" MAN COULD BE CHARGED WITH HATE CRIME"

[Ehwmatt]

You haven't sited a specific case and argued the merits of your stance that the law should have been applied in that case with evidence.. you have only argued your opinion based on your beliefs. Have a good day as well, E.

Yes, I have cited specific cases, news stories and examples from Cleveland throughout the thread. You are truly living in a fantasy world

[Blueskies]

You haven't sited a specific case and argued the merits of your stance that the law should have been applied in that case with evidence.. you have only argued your opinion based on your beliefs. Have a good day as well, E.

Yes, I have cited specific cases, news stories and examples from Cleveland throughout the thread. You are truly living in a fantasy world

No I have not read any links you've made, I've been going by what you've said in your argument. Anyone can cite someone elses opinion ...thats why I said you have to prove your contention that the law is not written to be equal and is unnecessary, in your opinion (which was what you at first contended so I argued it was both) and then after you switched gears from what I was saying to unequal application of the law...then I say you have to prove your contention that the law isn't applied equally by arguing the merits of a specific case and bring evidence into your argument. You haven't done that....argued a case with clear evidence in what you've been saying...you've only stated your beliefs and the beliefs of someone who wrote an opinion piece. I wasn't trying to argue your beliefs or to sway you from them...I was only pointing out that the language of the law is in fact non-discriminatory and can be equally applied. I haven't given my personal opinion to whether it should be applied to ANY race, color, nationality, sexual orientation or gender yet....of course I think it should...just like the laws written....equal treatment for all.

[Ehwmatt]

You haven't sited a specific case and argued the merits of your stance that the law should have been applied in that case with evidence.. you have only argued your opinion based on your beliefs. Have a good day as well, E.

Yes, I have cited specific cases, news stories and examples from Cleveland throughout the thread. You are truly living in a fantasy world

No I have not read any links you've made, I've been going by what you've said in your argument. Anyone can cite someone elses opinion ...thats why I said you have to prove your contention that the law is not written to be equal and is unnecessary, in your opinion (which was what you at first contended so I argued it was both) and then after you switched gears from what I was saying to unequal application of the law...then I say you have to prove your contention that the law isn't applied equally by arguing the merits of a specific case and bring evidence into your argument. You haven't done that....argued a case with clear evidence in what you've been saying...you've only stated your beliefs and the beliefs of someone who wrote an opinion piece. I wasn't trying to argue your beliefs or to sway you from them...I was only pointing out that the language of the law is in fact non-discriminatory and can be equally applied. I haven't given my personal opinion to whether it should be applied to ANY race, color, nationality, sexual orientation or gender yet....of course I think it should...just like the laws written....equal treatment for all.

You have no clue, honestly. There was more than the opinion piece, there was also two stories I shared earlier in the thread. You are asking for citatory evidence and then you say you have not read what I've provided.

LOL

[Blueskies]

You haven't sited a specific case and argued the merits of your stance that the law should have been applied in that case with evidence.. you have only argued your opinion based on your beliefs. Have a good day as well, E.

Yes, I have cited specific cases, news stories and examples from Cleveland throughout the thread. You are truly living in a fantasy world

No I have not read any links you've made, I've been going by what you've said in your argument. Anyone can cite someone elses opinion ...thats why I said you have to prove your contention that the law is not written to be equal and is unnecessary, in your opinion (which was what you at first contended so I argued it was both) and then after you switched gears from what I was saying to unequal application of the law...then I say you have to prove your contention that the law isn't applied equally by arguing the merits of a specific case and bring evidence into your argument. You haven't done that....argued a case with clear evidence in what you've been saying...you've only stated your beliefs and the beliefs of someone who wrote an opinion piece. I wasn't trying to argue your beliefs or to sway you from them...I was only pointing out that the language of the law is in fact non-discriminatory and can be equally applied. I haven't given my personal opinion to whether it should be applied to ANY race, color, nationality, sexual orientation or gender yet....of course I think it should...just like the laws written....equal treatment for all.

You have no clue, honestly. There was more than the opinion piece, there was also two stories I shared earlier in the thread. You are asking for citatory evidence and then you say you have not read what I've provided.

