Hate Crimes...


PDA






Jeff White
February 8, 2006, 05:17 PM
It looks like at least one jury was willing to look past all the politically correct charges and actually examine what happened:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/metroeast/story/9CD5897B2021EC658625710F0058D86F?OpenDocument
Man acquitted of hate crime in fight with neighbors
By William Lamb
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
02/08/2006

BELLEVILLE

It took a St. Clair County jury less than a half-hour Tuesday to find a State Park Place man not guilty of a hate crime for his role in a fight with three Hispanic neighbors last year.

The all-white jury of six men and six women acquitted Harold W. Stufflebean, 39, on one count each of a hate crime and mob action in circuit court in Belleville.

Stufflebean had been accused of joining a scuffle outside his house in the 500 block of Art Street about 11 p.m. on June 10 after his son Chris, who was involved in the fight, called for his help. Prosecutors alleged that Stufflebean entered the melee yelling, "white power" and "we should kill the Mexican dogs."

Two people, both of whom testified for the prosecution on Tuesday, were treated for minor injuries after the scuffle.

Stufflebean, a tall, mustachioed man with his long, dark hair pulled back in a tight ponytail, denied using the racial language when he took the stand in his own defense Tuesday afternoon. He said he joined the fray simply to protect Chris and a younger son, Paul. He said he leaped out of an open window, dressed only in his underwear, to break up the fight.

"The first thing I thought of was my son," Stufflebean said. He added: "I thought something was wrong with my kids."

The verdict arrived at the end of a single day of testimony from witnesses who frequently contradicted one another in their accounts of the incident. At the end of the trial, it was still unclear why the fight had started in the first place.

State Park Place is a largely white, unincorporated residential area tucked in between Fairmount Race Track and the Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site.

Testifying for the prosecution, Russell Nava, 22, said that Stufflebean used the phrase "white power" and said, "You'll all be dead tomorrow." Nava said that Stufflebean hit him with rocks and with his fists. Nava's account was supported by testimony from two other witnesses who testified with the aid of a translator.

Chris Stufflebean, 17, and Paul Stufflebean, 15, both pleaded guilty to one count each of a hate crime and mob action, but both said Tuesday that they did so only to avoid serving jail time. At the request of Assistant State's Attorney Steven R. Sallerson, Chris showed jurors a tattoo of a swastika on his right shoulder accompanied by the slogan "White Power."

Chris Stufflebean, who acknowledged being "wasted" at the time of the fight, said that he is not a racist. He denied using racial slurs in an interview with St. Clair County Sheriff's Deputy Scott Purtile.

Purtile, who is black, testified that Chris "referred to the Mexicans as 'brownies' (and) said they needed to get out of State Park Place.'"

Harold Stufflebean said that he had urged his son to hide the tattoo.

"I told him, 'That's got to be covered up,'" Stufflebean testified. "'That's going to cause more problems than you've even thought of.'"

In his closing arguments, defense attorney Brian Kreisler reminded the jurors that Howard Stufflebean was on trial, not his son.

"Did he (join the fight) because they were Hispanic?" Kreisler said, referring to Stufflebean's neighbors. "No. He did it because his kids were out there and he went out to get them back. This is not a mob action. This is not a hate crime. This is a fight."

wlamb@post-dispatch.com 618-624-2653

If you enjoyed reading about "Hate Crimes..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
fletcher
February 8, 2006, 05:26 PM
Hate crime legislation is stupid, IMO. Crime is crime.

"Did he (join the fight) because they were Hispanic?" Kreisler said, referring to Stufflebean's neighbors. "No. He did it because his kids were out there and he went out to get them back. This is not a mob action. This is not a hate crime. This is a fight."

GJ

gc70
February 8, 2006, 08:28 PM
The results of a crime are not changed by the motivation of the criminal. The very concept of a "hate crime" is repugnent.

shermacman
February 8, 2006, 08:33 PM
Let's see, would you rather get shot by a raving, screaming, hate-filled lunatic who hates you because of your skin color?
Or would it be better to be shot by a stone cold, emotionless psychopath just because he could?

The entire notion of a "hate" crime is ridiculous.

Jeff White
February 8, 2006, 08:41 PM
We have succeeded in criminalizing thought with laws like this. I wonder what our founding fathers would think of this?

Jeff

Huntzman
February 8, 2006, 10:40 PM
I have to believe that we are continually morphing ourselves as a society to the whims of political groups.

I for one cannot see the difference between being assaulted for "no reason" or being assaulted for some "perceived reason". You were assaulted, period. Trying to explain why cheapens the criminal act. But I guess some politicians are looking to tack on the "group" votes and act like they care.....

When your getting your head bashed in by a steel toe work boot, your not too interested in whats being said..... chances are you can't hear it anyway.

Punish criminals once and for all and let that be the deterrent. As far as I'm concerned, that "hate crime" term is just a plea bargining tool.

Chrontius
February 8, 2006, 11:45 PM
Let's see, would you rather get shot by a raving, screaming, hate-filled lunatic who hates you because of your skin color?
Or would it be better to be shot by a stone cold, emotionless psychopath just because he could?

The entire notion of a "hate" crime is ridiculous.

The psychopath, because he's probably going to take time to aim; the screaming lunatic is probably going to kneecap you and then kick you to death over the course of the next three hours, before finally setting you on fire.

Hate crime laws were passed because of the sadism inherent to many of the crimes. In reality, we should have laws against appallingly sadistic crimes. Say... life in prison, general population?

*finds himself rather depressed at sounding so vindictive*

meef
February 8, 2006, 11:46 PM
George Orwell was just a few years too early, but prophetic nevertheless.

:mad:

TequilaMockingbird
February 8, 2006, 11:51 PM
Nava's account was supported by testimony from two other witnesses who testified with the aid of a translator.

Let me see if I got this right. Nava does not have sufficient command of the English language to testify in court without a translator, but claims that he has sufficient command of the English language to understand that Stufflebean shouted "white power" and "we should kill the Mexican dogs.":scrutiny:

[my own negative hateful thought deleted];)

cracked butt
February 9, 2006, 12:20 AM
Hate crime laws were passed because of the sadism inherent to many of the crimes.

As in 'sadistic' speech?:rolleyes:

Funny how hate crimes are never charged in black on white crimes.

Car Knocker
February 9, 2006, 02:15 AM
Funny how hate crimes are never charged in black on white crimes.

That's because whites (as a race) are not a protected group. For example: If I punch a member of a racially protected group in the nose while screaming a racial epithet, that's a hate crime. If a member of a racially protected group punches me (non-protected group) in the nose while screaming a racial epithet, that's not a hate crime. Understand?

Double Naught Spy
February 9, 2006, 02:29 AM
I think the "hate crime" considerations are bogus as well. The penalties seem to focus on more significant punishments for moral aspects. If a white guy beats up a white guy, it is assault. If a white guy beats up a black guy and uses a racial slur in the process, then it is a hate crime because apparently beating up a person because you are prejudice is more wrong than the doing it for other reasons.

Many years ago when there was a lot of burning of African American churches in the south (early 1990s?), I found it odd that in response to outrage of the burned churches, the federal government made is a crime to burn churches under federal law. Apparently it was not good enough that arson was already a crime at the state level and woud be at the federal level for crimes committed across state lines.

cracked butt
February 9, 2006, 02:33 AM
That's because whites (as a race) are not a protected group. For example: If I punch a member of a racially protected group in the nose while screaming a racial epithet, that's a hate crime. If a member of a racially protected group punches me (non-protected group) in the nose while screaming a racial epithet, that's not a hate crime. Understand?


Yup, I know. Some people are more equal than others. :banghead:

FNFiveSeven
February 9, 2006, 04:45 AM
If you want to hurt another human being, you better make damn sure they're the same color as you are

-Southpark

El Tejon
February 9, 2006, 08:54 AM
cracked butt, fyi, not true, the first hate crime statute (from Wisconsin) before the Supremes was a black defendant and a white victim.:)

BTW, I think such statutes are inane. If you want to take fighting racism into consideration, then just make racial motive a statutory aggravator at sentencing.

