Hate crime?

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Sportcat

Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
893
Location
Anderson, SC
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.
 
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.
 
Police said Glen Moore had ventured into Howard Beach with two other men, looking for a car to steal.
Click to expand...

It's a shame they didn't wait until they found the car they wanted, so he wouldn't be getting prosecuted.
 
Glen Moore had ventured into Howard Beach with two other men, looking for a car to steal
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
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
Click to expand...
 
Nicholas Minucci has been arrested on hate crime and weapons charges.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Wait, so the car thief is the victim? Nice.
Click to expand...

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.
 
"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
 
my only question

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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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."
 
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.
 
mmike87

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?
 
wow mmike87

your quick on the key board, reposted before i could, looks like we agree and i missunderstood your pervious post!?!? :p
 
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Last edited:
Isn't one of the very definitions of the word "oppression" related to unequal treatment at law?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

H
  • Locked
More Positive Press on CCW Use in SW Ohio (Dayton)
Replies
13
Views
511
eagle45
E
S
  • Locked
An old article from May 2005,but worth discussing the importance of self-defence
Replies
1
Views
689
sterling180
S
V
  • Locked
Two Police Officers Fired For Beating Suspect
Replies
6
Views
624
Vernal45
V
D
  • Locked
Police Stop Man Wearing Armored Helmet, Vest In SUV
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
137
Views
8K
cropcirclewalker
C
L
  • Locked
Driven to madness in Phoenix
2
Replies
34
Views
1K
Steel
S
Back
Top