LOL

I just went back through this entire thread and read the articles you linked and the attacks on the man you cited had no evidence within the article that the crime was done with the intent of prejudice of the persons skin color. In one instance the article quotes everything that was said during the attack and no where in the quotations was race mentioned by the attackers.....so there is no evidence of racial motivation like there is with what the man said in the Cracker Barrel when he was assaulting the woman. The other article you linked written by a black man was an opinion piece in which he doesn't cite specific incidences of evidence of a hate crime, he states "in his opinion" a robbery of whites done by blacks is TO HIM a hate crime . Things can be felt to be true but feelings arent evidentuary proof of a crime.

Like I said, opinion of belief to something isnt evidence of a crime. The prejudice of hate and the intent to inflict harm due to hate of race, color, etc, has to be proven in a court of law and nothing you have linked is emphatical prove that the robberies and assaults were commited due to prejudice against race. Could any of the black assailants personally hate white people and only targets them? Of course they could but that intent has to be proven. There are witnesses in the Cracker Barrel case as well as video tape as evidence that the attack was based on prejudice of race..in the Matthew Shepard case there was evidence that the attack was based on prejudice towards sexual orientation.

I said that you have not been stating evidential fact in your contentions but merely your beliefs and I now see that you haven't brought any emphatical evidence to your argument in your citations...only the beliefs of others. Also, when you debate someone try to refrain from injecting insults like " you don't have a clue" because when you do then the argument leads to a personal one which has nothing to do with what is being debated and is a sign that you can't debate the points of argument given to you and are therefore swaying away from them due to frustration from lack of persuasion due to lack of presenting the evidence of a clear cut hate crime to argue with.

[stevew2]

You haven't sited a specific case and argued the merits of your stance that the law should have been applied in that case with evidence.. you have only argued your opinion based on your beliefs. Have a good day as well, E.

Yes, I have cited specific cases, news stories and examples from Cleveland throughout the thread. You are truly living in a fantasy world

No I have not read any links you've made, I've been going by what you've said in your argument. Anyone can cite someone elses opinion ...thats why I said you have to prove your contention that the law is not written to be equal and is unnecessary, in your opinion (which was what you at first contended so I argued it was both) and then after you switched gears from what I was saying to unequal application of the law...then I say you have to prove your contention that the law isn't applied equally by arguing the merits of a specific case and bring evidence into your argument. You haven't done that....argued a case with clear evidence in what you've been saying...you've only stated your beliefs and the beliefs of someone who wrote an opinion piece. I wasn't trying to argue your beliefs or to sway you from them...I was only pointing out that the language of the law is in fact non-discriminatory and can be equally applied. I haven't given my personal opinion to whether it should be applied to ANY race, color, nationality, sexual orientation or gender yet....of course I think it should...just like the laws written....equal treatment for all.

You have no clue, honestly. There was more than the opinion piece, there was also two stories I shared earlier in the thread. You are asking for citatory evidence and then you say you have not read what I've provided.

LOL

I just went back through this entire thread and read the articles you linked and the attacks on the man you cited had no evidence within the article that the crime was done with the intent of prejudice of the persons skin color. In one instance the article quotes everything that was said during the attack and no where in the quotations was race mentioned by the attackers.....so there is no evidence of racial motivation like there is with what the man said in the Cracker Barrel when he was assaulting the woman. The other article you linked written by a black man was an opinion piece in which he doesn't cite specific incidences of evidence of a hate crime, he states "in his opinion" a robbery of whites done by blacks is TO HIM a hate crime . Things can be felt to be true but feelings arent evidentuary proof of a crime.

Like I said, opinion of belief to something isnt evidence of a crime. The prejudice of hate and the intent to inflict harm due to hate of race, color, etc, has to be proven in a court of law and nothing you have linked is emphatical prove that the robberies and assaults were commited due to prejudice against race. Could any of the black assailants personally hate white people and only targets them? Of course they could but that intent has to be proven. There are witnesses in the Cracker Barrel case as well as video tape as evidence that the attack was based on prejudice of race..in the Matthew Shepard case there was evidence that the attack was based on prejudice towards sexual orientation.