HankB
February 9, 2006, 09:41 AM
Hate crime = thought crime, a truly Orwellian concept.

In TX, some have pushed for "hate crime" legislation, claiming it's necessary because of the dragging death of James Byrd several years ago.

Texas found, tried, and convicted the three perps of this horrible crime, properly sentencing two of them to death, one to life in prison with no parole.

What more would thought crime legislation accomplish? :confused:

crazed_ss
February 9, 2006, 09:50 AM
As in 'sadistic' speech?:rolleyes:

Funny how hate crimes are never charged in black on white crimes.

Complete falsehood.

crazed_ss
February 9, 2006, 09:54 AM
That's because whites (as a race) are not a protected group. For example: If I punch a member of a racially protected group in the nose while screaming a racial epithet, that's a hate crime. If a member of a racially protected group punches me (non-protected group) in the nose while screaming a racial epithet, that's not a hate crime. Understand?

Absolutely untrue.

Also.. if you cant tell by now, I'm black and I find it terribly offensive for someone to imply that I'm part of a "protected group".

crazed_ss
February 9, 2006, 09:55 AM
I think the "hate crime" considerations are bogus as well. The penalties seem to focus on more significant punishments for moral aspects. If a white guy beats up a white guy, it is assault. If a white guy beats up a black guy and uses a racial slur in the process, then it is a hate crime because apparently beating up a person because you are prejudice is more wrong than the doing it for other reasons.


Nope.

If the beating was motivated by the person's race, religion, etc.. then it's a hate crime.

XLMiguel
February 9, 2006, 10:22 AM
I don't understand how "hate crime" ever made it into law - it clearly violates the "equal protection" clause of the 14th amendment. :barf:

Why on Earth do some people think it is somehow more worng to harm some 'minority' because you don't like them versus harming someone because you want their Northface jacket, Nike sneakers, or boombox?

Though I find it easier to understand violence based on bigotry, which is born of fear and ignorance, than greed and sloth (i.e. too lazy to work for stuff), I must state unequivically that neither is acceptable and both should be punished hashly. Wrong is wrong. To me, the only justifible violence is in self defence, defence of another, or to stop a violent felony.

cracked butt
February 9, 2006, 10:25 AM
There may be a few hate crimes out that have been charged for a black on white crime, but they are few and far between.


http://www.loompanics.com/Articles/hatecrimes.html


http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/hatecrime.htm


Brutal crimes should be treated as brutal crimes, if that means that a judge has to hand down a stiff sentence so be it. Crimes by certain groups of people shouldn't be used for political gain or sensationalization purposes.

Meplat
February 9, 2006, 10:26 AM
The results of a crime are not changed by the motivation of the criminal. The very concept of a "hate crime" is repugnent.

That (expletive deleted) SHOT me!

I surely do hope he didn't HATE me too. That would make the pain unbearable!

Dunno, but from where I sit, any crime that involves violently injuring another human being is...well...a hate crime.

Meplat
February 9, 2006, 10:32 AM
Brutal crimes should be treated as brutal crimes, if that means that a judge has to hand down a stiff sentence so be it. Crimes by certain groups of people shouldn't be used for political gain or sensationalization purposes.


Ahhhh...if they only thought that way in Jasper Texas. :barf:

From: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1912

Everybody in America, for example, knows who James Byrd is, and that he was brutally murdered by three whites in Jasper Texas four years ago. Byrd's lynchers offered him a lift in their pickup truck, beat him and chained him and dragged him to his death. An entire nation was outraged and guilty. The President issued a statement, legislators wrung their hands and the media keened over the inhumanity of the act and what it portended for the country's future.

Four years later - this year in fact - a white man named Ken Tillery, hitched a ride in Jasper, Texas. He was given a lift by four black men who then murdered him to a deafening national silence. Like Byrd, Tillery was held hostage and beaten. Then he was run over and crushed to death. The copycat nature of the crime made it a natural news story. But there was none, save a modest account in the Houston Chronicle, to which nobody paid any attention. This savagery was apparently nothing. The pigments were politically incorrect. It was only some white guy, whose ancestors probably owned slaves.

Meplat
February 9, 2006, 10:35 AM
Hate crime laws were passed because of the sadism inherent to many of the crimes. In reality, we should have laws against appallingly sadistic crimes. Say... life in prison, general population?

Six months in solitary confinement, no bread, no water would be cheaper.

cracked butt
February 9, 2006, 10:49 AM
Meplat, since we are all spreading the love around, another good comparison is tMatthew Sheppard to the almost completely unknown Jesse Dirkhising. Once a gain, a 'protected' or as I like to put it 'more equal' class of people get a free pass.

AZ Jeff
February 9, 2006, 01:46 PM
Nope.

If the beating was motivated by the person's race, religion, etc.. then it's a hate crime.
Why should the motivation for the crime make any difference? A murder is a murder, an assault is an assault. The why's are not really important, once we prove the person actually committed the crime for which he was charged.

Car Knocker
February 9, 2006, 04:22 PM
Absolutely untrue.

Also.. if you cant tell by now, I'm black and I find it terribly offensive for someone to imply that I'm part of a "protected group".

Perhaps that is untrue in California. However, the hate crime legislation in Utah that has been proposed for the last several years is accurately depicted in my example, according to the originator of the legislation in a conversation with me. "Prior bills would have enhanced, by one step, crimes committed because of bias or prejudice against groups categorized by race, color, disability, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry, age and gender." http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635175421,00.html

This year's bill doesn't define "groups" and may have a chance of passage as long as homosexuals are not construed as a "group". My preference would be for an "equal opportunity" hate crime bill (if such a thing must be passed) that would afford the same protection to everyone rather than just a subset of the general population.

I certainly wasn't trying to offend to anyone with my example (and any "group" I used could take offense) but in Utah, prior to this year, you would certainly have been in a "protected group" due to your race, and perhaps other factors such as religion or gender, in hate crime legislation. And those, like it or not, are just the facts.

crazed_ss
February 9, 2006, 05:01 PM
Why should the motivation for the crime make any difference? A murder is a murder, an assault is an assault. The why's are not really important, once we prove the person actually committed the crime for which he was charged.

Because it adds to the vicousness of the crime IMO. Just like how someone can be charged with murder with "special circumstances" .. Murder isnt just murder.. sometimes it's committed with extra malice. In those cases, punishments are harsher.

Same with crimes based on race. IMO, such crimes tear the very fabric of society and are much more harmful that normal crimes. I'd go as far as to say hate crimes are terrorism.

nico
February 9, 2006, 05:13 PM
BTW, I think such statutes are inane. If you want to take fighting racism into consideration, then just make racial motive a statutory aggravator at sentencing.
I completely agree. Motive is perfectly legitimage as an aggravating factor in sentencing (several motives are listed as aggravating factors in capital cases), but making the motive itself a crime is absurd.

Working Man
February 9, 2006, 05:47 PM
It's just stupid, people will use any excuse to call it a hate crime. :banghead:

If someone attacks a person and that person starts fighting back calling them a racial slur rather
than the traditional; A-hole, M-F'er, or Roster Inhaler, they'll get a harsher punishment (except for
the last one if the assailant happens to be a homosexual then you unknowing committed a hate
crime). :rolleyes:

They are just words and the whole thing is just a sad state of affairs. I'll get no more PO'ed if some
calls me a M-F'er or a Ginny, WOP, or Pasta Puncher. You're mad and say stuff just to PO the other
guy. That's just the way it is.

We all need to grow up and stop paying for the sins of the fathers. We are here in America and need
to start acting like Americans.

crazed_ss
February 9, 2006, 06:25 PM
I always hear the excuse, "they're just words"

Words are powerful things.

Biker
February 9, 2006, 06:36 PM
I always hear the excuse, "they're just words"

Words are powerful things.
Words have the power that you allow them to have. If you wish to allow others to define you, that's your problem, not mine. In the meantime, to say that a person's skin color, sexual preference, gender or religion makes that person's life more valuable than mine is obcene.
Biker

crazed_ss
February 9, 2006, 06:49 PM
No one is saying that.

