Hate Crimes...

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jeff White

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
37,889
Location
Alma Illinois
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/ne...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."

[email protected] 618-624-2653
 
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
 
The results of a crime are not changed by the motivation of the criminal. The very concept of a "hate crime" is repugnent.
 
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.
 
We have succeeded in criminalizing thought with laws like this. I wonder what our founding fathers would think of this?

Jeff
 
Terms & Titles

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.
 
shermacman said:
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*
 
George Orwell was just a few years too early, but prophetic nevertheless.

:mad:
 
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 said:
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?
 
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.
 
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:
 
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.
 
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:
 
Car Knocker said:
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".
 
Double Naught Spy said:
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.
 
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.
 
gc70 said:
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.
 
cracked butt said:
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.
 
Chrontius said:
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top