I said that you have not been stating evidential fact in your contentions but merely your beliefs and I now see that you haven't brought any emphatical evidence to your argument in your citations...only the beliefs of others. Also, when you debate someone try to refrain from injecting insults like " you don't have a clue" because when you do then the argument leads to a personal one which has nothing to do with what is being debated and is a sign that you can't debate the points of argument given to you and are therefore swaying away from them due to frustration from lack of persuasion due to lack of presenting the evidence of a clear cut hate crime to argue with.

Phill I got my migraine back again, thanks

[Blueskies]

LOL! That is so funny because I had that thought earlier....
..that SW2 shouldn't try to read this debate we're having because he'll get a headache!

[stevew2]

Its doosy, I just took 3 advil, Ill drink some wine later ill be back in shape, you read through the whole thread ? ill be damn

[JasonD]

Don't mind me...... I'm just passing through.



I did want to point out that the Central Park Jogger attack that happened in New York a few years ago I believe was cited as a black on white attack. Do any of the others examples in this next article reflect the black on white crime statistics you guys (& gals) are looking for?:

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

[Ehwmatt]

Don't mind me...... I'm just passing through.



I did want to point out that the Central Park Jogger attack that happened in New York a few years ago I believe was cited as a black on white attack. Do any of the others examples in this next article reflect the black on white crime statistics you guys (& gals) are looking for?:

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

Jason, this is a great link, and it proves my point exactly!

An excerpt:

Because these hate crimes were perpetrated by black against whites — even though they were based completely on racial hatred — the national media, politicians, and civil rights leaders ignored them.

Despite the fact that physical evidence, eye witnesses, and video-taped confessions by the attackers in their parents’ presence all pointed to the young men’s guilt, protestors outside the courtroom referred to the trial as a “lynching.”

Eighty percent of violent crimes involve an attacker and victim of the same race.

And the underlying reason why I have the problem I do that I've been pounding on here:

How can we ever hope to bridge the racial divide if we won’t even look at the hard facts of racism?

[Blueskies]

I think Jason just proved the fact that hate crime charges have been brought against people of color before in some instances...something you were contending hasn't happened. Now the focus of the article he linked is that these crimes are not as widely reported as in the reverse is another issue.

[strangegrey]

I think Jason just proved the fact that hate crime charges have been brought against people of color before in some instances...something you were contending hasn't happened. Now the focus of the article he linked is that these crimes are not as widely reported as in the reverse is another issue.

Did you even bother to read the article? The article highlights a whole assload of cases where authorities refused to label the crimes hate crimes....yet if they were racially reversed, they'd be front page news stories outlining the racial problems in this country.

If you're not going to read links that support this issue, then at least read this snippet in reference to the central park jogger:

The assault was officially declared not to be a hate crime, and some influential black media and commentators — including Al Sharpton and two of New York’s African-American newspapers — declared that prosecuting the attackers was an act of racism

The above is EXACTLY what's wrong with this country. Black on White crime is prosecuted with such trepidation that race is NEVER mentioned by prosecutors....which opens the doors for racist pigs like Al Sharpton to shamefully play the race card before anyone else can and uninformed, closed-minded stool pigeons like yourself to jump to their aid by supporting this idiocy....


I live 4 minutes away from the Long Island Railroad train station where Colin Ferguson was arrested after brutally shooting 25 people. Trust me when I say the facts of this case, as they emerged in the media and Ferguson's court case, were of VERY high interest to all Long Islanders...especially those that have LIRR commuters in the family.

THE ENTIRE FUCKING REASON FOR FERGUSON'S ATTACK WAS RACE.

Yet, never, during the entire case, was this labeled a hate crime. Despite the fact that testimony from victims and eye-witnesses showed, VERY CLEARLY, that Ferguson's rage was entirely fueled by race.

Instead, the big bad gun (which requires a racist piece of shit to operate) was blamed as the bad guy in this case. What a shameless way to piss on the memory of the dead and the respect of the wounded who were shot because they were WHITE!!!

[Blueskies]

Frank, I said in some instances which is not saying how many or even suggesting a great amount or even saying the charges have been successfully brought to a guilty verdict. Yes, the charges may have been dropped but that doesn't conclude that they have never been brought in any case.