In fact, the law doesnt even say racial slurs have to be used in the commission of the crime. The point of the law is to hand down harsher sentences to those who terrorize others simply because they look different or practice a different faith. The law isnt isnt place only to harshly prosecute white people for committing crimes against minorities as so many here seem to think.

Art Eatman
February 9, 2006, 07:01 PM
My objection to the whole concept of "hate crime" is that there is too much potential for abuse. Too easy to attribute "hate" of some group when that was not the cause for the criminal action. Too hard for a defendant to prove that hate was not a motivation, when motivation is supposed to be shown/proven by the prosecution.

Too easy for witnesses from the alleged "hated" group to gang up on a defendant and perjure him into jail.

Art

Jeff White
February 9, 2006, 07:04 PM
crazed_ss,

One of the ideas this nation was founded on, was equal protection under the law. Any law that proscribes harsher penalties for doing the same action to a person who is of a different faith, race, gender, sexual orientation violates that idea.

Battery is battery no matter why it was committed. Murder is murder no atter why it was committed.

The Supreme Court has ruled that hate speech, which is probably the most common and damaging, is legal. The City of Skokie had to give the Nazis a parade permit. No matter how digusting the message is, it's protected.

There is no place in a society that claims to give everyone equal protection under the law, for laws that give anyone greater protection based on their faith, race, gender or sexual orientation.

Jeff

Mr. James
February 9, 2006, 07:11 PM
There is no place in a society that claims to give everyone equal protection under the law, for laws that give anyone greater protection based on their faith, race, gender or sexual orientation.

+1,000.

"Hate-crime" is an Orwellian perversion of our justice system.

ArmedBear
February 9, 2006, 07:21 PM
The law isnt isnt place only to harshly prosecute white people for committing crimes against minorities as so many here seem to think.

I think that people are looking at the history of the legislation, the politicians who proposed and supported it, and the history of its application (and times when it is not applied), and they conclude that, indeed, the law is, in fact, in place to harshly prosecute white people for committing crimes against minorities.

Be that as it may, I do think that motive, including "hate", should be an aggravating factor for sentencing. But the crime should be the actual crime committed, not what someone was thinking. Otherwise, we tread far too close to having thought crimes. Sometimes, we cross the line already.

AZ Jeff
February 9, 2006, 07:26 PM
Because it adds to the vicousness of the crime IMO. Just like how someone can be charged with murder with "special circumstances" .. Murder isnt just murder.. sometimes it's committed with extra malice. In those cases, punishments are harsher.
I suspect our viewpoints here due to our lifetime of personal experience, based on our ethnic backgrounds.

People are innocent until proven guilty, at least in theory. Often, it's IMPOSSIBLE to PROVE someones' motivation for committing a crime, even if we can actually prove him guilty of the crime itself.

Since proving motivations is so much harder than proving the actual act, many "hate crimes" are just ASSUMED to be such, due to circumstances. That, to me, does not belong as part of our judicial system.

Working Man
February 9, 2006, 07:34 PM
I always hear the excuse, "they're just words"

Words are powerful things.

Yes, indeed they are, but....

It's not an excuse it's the truth. Regardless how a word that may have
already existed is twisted, bastardized, or combined with another or one
created just for a malicious cause, it still does not change that it is a word.

It is no better or worse than any other harsh language or language used to
degrade. No special treatment/punishment should be given. If two Italians
beat up each other calling one another Ginny and WOP there is no hate
crime as far as the law is concerned. My oldest friend (known for 25 years)
who is Hispanic got into a fight with another Hispanic and called him a stupid
sp!@k and assorted other slurs.... there was no hate crime there just a simple
assault case against the other guy who started it.

Color or religion or financial level does not make a man my friend so why
should it make a man my enemy? If we are fighting and/or exchanging words
it is because of the man himself not his packaging.

Also, we already have laws that cover the points of reason that people use to
justify hate crime laws. The only things not covered by those existing laws
are the emotions held by those groups affected. It's not justice, it's
vengeance.

crazed_ss
February 9, 2006, 08:03 PM
I suspect our viewpoints here due to our lifetime of personal experience, based on our ethnic backgrounds.

People are innocent until proven guilty, at least in theory. Often, it's IMPOSSIBLE to PROVE someones' motivation for committing a crime, even if we can actually prove him guilty of the crime itself.

Since proving motivations is so much harder than proving the actual act, many "hate crimes" are just ASSUMED to be such, due to circumstances. That, to me, does not belong as part of our judicial system.

Good points everyone..

I'd like to clarify.. I dont think any white on black or black on white crime is a hate crime. For example, if a white mugger robs a black guy and uses the N-word in the commision of the crime, then I wouldnt consider that a hate crime.

A hate crime would be a group of Neo-Nazis who went out targeting minorities for assaults or maybe a black rapist that only went after white women.. in those cases, I think the criminals should get extra punishment..

Meplat
February 9, 2006, 08:03 PM
Nope.

If the beating was motivated by the person's race, religion, etc.. then it's a hate crime.

Any violent crime against another person is a "hate" crime.

These are just a few examples of why caucasian folks don't feel like they are covered by the same protections others are.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1912

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2000/03/06/hate/

http://www.loompanics.com/Articles/hatecrimes.html

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=2702

Since a caucasian person is at a 20 times higher risk of being assaulted by a black person than vice versa, and the number of blacks charged with "hate" crimes vs. the number of caucasians charged with "hate" crimes is HIGHLY disproportionate, one can perhaps see a reason behind this feeling.

Please do read these articles, and then tell me again how "hate crime" legislation is a two edged sword. It ain't. It MIGHT swing back in one direction and bruise one of the protected classes now and again, but if it does, it is an anecdotal incidence. Even if it DID cut both ways (and it most assuredly does not), it would STILL be stupid law. And dangerous to a free society. AND DAMN SURE DIVISIVE. Just what we need more of. :rolleyes:

I find it very objectionable that there are some who would like to cause you harm because of your skin pigmentation. I also find it very objectionable because there are some who would like to cause you harm because of the car you drive, or your accent, or because you wear your hair differently, or because you happen to walk through the wrong neighborhood wearing the wrong color clothing, or because they might want your money, your watch, or your clothing, or for any other reason.

I find it just as objectionable that anyone would want to do the same to me for any of these reasons.

If you don't see it that way, your lenses need cleaning.

Hate is hate. Period. One hardly ever assaults another human being out of overflowing love for that person.

redbearde
February 9, 2006, 08:18 PM
I am white.

If I find someone else having sex with my wife, I guarantee I will hate him, and I may very well kill him for doing it...especially if she's not consenting.

If the man is white, and I kill him, then I may be able to get some sort of leniency during sentencing. If the man is black, and I happen to holler a racial epithet while I'm killing him for having sex with my wife, well, then perhaps I will get an extra 10 years for committing a hate crime.

So

The extra few years for the hate crime is either criminalizing my speech or my thoughts (perhaps I only thought the racial slur instead of blurting it out).

Mr Redbearde, do you hate black people? ...every one that has sex with my wife, well, yeah, at the time I sure did.

Oh, but r, your motive for killing the fellow is that he was having sex with your wife. ..not that he is black. or white.

And I say to you, you don't know that.

This is the problem with criminalizing motive. You may be able to generally determine motive (greed, extreme emotional distress, violent horniness), but the action is reasonably prosecuted. Putting me in jail for 1 year because I punch a man might be reasonable. Adding another 4 years because I said something naughty about him while I punched him strikes me as overkill.

On the other hand...

We do have laws covering certain groups of people already. Children and old people are considered less able to care for themselves, so abusing them might warrant different legal ramifications from adults abusing each other. Consequently, raping someone is really bad, but raping an 8 year old is REALLY bad. Why? Because the 8 year old warrants the special protection.

Now, do black folks or gays need special protection like old people and children? If so, then perhaps "hate crimes" have a place in society.....but a different name would be helpful. Perhaps "crimes of inequity". Do black folks not need special protection like old people and children? Well, then, perhaps there isn't a place for those sorts of laws.

