ,"hero" not calling the police and stealing the beaten man's shoes, and leaving him their bleading to death in the streets. Again, sounds like the actions of a ,"Hero", to me :confused: :scrutiny: ! Now God forbid any of us should ever be involved in a justified shooting, would you then ,"flee the scene", implicating you are no better than the criminal you just stopped? Or better yet, you catch the guy about to steal your car, shoot him, and then decide," Hey , those are some nice shoes you got there, I think I'll take them with me". Then, not call the police for this CRIMINAL, and then leave him bleeding there without so much as calling someone to render aid :barf: . Even if the Black guys were going to commit a crime,stealing a car does not deserve the death penalty, let alone abject dehuminzing... I believe this is the most low road of the High Road responses to a thread I have ever seen :barf: ! READ ALL MY POSTS AGAIN :cuss: ...

Too Many Choices!?
July 4, 2005, 11:08 AM
What if your son/daughter got involved(peer preasured, talked into) stealing a car with some friends... Before he steals the car,they are caught and some guys beat the tar out of him, steal his shoes, don't call for medical help and leave hime their to bleed out with a concussion; what do you want the guys charged with :banghead: ! Being a ,Hero" , is what most of you are saying, I guess your scumbucket son/daughter would have deserved it without commiting a crime becdause he might have or was about :barf: Punishment before a crime is commited is a Hate Crime and this guy is a mini Hitler..."Well officer he looked at me funny and I just knew I had to beat his (Black White Asian)ass before he stole a car" :fire:

AK-74me
July 4, 2005, 11:14 AM
let your emotions go

Think you need to take some of your own advice.

No he is not a hero and yes he should go to jail...... but......

Seems like you have your own agenda for pushing for this hate crime BS. You can put as many :cuss: or :banghead: or :barf: in your post but you'll never change my mind. And I still don't have any sympathy for the "victim"

Too Many Choices!?
July 4, 2005, 11:47 AM
The guy is not a child molestor! The guy is not a murderer! The guy did not even steal anything, even if he was. If you advocate stopping possible crimes then all guns have to go, you might rob a bank...

Compassion goes beyond, stopping the crime, which is justified, no mandatory as a Citizen and a man of Honor, if you can. Now after you stop the crime(or potential crime in this instance) you also have a duty and a right as a Citizen to render aid to a victim, even if said victim just minutes ago was a criminal...

Even the armed forces render aid to wounded enemy soldier that were about to kill them minutes ago... You say this Black man(admittedly a criminal about to steal a car) deserved to be left in the street to die, after having his shoes stolen and being beaten with a baseball bat you are as much of the problem as these scumbags on both sides.... READ MY POST AGAIN, as nowhere do I say the Black guys are angels, I simply show that they did not commit a crime yet, and got beaten and left for dead, with his property taken. If you don't see something wrong with not giving aid to a down man, but instead stealing his shoes and burning off in your SUV with your 2 friends, is what makes this a hate crime....If you have done nothing wrong, successfully stopped a crime, then why run away after stealing his shoes, after the fact? If you can't answer those questions honostly and come to the conclusion that the Blacks ABOUT to steal a car are more of the victim only if this ,"Hero", fails to render aid, fails to call the cops, flees the scene of a crime, and steal the other criminals shoes then your logic is flawd. Stay and wait for the cops and face your actions and you are a hero, run like a coward after stealing some shoes and you are just as guilty (and more evil in my mind) than a guy about to commit a property crime....

PS which is worse? About to be attempted grand theft, or actually attempted murder with a baseball bat and friends, failure to render aid, fleeing the scene, stealing shoes, and driving off like nothing happend?
The scale seem tipped to one side if you can read the possible charges for both involved parties :scrutiny:

AK-74me
July 4, 2005, 12:27 PM
I have read your posts, I know what you are saying.

Do you know what I am saying?

Hate crime is BS! I don't care if he did beat him based strictly on the color of his skin. It dosen't matter to me. Either way the guy got beat. End result same. There should be no distinction. Yeah the guy stole shoes, left him there to rot, and probably didn't know at the time what they were up to.... i got all that. If he gets 10 yrs in jail then good, if that is the sentence but he shouldn't get 20 yrs or whatever because it was deemed a hate crime.

Bruce H
July 4, 2005, 12:55 PM
They were walking through a neighborhood. They have not done anything wrong up to the time of the attack. It is said they were looking for a car to steal. They have not stolen one yet. How is it their fault. Minucci needs gutted right in the court room. I like how it seems worth a beating just because someone is where someone else thinks they shouldn't be. Talk about gang mentality.

Too Many Choices!?
July 4, 2005, 02:11 PM
I hear ya loud and clear...You are basicly saying murder is murder. Stealing is stealing. For the most part, I agree, but these guys would get aggravated assualt charges and that's it. I say that the nature of the crime, would necessitate a more harsh penalty. Kinda like commit a cime with a firearm(brandishing=deadly force), your penalty goes up. the term,"hate crime", it does seem to be abused/mis-applied by, " The Powers That Be". :scrutiny: ...I will most assuredly concede that point with no argument except, which way is it construed :confused:

If you enjoyed reading about "Hate crime?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!