My point of contention in the first place was to show that the law as written is non-discriminating and I stated that it SHOULD be brought against all who have commited a crime based on their prejudicial bias. So...you are also jumping to conclusions when you say : "closed-minded stool pigeons like yourself to jump to their aid by supporting this idiocy". Like I said, I think the law should be applied EQUALLY to ALL people who commit a crime of hate. I said that the crime has to be able to have the evidence to prove it in a court of law. No where did I say that the law should not be applied to a black person.

I have also stated on this forum in the past that I think Al Shapton and Jesse Jackson are opportunist and do more harm then good, IMO. They also do not represent all views of people of color and do a discredit to their race when they portray themselves as " the voice of the people" when they are not. Many of my black acquitances that I've had through the years have stated to me that they don't care for those two and in fact make jokes about them themselves.
Like I said, the focus of that article is about the UNDER REPORTING of crimes of blacks on whites that may in fact be racially motivated and that is another issue and not one I was addressing.

By the way...is it possible for you to debate an issue without calling the person your addressing names? Because I tend to overlook the points your trying to make if you get overly aggressive and contentous ...doing so has nothing to do with the issue and overshadows your argument and turns people away from debating topics with you. It would be nice if you could tone down a couple notches so I don't feel defensive from the start when talking to you and you don't come across as so angry all the time. Just a suggestion.

[Don]

OKAY, WHO'S PLAYING WITH THE BUTTONS?

[Blueskies]

OKAY, WHO'S PLAYING WITH THE BUTTONS?

Actually, he could have just went ahead and put this one in the basement or better yet, deleted it before Frank wakes up.

( just kidding Frank..play nice ; )

[strangegrey]

OKAY, WHO'S PLAYING WITH THE BUTTONS?

Actually, he could have just went ahead and put this one in the basement or better yet, deleted it before Frank wakes up.

( just kidding Frank..play nice ; )

If you were playing nice, you'd shut the fuck up with your efforts to secure a last word....but having said that, I'll play nice. Here goes:

My point of contention in the first place was to show that the law as written is non-discriminating and I stated that it SHOULD be brought against all who have committed a crime based on their prejudicial bias.

But, you do realize that such a thing only happens in your fantasy world. Hey listen, I'd be perfectly happy watching a law get applied fairly and equally, without taking race into consideration...but that hasn't happened up until now. The fact remains that hate crime serves to protect blacks and gays, while not protecting any one else.

You can not have a law designed to bring about equality of race, religious beliefs, sexual preference, etc....while acting out the very things it's designed to discourage. It's NOT possible.

If legislators have come to the conclusion that current laws protecting people from assault, rape and murder are ineffective, tacking on another law isn't going to make any sense, whatsoever. Which is effectively what hate crimes are.

"Your honor, I object to this witness"

"Over-ruled"

"No, your honor, I *strenuously* object!"

"Oh, in that case, counselor, allow me to reconsider!"




That's the message you send with hate crime legislation...that the current laws protecting people from Rape, Murder and Assault are INEFFECTIVE!!!! If you need another law to highlight a really bad murder (i.e. one by your definition is a 'hate crime) over just a garden-variety one, then something's VERY wrong with the original law.


The law should NOT have any eyes with respect to color, creed, religion or sexual preference. It should apply the same harsh penalties, irrespective of the person's motivation...BECAUSE THE ACT IS ACTION THAT IS BREAKING THE LAW. Not the intent.

If we could be thrown in jail for intent of a crime...I'd be living there, 24-7.....Hell, yesterday, I was in Guitar Center...and a Les Paul Axcess was standing 10 feet from the door. I immediately thought "how far would I get if I grabbed that and made a dash for the parking lot?" Did I actually do it? No...and I would never....but intent should mean nothing to the crime. The act of stealing the guitar and running out of the store should be the reason. Is it going to matter if I went "Oh wait, I really love Neal Schon, so I really need this guitar...please don't throw me in jail, just give me parole!"

That's the double standard propagated by Hate Crime legislation.