Seems to me the behaviors associated with all the examples already listed are covered under existing laws. kidnapping, unlawful imprisonment, torture...add it all up, and we don't need to add another 10 years for motive.

*shrug* or I could be completely wrong. I'm white. And though I dress and look somewhat like a bum, I rarely have trouble with people because of what I look like.

oh, and to make this somewhat about guns: Go 2nd Amendment! Yay!

redbearde
February 9, 2006, 08:22 PM
Good points everyone..

I'd like to clarify.. I dont think any white on black or black on white crime is a hate crime. For example, if a white mugger robs a black guy and uses the N-word in the commision of the crime, then I wouldnt consider that a hate crime.

A hate crime would be a group of Neo-Nazis who went out targeting minorities for assaults or maybe a black rapist that only went after white women.. in those cases, I think the criminals should get extra punishment..

If the Neo-Nazis went after only people of French descent, would that be a hate crime? Why or Why not?

gc70
February 9, 2006, 09:02 PM
If the Neo-Nazis went after only people of French descent, would that be a hate crime? Why or Why not?If a person walked up to you and punched you in the nose, it would be a criminal act. If a person walked up to you, said he hated redbearde, and punched you in the nose, it would be a criminal act. Would your nose feel any different based on the reason the person punched you?

Now consider the above criminal acts in a different light, taking motivation into account. The second person obviously hated you - he even said so - which makes some people believe that he should be punished more severely. OTOH, the first person punched you because he had a really bad day - his wife left him for another man, his dog ran away, his teenage daughter told him she was pregnant, and he was fired from his job. Since the first person had so many things that provoked his violence against you, should those extenuating circumstances be taken into account and his punishment be reduced accordingly?

If the legal system considers motivation to increase punishment, it is only logical to consider whether motivation should reduce punishment. And I am sure that I do not want to see the legal system go in that direction.

Chrontius
February 10, 2006, 03:49 AM
Six months in solitary confinement, no bread, no water would be cheaper.

Yes, but not nearly as unpleasant -- there is, as a rule, not much suffering in madness and if six months in solitary won't do that, then nothing will.

Rockstar
February 10, 2006, 12:14 PM
MAYBE I'd be o.k. with hate crime legislation, if the definition of "hate crime" were "any inter-racial crime." Wanna hear a buncha folks scream? Pass legislation with that definition.

tom barthel
February 10, 2006, 02:00 PM
While it may seem a good idea, people need to think. In parts of Canada, the Christian bible may not be quoted. It seems God may be in violation of hate crimes laws. Thou shalt not may be leading to a hate crime. Thou shalt may be leading to a hate crime. How about the big one (ABOMINATION)? The problem seems to be most people are easily led. There is no informed voting public. People need to start thinking.:( :(

crazed_ss
February 10, 2006, 05:18 PM
If the Neo-Nazis went after only people of French descent, would that be a hate crime? Why or Why not?

Yes, it would. Hate crimes cover crimes motivated by a person's race, color, disability, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry, age, gender, etc.

If neo-nazis were attacking people because of their French origin, that'd be a hate crime IMO.

Biker
February 10, 2006, 06:03 PM
Yes, it would. Hate crimes cover crimes motivated by a person's race, color, disability, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry, age, gender, etc.

If neo-nazis were attacking people because of their French origin, that'd be a hate crime IMO.
National origin? Good Lord, that would make war a hate crime. It seems that many people today seek out and enjoy special privelages today as victims.

:scrutiny:

Biker

ArmedBear
February 10, 2006, 06:04 PM
If the legal system considers motivation to increase punishment, it is only logical to consider whether motivation should reduce punishment. And I am sure that I do not want to see the legal system go in that direction.

Let me add something to what I wrote about aggravating circumstances.

If someone is a member of an organized group whose purpose is to intimidate others through acts of violence, and he commits a violent crime in that context and with that motive, then said crime can be called an act of terrorism.

This could be applied to the Klan kidnaping and beating a family, any street gang controlling the neighborhood by murder and the threat of murder, Al Qaeda, the Earth Liberation Front, a labor union using physical intimidation, etc.

If one wants to use the terrorism argument, fine. But which of the above are covered by "hate crime laws"? Just one: the Klan.

So I am not comfortable with hate crime laws. But I am not uncomfortable with specifically criminalizing the plotting of violence against others for the pure purpose of asserting a group's power over those others.

CZ 75 BD
February 10, 2006, 06:27 PM
"Hate crime" = "Thought crime"

Not in this nation, not in my lifetime.

Biker
February 10, 2006, 06:33 PM
"Hate crime" = "Thought crime"

Not in this nation, not in my lifetime.
Sorry Friend, it's already here.
Biker

cracked butt
February 10, 2006, 09:18 PM
Yes, it would. Hate crimes cover crimes motivated by a person's race, color, disability, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry, age, gender, etc.


So I can scream "HATE CRIME!" every time I hear a Polack joke and maybe the rainbow coalition and the ACLU will come to my rescue because I've been wounded on the inside?:scrutiny:

orionengnr
February 10, 2006, 09:44 PM
And if the law were applied fairly, and the media covered the news instead of trying to form public opinion with it's ever-present agenda, I think a lot us us would have a lot less problem with it.

Your quote--
"I'd like to clarify.. I dont think any white on black or black on white crime is a hate crime. For example, if a white mugger robs a black guy and uses the N-word in the commision of the crime, then I wouldnt consider that a hate crime.

A hate crime would be a group of Neo-Nazis who went out targeting minorities for assaults or maybe a black rapist that only went after white women.. in those cases, I think the criminals should get extra punishment.."
End quote.

Now, as a long-time LA resident (no longer, Thank God), I don't recall the pukes beating Reginald Denny's head in getting charged with a hate crime...matter of fact, I don't recall hearing much about that at all. Do you?

crazed_ss
February 10, 2006, 09:54 PM
If they werent charged with a hate crime, they should have been.

And maybe the reason you dont here about hate crimes happening to whites in the news is because hate crimes are usually committed by whites against minorities the vast majority of the time.

Biker
February 10, 2006, 09:57 PM
If they werent charged with a hate crime, they should have been.

And maybe the reason you dont here about hate crimes happening to whites in the news is because hate crimes are usually committed by whites against minorities the vast majority of the time.
B.S.! Document that.
Biker

crazed_ss
February 10, 2006, 09:57 PM
So I can scream "HATE CRIME!" every time I hear a Polack joke and maybe the rainbow coalition and the ACLU will come to my rescue because I've been wounded on the inside?:scrutiny:

lol.. please stop making stuff up because no one here said or implied anything like that.

You can scream hate crime when somebody decides to beat you over the head with a baseball bat for the simple fact that you're polish.

orionengnr
February 10, 2006, 10:00 PM
about Rodney King, did they? How many millions did he get?

And that schoolteacher in NO who got pounded a month or two ago? Nope, never heard a word about that one either...:rolleyes:

Meplat
February 10, 2006, 10:01 PM
If they werent charged with a hate crime, they should have been.

And maybe the reason you dont here about hate crimes happening to whites in the news is because hate crimes are usually committed by whites against minorities the vast majority of the time.

Got any accurate cites to back up that assertion? I have plenty in the other direction.

crazed_ss
February 10, 2006, 10:01 PM
B.S.! Document that.
Biker

Stats are a little older, but..
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hatecm.htm

Look at the total incidents of hate crimes based on race. Now look how many are Anti-white.. not nearly as many as are committed against minorities.

Also scroll down to where it says "Suspected Offender's Race" .. tell me who commits more hate crimes according to the FBI's data?


Hmmmm.. could this be the reason you see more stories about hate crimes against minorities in the news? Or are you gonna keep blame liberal media?