And this is before you inject the racial-tensions and other ramifications of hate-crime legislation. By supporting such trash you do nothing but support (and line the pockets) of racist pigs like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and racists in congress....who WANT there to be a racial divide. They NEED there to be a racial divide. Because so long as there's a white man to blame for a black man's lot in life, the black man will vote for someone who will champion their wants (notice I didn't say needs). Welfare proponents, affirmative action proponents, etc...all benefit from a black group in this country that is under-privileged...NOT over-priveledged.

You're closed-minded because you refuse to accept this as very real issue that needs addressing, despite the fact that everyone who has argued on my side of this, has conceded that there are currently racial divides in this country.

Your solutions do nothing but either widen the gap or keep it where it is.

Like I said, the focus of that article is about the UNDER REPORTING of crimes of blacks on whites that may in fact be racially motivated and that is another issue and not one I was addressing.

Bullshit phyllis, it's the same issue. 100%. You can NOT say that hate crime legislation is necessary, when it is only effective and being enforced in favor of one group of people. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[Blueskies]

The law doesn't only cover groups of race and sexual orientation...it also covers hate crimes against gender and disability. Another group that had an increase of being targeted that hasn't been mentioned yet, have been the homeless by random attacks of brutal beatings by groups of thugs ..only done out of hateful " sport" . .....so the law is written to cover bias of prejudice by way of attack for that sole reason towards any group of people.

I used this quote before because I agree with this also when Chief Justice Rehnquist said, "this conduct is thought to inflict greater individual and societal harm.... bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest." ....he is correct, imo, when it comes to hate crimes inciting further social unrest as well..

Your argument is that the law is not being applied equally....and you may be right...but it has to be taken on a case by case basis to be able to judge whether the law applies to that incident. If some feel it's not used when it should be when the bias of attack is clearly there , as in the Cracker Barrel incident, then they voice their opinion on it and ask the prosecution why. When a white person is attacked solely on the basis of their race and the evidence is clear thats the motive and the charge of hate crime isn't brought in the case then the prosecution of that jurisdiction has to answer to the public.

I know you don't agree with the law at all and thats fine but in my opinion it's appropriate and was written for good reason....to me well intent isn't " fantasy". Well intent of the purpose should be a reality....but I know like many things maybe it isn't being applied equitably...but as I said it has to be considered on a case by case basis and people of any group need to bring their demands to the prosecution of the case when they feel the law should apply and it's not being done in that case.


Again, Frank...I may be wrong and you may be right or vise versa.....one thing is clear is that we can agree to disagree on this issue because I think the law is written well with good intent to apply to crimes committed by some due to bias as a motivation. Call it a pipe dream to wish for advancement of all people towards equality in treatment by one another and that the wish that hate crimes be eradicated from society a fantasy...thats fine. The reality is I agree with you to a certain extent that the law may not have been applied in certain cases when it should have been. I've spoken my views on the law itself enough and will only be repeating what I've already said in various ways without having a particular case to examine per your argument and see if the law should apply....so you and others can carry on the debate from here.
Hopefully there will come a day when a law like this doesn't even have to be considered. Enjoy your weekend, Frank.

[strangegrey]

No law is right if it's being applied with a subjective view. case by case basis not-withstanding.
And your comments about hate crime covering gender/disability are diversionary...because the same issues clearly apply.


The lack of balance in application of this law is clear and resolute. If you (and ehwmatt has asked for this repeatedly) can show any significant number of black on white crime being charged as 'hate crime' or any scenario where the so-called minority is the agressor and being charged as a 'hate crime' defendant....I'll eat my words. Hell, I highly doubt even 1% of the hate crimes charged in this country make up that 'minority agressor' figure.

That's what's wrong with it....and you can claim you should look at ANY crime in a case by case context...but the numbers don't lie. If a law is favoring one group over another, the law is clearly unconstitutional, at the macro level.

Hate crime legislation is nothing by affirmative action for the justice system. It doesn't work one iotta and it simply is a feelgood bandaid on ineffective laws already in place.

[BobbyinTN]

Bottom line, motive is a factor in every court case when it comes to murder. 1st degree, 2nd degree, involuntary manslaughter, premeditated murder, etc. If hate is a motivation, it should be part of the process for sentencing.

Good article Matt, but it's an opinion piece. I think whites are included in the hate crimes legislation as is everyone who might be attacked because of race or sexuality or whatever motivates assholes to hate so much they think they have to kill.