EDIT: Also these states disprove the ridiculous assertion that only whites can be charged with hate crimes.. if you notice, there's data there that shows blacks can also be charged with hate crimes. Hate crime laws werent invented to keep the white man down.

orionengnr
February 10, 2006, 10:03 PM
Four years later - this year in fact - a white man named Ken Tillery, hitched a ride in Jasper, Texas. He was given a lift by four black men who then murdered him to a deafening national silence. Like Byrd, Tillery was held hostage and beaten. Then he was run over and crushed to death. The copycat nature of the crime made it a natural news story. But there was none, save a modest account in the Houston Chronicle, to which nobody paid any attention. This savagery was apparently nothing. The pigments were politically incorrect. It was only some white guy, whose ancestors probably owned slaves.


Why is it that I never even heard of this? And BTW, I now live in Texas..

orionengnr
February 10, 2006, 10:07 PM
and whites outnumber blacks by not quite ten to one. My math says that, per capita, blacks are FIVE TIMES more likely to commit hate crimes. Of course, that's just YOUR numbers...

Biker
February 10, 2006, 10:09 PM
Stats are a little older, but..
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hatecm.htm

Look at the total incidents of hate crimes based on race. Now look how many are Anti-white.

Also scroll down to where it says "Suspected Offender's Race" .. tell me who commits more hate crimes according to the FBI's data?


Hmmmm.. could this be the reason you see more stories about hate crimes against minorities in the news? Or are you gonna keep blame liberal media?
I'm gonna blame the media along with the general PC BS that is so prevalant today in this country. It's not news when a white is killed or beaten by blacks or hispanics because he/she is white, but it is when the victim is a minority.
It's perfectly accepted when you hear a black person say "Kiss my black ass" on TV or the radio, but let a white person repeat it in kind, referring to a white butt and see what happens.
It's very much accepted for blacks and hispanics to refer to white men as 'white boys', but let a white man reverse that comment, and you better stand back cause there'll be a feces storm.
I'm personally sick of the double standards and professional victims.
How 'bout you?
Biker

crazed_ss
February 10, 2006, 10:09 PM
More recent stats...
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/defenseandsecurity/a/hatecrimes03.htm

Offenders
In addition to gathering hate crime data about incidents, victims, and offenses, the UCR Program collects data about known offenders. In the context of hate crime data collection, the term known offender does not imply that the identity of the perpetrator is known but only that a distinguishing attribute has been identified. With regard to the attribute of race, among the 6,934 reported offenders, 62.3 percent were white, and 18.5 percent were black. The race was unknown for 10.7 percent of offenders, and the remainder were of other races or were members of a group composed of offenders of varying races.

But the media has an "agenda" right?

cracked butt
February 10, 2006, 10:11 PM
lol.. please stop making stuff up because no one here said or implied anything like that.

You can scream hate crime when somebody decides to beat you over the head with a baseball bat for the simple fact that you're polish.


My point exactly. Using racial and ethnic slurs is speech protected under the first amendment and cannot be a crime. How does something that is protected by the first amendment suddenly become a crime when another crime is committed?

Its an atrociuos law from the start, but is even far worse because its not applied equally.

crazed_ss
February 10, 2006, 10:12 PM
and whites outnumber blacks by not quite ten to one. My math says that, per capita, blacks are FIVE TIMES more likely to commit hate crimes. Of course, that's just YOUR numbers...

Not my stats.. they're FBI stats..

The fact remains.
More hate crimes are committed by whites. For the reason, you will see more stories about hate crimes committed by whites on the evening news.

crazed_ss
February 10, 2006, 10:15 PM
My point exactly. Using racial and ethnic slurs is speech protected under the first amendment and cannot be a crime. How does something that is protected by the first amendment suddenly become a crime when another crime is committed?

Its an atrociuos law from the start, but is even far worse because its not applied equally.

Assaulting or terrorizing other people because of their race, gender, sexual orientation is not protected in the constitution.

Biker
February 10, 2006, 10:16 PM
Not my stats.. they're FBI stats..

The fact remains.
More hate crimes are committed by whites. For the reason, you will see more stories about hate crimes committed by whites on the evening news.
Well, if it's on the evening news, it must be real and complete, unbiased.
Biker

crazed_ss
February 10, 2006, 10:22 PM
If the news is lying, here are some more newer stats from the FBI.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/tables/HateCrime2004.pdf

You'll notice the same trend continuing.

Meplat
February 10, 2006, 10:22 PM
More recent stats...
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/defenseandsecurity/a/hatecrimes03.htm

Offenders
In addition to gathering hate crime data about incidents, victims, and offenses, the UCR Program collects data about known offenders. In the context of hate crime data collection, the term known offender does not imply that the identity of the perpetrator is known but only that a distinguishing attribute has been identified. With regard to the attribute of race, among the 6,934 reported offenders, 62.3 percent were white, and 18.5 percent were black. The race was unknown for 10.7 percent of offenders, and the remainder were of other races or were members of a group composed of offenders of varying races.

But the media has an "agenda" right?

Do you not understand that these stats are skewed merely by dint of the fact that so many black on white crimes that SHOULD have fallen under the "hate" crime laws are not addressed as "hate" crimes?

Among the 14 bias-motivated murders reported by law enforcement, 6 homicides were committed as a result of a sexual-orientation bias, 5 were the result of racial prejudice, and 2 were committed because of a bias against an ethnicity/national origin. One murder was the result of a hostility toward a disability.

Does THIS figure not give at least a HINT of it's bogus nature when there have been FAR MORE THAN 14 clearly bias motivated murders to pointed out to you thus far? Colin Ferguson was responsible for six by himself.

orionengnr
February 10, 2006, 10:29 PM
Than a website with ads on it...
and if,

Among the 14 bias-motivated murders reported by law enforcement, 6 homicides were committed as a result of a sexual-orientation bias, 5 were the result of racial prejudice, and 2 were committed because of a bias against an ethnicity/national origin. One murder was the result of a hostility toward a disability

in a country of nearly (or maybe well over) 300 million people, there are only 14 bias-motivated murders in a year NATIONWIDE and five were the result of racial prejudice...Then, Hallelujah!!! I believe we have achieved the Perfect Society.

Don't mean to sound callous, but I'll bet more people were struck by lightning
or bitten by mountain lions. Sure as Hell, more have died in mines already this year.

Now, let's start figuring out why murders (not attributable to this-or-that) are still occuring by the thousands. .or tens of thousands... Or do you want to talk about 45000 people dying in auto wrecks, or dying of cancer?

crazed_ss
February 10, 2006, 10:32 PM
Do you not understand that these stats are skewed merely by dint of the fact that so many black on white crimes that SHOULD have fallen under the "hate" crime laws are not addressed as "hate" crimes?


There's probably a number of isolated incidents out there, but I dont see a conspiracy to go soft on minorties off when it comes to hate crimes.

Maybe it's my liberal, PRK upbringing.. but I really dont think whites are being treated unfairly when it comes to the application of the law.

crazed_ss
February 10, 2006, 10:33 PM
Than a website with ads on it...
and if,


http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/tables/HateCrime2004.pdf

Meplat
February 10, 2006, 10:45 PM
There's probably a number of isolated incidents out there,

Ya think???

but I dont see a conspiracy to go soft on minorties off when it comes to hate crimes.

Then you won't mind kindly addressing all the "isolated incidents" pointed out to you thus far?

Maybe it's my liberal, PRK upbringing.. but I really dont think whites are being treated unfairly when it comes to the application of the law.

1. Then you ain't looking too hard.

2. It really doesn't matter, as "hate" crime legislation is still a stupid idea, designed purely to be devisive and to place certain people in "protected" status. My initial contention was, and remains, that ANY crime of violence committed against another is a "hate" crime.

Look, I am not arguing that a black man should be punished any more harshly for a "hate" crime any more than I am arguing that a caucasian man should be punished any more harshly for a "hate" crime. What I am pointing out is the hypocritical nature of either one, when a disparity has been clearly and repeatedly pointed out. Even should complete parity be reached (and it has not, as you have repeatedly been shown) it is still a stupid idea, planted to foment divisiveness and to further widen a gap that we all need to be closing.

orionengnr
February 10, 2006, 10:46 PM
The trials of the assailants
On May 12, outgoing Los Angeles police chief Daryl Gates started a search for three of Denny's attackers identified from the video of the beating. Gates himself arrested Damian Williams while Henry Watson and Antoine Miller were arrested by other officers. Soon afterwards Gary Williams gave himself up to the police, having stolen Denny's wallet. The arrested three were suspected to be part of the gang 8-Tray Gangster Crips.