You still have not provided one shred of empirical evidence to prove that whites are protected in practice or in fact.

You have confused "motive" with "intent," which is how the different degrees of murder are distinguished.

Matt, I honestly don't know of any case that has been tried against anyone where hate crimes has been part of the charge. I don't follow court cases that closely, but what I've heard has only been "likely to be tried as hate crime" or something to that affect. Do you have specific instances where someone has been charged with a hate crime?

And no, I haven't confused anything. I think you're confusing motive and intent.

mo⋅tive  /ˈmoʊtɪv/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [moh-tiv] Show IPA noun, adjective, verb, -tived, -tiv⋅ing.
Use motive in a Sentence
See web results for motive
See images of motive
–noun 1. something that causes a person to act in a certain way, do a certain thing, etc.; incentive.
2. the goal or object of a person's actions: Her motive was revenge.
3. (in art, literature, and music) a motif.





If the motivation for a crime is the race, gender or sexuality of a person, that should be part of the sentencing.

[BobbyinTN]

Bottom line folks, hate crimes legislation is gonna be a part of our judicial system. It's up to us when we see injustice to say something, to make our voices heard and let the truth come out in the court.

More often than not, a court ruling will fit the crime.

The justice system has been unfair toward African Americans for many many years now, some of my friends who've never broken the law have been harrassed for driving a BMW or someone reported them for being "suspicious". Why aren't y'all pissed off about that injustice? Is only when whites are being treated unfairly that we get riled up?

Here's a rule to live by, if you don't want to be punished for a hate crime, don't commit one. And if you kill someone because of race or sexuality, maybe you should go ahead an kill someone else that is of your own race or sexuality, that way you can get the fair sentence you want instead of the one motivated by hatred.

Also, I don't believe in protecting criminals AT ALL and I think the longer we can put them away, the better.

[strangegrey]

Bottom line folks, hate crimes legislation is gonna be a part of our judicial system. It's up to us when we see injustice to say something, to make our voices heard and let the truth come out in the court.

Sadly, I agree with you.

I just think there's a better way to do it. You can't fight racism with racism. that's the problem with this...If you had effective laws that acted as effective deterants to violent crimes, you wouldn't need this hate-crime stamp (which creates a bad perception)...

[Ehwmatt]

Bottom line, motive is a factor in every court case when it comes to murder. 1st degree, 2nd degree, involuntary manslaughter, premeditated murder, etc. If hate is a motivation, it should be part of the process for sentencing.

Good article Matt, but it's an opinion piece. I think whites are included in the hate crimes legislation as is everyone who might be attacked because of race or sexuality or whatever motivates assholes to hate so much they think they have to kill.

You still have not provided one shred of empirical evidence to prove that whites are protected in practice or in fact.

You have confused "motive" with "intent," which is how the different degrees of murder are distinguished.

Matt, I honestly don't know of any case that has been tried against anyone where hate crimes has been part of the charge. I don't follow court cases that closely, but what I've heard has only been "likely to be tried as hate crime" or something to that affect. Do you have specific instances where someone has been charged with a hate crime?

And no, I haven't confused anything. I think you're confusing motive and intent.

mo⋅tive  /ˈmoʊtɪv/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [moh-tiv] Show IPA noun, adjective, verb, -tived, -tiv⋅ing.
Use motive in a Sentence
See web results for motive
See images of motive
–noun 1. something that causes a person to act in a certain way, do a certain thing, etc.; incentive.
2. the goal or object of a person's actions: Her motive was revenge.
3. (in art, literature, and music) a motif.





If the motivation for a crime is the race, gender or sexuality of a person, that should be part of the sentencing.

Bobby, motive and intent have WAY different meanings in a legal sense than the lay definitions you have posted.

[Ehwmatt]

Bottom line folks, hate crimes legislation is gonna be a part of our judicial system. It's up to us when we see injustice to say something, to make our voices heard and let the truth come out in the court.

Sadly, I agree with you.

I just think there's a better way to do it. You can't fight racism with racism. that's the problem with this...If you had effective laws that acted as effective deterants to violent crimes, you wouldn't need this hate-crime stamp (which creates a bad perception)...

Agree with both of you