Gary Williams pleaded guilty to charges of robbery and assault in the spring of 1993 and was sentenced to three years in jail. Judge John W. Ouderkirk, granted Miller a separate trial on the grounds that the strong evidence against Watson and Damian Williams could harm his case. The two, in addition to assault charges, were charged with attempted murder. Damian Williams was also charged with aggravated mayhem.

Edi M.O. Faal (b. Gambia), was the defense attorney for Damian Williams and Earl C. Broady was Watson's. On Wednesday, July 28, 1993, Watson's and Williams' trial began presided by Judge Ouderkirk. The two were charged with assault of Denny, five other motorists and two firefighters who were driving past the intersection of Florence and Normandie shortly after the start of the Los Angeles riots on April 29, 1992. Denny faced his attackers for the first time since he was beaten, at the trial. On August 12, 1993, a jury of five whites, three blacks, three Latinos, and one Asian was chosen.

As in the Rodney King police trial, the prosecution relied heavily on video shot by a third party, this time in a helicopter. They also planned to build up portraits of Williams and Watson as criminal, antisocial, and beyond rehabiliation and redemption.

On Thursday, August 19, Lawrence Morrison, deputy district attorney, delivered the opening statement. A week later, the videotape of the beating was shown. The doctors who treated Denny testified, describing his wounds and their efforts to repair them and were followed by witnesses to the beating. The defense was denied direct contact with the witnesses to protect their identities. In late August, Denny's saviors testified for the prosecution. The prosecution rested on September 17, 1993.
I found the answer myself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_Oliver_Denny

Quote:
"The defense began pleading on September 20, making a case for unpremeditated assault. Faal began by challenging the video evidence and portrayed Williams as a victim of poverty and racism. She and Broady tried to humanize their clients.

In the closing arguments the defense attorneys claimed Williams and Watson were being used as scapegoats for the LA riots. The prosecution counterargued that the two had knowingly tried to kill Denny and were not victims.

After a few jury changes the jury arrived at a verdict of not guilty for all charges except a felony count of simple mayhem and one misdemeanor assault charge for Williams and one misdemeanor assault for Watson on October 18. Watson was then given credit for time served and was released.

Yep, Rodney got millions. Denny got brain damaged and...nothing, except a footnote in history that you have to dig for. Unfortunately, that's what a lot of us have come to expect from today's media, today's society, and today's "justice" system.

Very unequal treatment under the law. And far from the only example.

crazed_ss
February 11, 2006, 12:00 AM
Ya think???



Then you won't mind kindly addressing all the "isolated incidents" pointed out to you thus far?



1. Then you ain't looking too hard.

2. It really doesn't matter, as "hate" crime legislation is still a stupid idea, designed purely to be devisive and to place certain people in "protected" status. My initial contention was, and remains, that ANY crime of violence committed against another is a "hate" crime.

Look, I am not arguing that a black man should be punished any more harshly for a "hate" crime any more than I am arguing that a caucasian man should be punished any more harshly for a "hate" crime. What I am pointing out is the hypocritical nature of either one, when a disparity has been clearly and repeatedly pointed out. Even should complete parity be reached (and it has not, as you have repeatedly been shown) it is still a stupid idea, planted to foment divisiveness and to further widen a gap that we all need to be closing.

No on here has posted any hard data that backs up the assertion that minorities arent charged with hate crimes. I have posted data that clearly shows they are. No one has posted any data that shows that minorities are routinely being shown leniency in hate crime prosecution whearas whites arent.

Sure you can probably find a number of incidents where a minority should have been charged with a hate crime and wasnt, but I bet I could find just as many incidents where a white person should have been charged and wasnt.

I'd like to see data from a reputable source that shows hate crime laws are routinely being applied unfairly.. I havent seen that.

crazed_ss
February 11, 2006, 12:06 AM
And if the law were applied fairly, and the media covered the news instead of trying to form public opinion with it's ever-present agenda, I think a lot us us would have a lot less problem with it.

Your quote--
"I'd like to clarify.. I dont think any white on black or black on white crime is a hate crime. For example, if a white mugger robs a black guy and uses the N-word in the commision of the crime, then I wouldnt consider that a hate crime.

A hate crime would be a group of Neo-Nazis who went out targeting minorities for assaults or maybe a black rapist that only went after white women.. in those cases, I think the criminals should get extra punishment.."
End quote.

Now, as a long-time LA resident (no longer, Thank God), I don't recall the pukes beating Reginald Denny's head in getting charged with a hate crime...matter of fact, I don't recall hearing much about that at all. Do you?

Maybe you didnt hear much about the Denny incident, but here in CA it was played over and over again on TV. I even remember Dateline or 20/20 devoting half of a show to talk to Mr Denny and let him tell his story.

The guys who beat him probably should have been charged with a hate crime, but so should the cops who beat Rodney King. The Denny incident really doesnt prove anything either way.

Firethorn
February 11, 2006, 12:34 AM
Hate shouldn't be a seperate crime. It should, at the most, be considered an aggravating factor like pre-meditation.

I'll agree, the statistics show a tendancy for blacks to be charged with hate crimes at a higher rate than whites. They're porportionally less of the population, so they still have lower a lower absolute number.

On the other hand, Blacks are arrested and convicted at MUCH higher rates for ordinary crimes as well.

Yes, I've seen some racist blacks. Just because somebody is a 'minority' doesn't mean that they aren't racist/sexist/homophobic.

AF_INT1N0
February 11, 2006, 12:52 AM
Maybe you didnt hear much about the Denny incident, but here in CA it was played over and over again on TV. I even remember Dateline or 20/20 devoting half of a show to talk to Mr Denny and let him tell his story.

The guys who beat him probably should have been charged with a hate crime, but so should the cops who beat Rodney King. The Denny incident really doesnt prove anything either way.


Except Rodney King was high on Crack( or was it coke ) and had just finished a high speed chase, and was resisting arrest, and got beat up by the cops....

Whereas Reginald(sp) Denny was a white Truck driver, who got assaulted for being a white man driving a truck in LA....

You're right!! DAMN!! How could I have not seen the similarities!!! :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: .

gc70
February 11, 2006, 01:28 AM
No on here has posted any hard data that backs up the assertion that minorities arent charged with hate crimes. I have posted data that clearly shows they are. No one has posted any data that shows that minorities are routinely being shown leniency in hate crime prosecution whearas whites arent.

Sure you can probably find a number of incidents where a minority should have been charged with a hate crime and wasnt, but I bet I could find just as many incidents where a white person should have been charged and wasnt.

I'd like to see data from a reputable source that shows hate crime laws are routinely being applied unfairly.. I havent seen that.Since you know that uncharged criminal activity is not a reportable category, you also neatly deny the validity of anecdotal evidence. Nevertheless, I offer this recent example of how a minority gets a pass on being charged with a "hate crime."
Just a Joke in Alabama (http://www.wsfa.com/Global/story.asp?S=4454331&nav=0RdE):

Just yesterday the WSFA 12 Sports team publicly recognized Demond Washington for a job well done, a plaque honoring Washington's 'Athlete of the Week' honors last fall.

Today, Washington is getting a different kind of notice, one the Tallassee city school superintendent believes the football player regrets.

We're told Washington spoke into the P-A system in the school and allegedly said, 'I hate white people and I'm going to kill them all!'

As of tonight, Demond Washington won't face any legal charges because Tallassee Police and school officials believe Washington didn't mean what he said. A case of immaturity perhaps.Now look at the contrast:Just a Prank in Georgia (http://www.accessnorthga.com/news/ap_newfullstory.asp?ID=70904):

Douglas County police have arrested two white teenagers and charged them with making terroristic threats -- a felony -- in connection with racist graffiti found at the home of a black family in the neighborhood where the two lived.

The boys -- ages 15 and 16 -- are being held without bond in a regional youth detention center. Copeland says the charge carries a maximum of up to two years at a youth development campus.

He says since the two are juveniles, it will be up to the prosecutor to decide whether they will charged under the state's "hate crime" statute.

Copeland says the two boys -- who are white -- attend the same high school as the couple's children. He says the teenagers told investigators they painted the graffiti on a a well house in the couple's yard as "a prank." But Copeland says the two are charged with terrorist threats because of the nature of the graffiti.

Meplat
February 11, 2006, 03:21 AM
Yes, but not nearly as unpleasant -- there is, as a rule, not much suffering in madness and if six months in solitary won't do that, then nothing will.

Need to read also the part "no bread, no water". Starvation isn't all that pleasant. :cool:

Meplat
February 11, 2006, 03:25 AM
Sure you can probably find a number of incidents where a minority should have been charged with a hate crime and wasnt, but I bet I could find just as many incidents where a white person should have been charged and wasnt.

Fair enough. Show me a few like this:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/808363/posts

I'm waiting.

crazed_ss
February 11, 2006, 07:40 AM
Except Rodney King was high on Crack( or was it coke ) and had just finished a high speed chase, and was resisting arrest, and got beat up by the cops....

Whereas Reginald(sp) Denny was a white Truck driver, who got assaulted for being a white man driving a truck in LA....

You're right!! DAMN!! How could I have not seen the similarities!!! :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: .

Yea.. they both got beat up unjustly due to their race. Both trials were miscarraiges of justice. Pretty similar to me.

crazed_ss
February 11, 2006, 07:49 AM
Since you know that uncharged criminal activity is not a reportable category, you also neatly deny the validity of anecdotal evidence. Nevertheless, I offer this recent example of how a minority gets a pass on being charged with a "hate crime."
Now look at the contrast:

Once again.. anectdotal evidence like you said.. Doesnt prove anything one way or another. FBI stats from multiple years clearly show that a good number of blacks are charged with hate crimes. I dont see any evidence of a concerted effort to give a "pass" when it comes to hate crimes.

I guess we can agree to disagree though. I knew I shouldnt get involved in political threads here. :)
I dont think like typical gun owners so my posts probably go against the grain here. I should probably stick to technical questions about firearms :D

orionengnr
February 11, 2006, 10:01 AM
Maybe you didnt hear much about the Denny incident, but here in CA it was played over and over again on TV. I even remember Dateline or 20/20 devoting half of a show to talk to Mr Denny and let him tell his story.

I think you misunderstood me; you definitely misquoted me. I lived in the LA area at the time and for almost ten years thereafter. I never said that you didn't hear about the Denny incident; what was lost was the outcome of the case. And as for the "similarities" you cite:

King: high on drugs
Denny: clean and sober

King: breaking multiple laws
Denny: not guilty of anything except being white

King: collected millions
Denny: collected zip


You say that no-one has given examples, yet you failed to address the earlier poster's Texas incident, which I reposted. And where were the hate crimes in the Denny case again? Oh yeah, that never happened.
And did you even read the post about Ole Miss?

Oh yeah, anecdotal evidence means nothing, especially when none of these anecdotes make it into the national database...

Rockstar
February 11, 2006, 10:38 AM
No on here has posted any hard data that backs up the assertion that minorities arent charged with hate crimes. I have posted data that clearly shows they are. No one has posted any data that shows that minorities are routinely being shown leniency in hate crime prosecution whearas whites arent.

Sure you can probably find a number of incidents where a minority should have been charged with a hate crime and wasnt, but I bet I could find just as many incidents where a white person should have been charged and wasnt.

I'd like to see data from a reputable source that shows hate crime laws are routinely being applied unfairly.. I havent seen that.

How about doing a little more research as to who's committing most inter-racial crimes, rather than how the punishment's doled out? White-on-black crime is so rare, that a coupla white kids' beating up a black kid will make CNN for three days. Black-on-every-other-race crime is so common, that it doesn't rate a blurb on the local news.

Blacks are overwhelmingly the perpetrators, not the victims, in inter-racial crimes. Check it out. It's a fact.

Working Man
February 11, 2006, 11:32 AM
Not my stats.. they're FBI stats..

The fact remains.
More hate crimes are committed by whites. For the reason, you will see more stories about hate crimes committed by whites on the evening news.

Funny you should say that... in my youth I knew quite a few "Bangers" that
are not white that specifically said they would focus the muggings/robberies on
white people ("more money" financial hate, "sticking it to the man"). Those crimes
would be prosecuted/handled as just that muggings/robberies if they were caught.

Now backing away from the race portion of the "Hate Crime" debate.....
Is Rape a hate crime? Most offenders stay within one gender. If a man only
rapes/targets women then obviously he is gender bias and it should be a hate
crime. Now if he goes after men and women then it's not a hate crime.......
..... unless he only goes after those 18 years old and above, then he is targeting
a certain age range.

That being said, a pedophiles should be convicted of a hate crime as he/she
does not prey on adults only kids (specific group).

These are all select groups singled out because of something that
differentiates them from others, so they are hate crimes.

Oh, I forgot that's not how/why the law was created or views these cases.

griz
February 11, 2006, 12:20 PM
No on here has posted any hard data that backs up the assertion that minorities arent charged with hate crimes. I have posted data that clearly shows they are.

Coming in late here but I have a question about that data. They appear to be reports of crimes, not charges. Do you have any data that shows minorities are ever charged with hate crimes?

As an aside, reading the FBI reports taught me that you can have a hate crime with multiple bias. So apparently if you rob somebody because they are disabled and of a differnt race and a different religion you are three times worse than a profit motivated robber. Or maybe the victim is three times more offended, I still don't understand the logic.

gc70
February 11, 2006, 01:41 PM
Once again.. anectdotal evidence like you said.. Doesnt prove anything one way or another. FBI stats from multiple years clearly show that a good number of blacks are charged with hate crimes. I dont see any evidence of a concerted effort to give a "pass" when it comes to hate crimes.Nobody denies that people commit racially motivated crimes. At issue is your absolute reliance on official statistics versus the widely-held belief, supported by a large amount of anecdotal evidence, that the application of hate crime laws is racially biased.

An analogous situation would be the number of blacks killed in the South in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Officially, based on records of charges or convictions, very few blacks were killed by whites - except in self-defense. Everyone except hardcore white racists recognize that those old official records are understated, simply because whites were infrequently charged and even more rarely convicted for killing blacks.

I don't know how many so-called hate crimes are commited by members of a given race, but I can deduce from a multitude of news reports that hate crime laws are applied unevenly and the resulting official statistics are skewed. The only real question is whether the statistics are skewed a little or a lot.

I agree that there is no concerted effort (in the form of a coordinated scheme) to give minorities a "pass" on hate crime laws. But it appears that minorities often do get a break, whether it is due to a PC reaction, authorities trying to avoid the unpleasantness of media coverage, or even a police chief who is wise enough to not bring silly charges against the local high school's star football player.

carpettbaggerr
February 11, 2006, 02:01 PM
Yea.. they both got beat up unjustly due to their race. Both trials were miscarraiges of justice. Pretty similar to me. Hmmm. If the beating was administered due to race, why were "Pooh" Allen and Freddie Helms spared?

Who were they, you ask? They were Rodney King's passengers. The ones you never heard much about, because they didn't resist arrest. They obeyed orders and the police did not have to forcibly subdue them.

If race was the motivation for beating King, why were Allen and Helms not beaten as well?

crazed_ss
February 11, 2006, 02:46 PM
in the incidents here?
http://www.tolerance.org/maps/hate/incidents.jsp

Maybe the reason you dont here about so many black hate crimes is because they dont happen as often? News reports and crime data would back this up. Now I guess if you're wearing a tin-foil hate you can claim the criminal justice system is scared of prosecuting minorties for hate crimes.

Personally I think that's completely ridiculous. If there's one thing the criminal justice system does well, it's prosecute minorities. A black person who purposely goes out and targets whites is asking for it.. big time.

Just a difference of opinion I guess...

Biker
February 11, 2006, 03:01 PM
Opinions vary.
Biker

DarthBubba
February 11, 2006, 03:11 PM
All Violent crimes against people are hate crimes pure and simple.
No one is worthy of more or less protection of the law, EX---( If two people were standing next to each other and they were both brutally beaten and mugged by the same man in a surprise attack one a normal heterosexual Caucasian male and one a gay minority individual is the minority entitled to a more severe punishment for the perpetrator of the same crime)? I say no, crime is crime and if the crime is the same the punishment for committing it should be the same.

N o more segmentation we are all the same under the law.

DarthBubba:cuss: :banghead: :cuss: :banghead:

Rockstar
February 11, 2006, 03:19 PM
More hate crimes are committed by blacks than against blacks. That's the Elephant in the Room that nobody sees or talks about.

gc70
February 11, 2006, 04:45 PM
Okay, let's look at the statistics.
Maybe the reason you dont here about so many black hate crimes is because they dont happen as often?Taking the statistics at face value, you are absolutely correct - blacks do not commit as many hate crimes as whites. In the FBI hate crimes data (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hatecm.htm) previously cited, "Table 4. - Number of Known Offenders by Race, 1995" shows that whites represent 59.2% of the offenders and blacks 26.7%.

However, the 2000 Census by Race (http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t1/tab01.pdf) shows that whites represent 75.1% of the population and blacks 12.3%. Compared to whites, blacks represent a smaller part of the population but a larger portion of the hate crime offenders. Therefore, the data indicates that blacks commit hate crimes at nearly 3 times the rate of whites.

There's another statistical proof - blacks are charged with hate crimes at a much higher rate than whites. Even discounting the numbers by half on the assumption that blacks are abused by the criminal justice system, blacks still commit hate crimes at a higher rate than whites.

Believe the statistics if you wish. I reject the idea that such a disproportionate portion of blacks are racists seething with white-hate. Instead, I see a major problem with the concept of criminalizing something as subjective as intent or motivation.

crazed_ss
February 11, 2006, 07:51 PM
All Violent crimes against people are hate crimes pure and simple.
No one is worthy of more or less protection of the law, EX---( If two people were standing next to each other and they were both brutally beaten and mugged by the same man in a surprise attack one a normal heterosexual Caucasian male and one a gay minority individual is the minority entitled to a more severe punishment for the perpetrator of the same crime)? I say no, crime is crime and if the crime is the same the punishment for committing it should be the same.

N o more segmentation we are all the same under the law.

DarthBubba:cuss: :banghead: :cuss: :banghead:

After 4 pages you still dont understand how hate crime laws work.

crazed_ss
February 11, 2006, 07:52 PM
More hate crimes are committed by blacks than against blacks.

Of course you have some hard data to back up that claim?

crazed_ss
February 11, 2006, 07:58 PM
Okay, let's look at the statistics.
Taking the statistics at face value, you are absolutely correct - blacks do not commit as many hate crimes as whites. In the FBI hate crimes data (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hatecm.htm) previously cited, "Table 4. - Number of Known Offenders by Race, 1995" shows that whites represent 59.2% of the offenders and blacks 26.7%.

However, the 2000 Census by Race (http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t1/tab01.pdf) shows that whites represent 75.1% of the population and blacks 12.3%. Compared to whites, blacks represent a smaller part of the population but a larger portion of the hate crime offenders. Therefore, the data indicates that blacks commit hate crimes at nearly 3 times the rate of whites.

There's another statistical proof - blacks are charged with hate crimes at a much higher rate than whites. Even discounting the numbers by half on the assumption that blacks are abused by the criminal justice system, blacks still commit hate crimes at a higher rate than whites.

Believe the statistics if you wish. I reject the idea that such a disproportionate portion of blacks are racists seething with white-hate. Instead, I see a major problem with the concept of criminalizing something as subjective as intent or motivation.

Intent or motivation matters because a hate crime is more than just a crime. Hate crimes are meant to terrorize. Like when Al-Qaeda hit the towers.. they werent just trying to kill Americans.. they were trying to instill terror in the American people. In my opnion, that makes their crime even more vicious.

A hate crime doesnt just effect the victim, it instills fear and uncertainty in large groups of people. That's why the they deserve to be punished more harshly.

gc70
February 11, 2006, 08:16 PM
Intent or motivation matters because a hate crime is more than just a crime. Hate crimes are meant to terrorize. Like when Al-Qaeda hit the towers.. they werent just trying to kill Americans.. they were trying to instill terror in the American people. In my opnion, that makes their crime even more vicious.

A hate crime doesnt just effect the victim, it instills fear and uncertainty in large groups of people. That's why the they deserve to be punished more harshly.I am familiar with the theory of hate crimes, I just don't think it works.

On a per capita basis, the FBI hate crime statistics show that blacks commit hate crimes at a rate nearly 3 times higher than whites do. Do you really believe that black people in America are playing out some sort of plot to terrorize whites?

shermacman
February 11, 2006, 11:01 PM
After 4 pages you still dont understand how hate crime laws work.

Part of the reason that this post is 4 pages long is indeed that some people don't understand how "hate" crimes work. A crime is a crime. Intent has nothing to do with it.

Glock Glockler
February 13, 2006, 09:42 AM
A hate crime doesnt just effect the victim, it instills fear and uncertainty in large groups of people. That's why the they deserve to be punished more harshly

Sorry to break it to you but your emotional reaction due to something is your own responsibility. If you feel unsafe maybe you should do productive things like:

- Get CCW issue in your area
- Reform the criminal justice system so that violent criminals actually serve hard time instead of being let out with a slap on the wrist.
- reform the education system so that economic opportunity is expanded
- and other significant and unsexy things that will actually make a difference lowering the amount of violent crime instead of feel-good nonsense that leaves the door wide open for selective enforcement

crazed_ss
February 13, 2006, 10:01 AM
Part of the reason that this post is 4 pages long is indeed that some people don't understand how "hate" crimes work. A crime is a crime. Intent has nothing to do with it.

You're telling me intent has nothing to do with how crimes are prosecuted and punished?

:uhoh:

griz
February 13, 2006, 04:05 PM
How about motive instead of intent?

ArmedBear
February 13, 2006, 05:58 PM
Blacks are overwhelmingly the perpetrators, not the victims, in inter-racial crimes. Check it out. It's a fact.

It's a fact that every statistic supports. But if you don't pretend that it's not so, you are a racist.

Racist! Racist! Racist!;)

Oh, and the fact that prison demographics reflect this is also clear evidence of RACISM!

:uhoh:

Biker
February 13, 2006, 06:08 PM
You left out xenophobe, ArmedBear. You'll never get your sniveling badge until you remember that you're not socially tacticool until you can effectively combine racist and xenophobe when describing someone who's opinion you disagree with as it concerns race and immigration issues.
Good Lord...;)
Biker

crazed_ss
February 13, 2006, 09:11 PM
It's a fact that every statistic supports. But if you don't pretend that it's not so, you are a racist.

Racist! Racist! Racist!;)

Oh, and the fact that prison demographics reflect this is also clear evidence of RACISM!

:uhoh:

I hope you're not refferring to me because I never said anything of the sort.

Ill personally paypal you 20 bucks if you can go back in the thread and show me where I posted that.

Biker
February 13, 2006, 09:19 PM
Speaking for myself, ss, it's just your general 'tude. Seems like whenever something concerning race or immigration pops up, you're right there talking about "old white guys" or something to that effect. If you're lookin' like one, walkin' like one and quackin' like one, and you are, ya gotta wonder.
Any new fabrications you care to throw out to support your arguments? Any pieced together quotes?;)
Biker

Art Eatman
February 13, 2006, 09:30 PM
And so, dear friends, with a little Ernest Tubb in the background with "Driftwood on the River", another thread drifts into the darkness of night...

:), Art

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