Nice Planet 2011

[MadTownSioux]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

Can someone explain to me why this isn't a hate crime? That white guy was attacked by a mob of black people. If the roles were reversed there would be riots in the streets.

As much as I (ugh, this hurts) agree with you that there are black-on-white 'hate crimes', this (IMHO) is not one. They were rebelling against the official in his capacity of calling fouls against them, but probably not because he was a white guy. Of course, I am 2000 miles away and have no idea what was going on - just my own HO.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

As much as I (ugh, this hurts) agree with you that there is black-on-white 'hate crimes', this (IMHO) is not one. They were rebelling against the official in his capacity of calling fouls against them, but probably not because he was a white guy. Of course, I am 2000 miles away and have no idea what was going on - just my own HO.

Yep. Not sure what the exact law is in Florida, but I know in Wisconsin (and I assume it's relatively similar elsewhere) a crime is a hate crime if committed specifically because of a person's race, not simply because it's one race on another. Like you say, this seems to have been more about his official capacity than his race.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

As much as I (ugh, this hurts) agree with you that there is black-on-white 'hate crimes', this (IMHO) is not one. They were rebelling against the official in his capacity of calling fouls against them, but probably not because he was a white guy. Of course, I am 2000 miles away and have no idea what was going on - just my own HO.

I believe the point he was making was: what if this was a mirror image event. A mob of white people attacking (and fracturing the shoulder) of an AA referee? Hate crime charges would seem to be much more probable in that event. The local race baiters would be out in force, pandering to their constituencies, and the pressure to "enhance" the charges would be extraordinary. I don't think hate crime charges are appropriate here, no matter who did what. I'll bet those three coaches had no idea that in Florida, what they did was is a felony. Oops.

 

[The Rube]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

I am thinking about a certain episode of South Park. Oh yeah, it's this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartman's_Silly_Hate_Crime_2000

The boys then put on a presentation before the governor, complete with visual aids, in which they detail their opposition to hate crime laws, declaring it a "savage hypocrisy," and arguing that all forms of crime warrant some sort of hate, and that the laws serve only to encourage discrimination further. The governor is impressed.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

I believe the point he was making was: what if this was a mirror image event. A mob of white people attacking (and fracturing the shoulder) of an AA referee? Hate crime charges would seem to be much more probable in that event. The local race baiters would be out in force, pandering to their constituencies, and the pressure to "enhance" the charges would be extraordinary. I don't think hate crime charges are appropriate here, no matter who did what. I'll bet those three coaches had no idea that in Florida, what they did was is a felony. Oops.

Yes, this.

I don't actually think it was a hate crime. But every time a minority (race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) is attacked by a non-minority, it gets trumped up. Even if it had NOTHING to do with their race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Personally, I think hate crime charges should be reserved for all but the most obvious cases. Matthew Shepherd, the guy in Texas who was dragged to death (can't recall the name), and other cases of the sort.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

Yes, this.

I don't actually think it was a hate crime. But every time a minority (race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) is attacked by a non-minority, it gets trumped up. Even if it had NOTHING to do with their race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Personally, I think hate crime charges should be reserved for all but the most obvious cases. Matthew Shepherd, the guy in Texas who was dragged to death (can't recall the name), and other cases of the sort.

Mr. Byrd in Jasper. Imagine the surprise of that lead defendant when the one black dude was elected foreman of the jury, oops. You've put your finger squarely on the problem with trying to read the minds of criminals to determine their motivations. And the political reality these days is that those motivations will frequently be devined one way for white criminals and another for black criminals with the same evidence available. Put an end to this nonsense and get back to administering justice equally, to all. BTW, the thinking in the Mathew Shepherd case is that those thugs may not have been motivated by his sexual orientation. That they just wanted to rob the rich tiny little guy. Assuming that's the case, does that make their horrific crime better?

 

[Foxton]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

Yes, this.

I don't actually think it was a hate crime. But every time a minority (race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) is attacked by a non-minority, it gets trumped up. Even if it had NOTHING to do with their race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Personally, I think hate crime charges should be reserved for all but the most obvious cases. Matthew Shepherd, the guy in Texas who was dragged to death (can't recall the name), and other cases of the sort.

Matthew Shepherd doesn't count and he's an abomination. (Take one quick guess what this ******* is.)
<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/RGqxK2bOnq0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Hate crimes aren't hate crime because the person doing it is just angry, it's because they are purposely targeting someone because they hate what they are. As pointed out it's not exactly hard to figure out why that guy getting beaten isn't a hate crime.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

Hate crimes aren't hate crime because the person doing it is just angry, it's because they are purposely targeting someone because they hate what they are. As pointed out it's not exactly hard to figure out why that guy getting beaten isn't a hate crime.

I think you're missing my point. I don't think this actually warrants hate crimes charges.

 

[Foxton]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

I think you're missing my point. I don't think this actually warrants hate crimes charges.

Define your point then. What would constitute a hate crime to you?

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

Define your point then. What would constitute a hate crime to you?

What's the difference between a person shot because he's gay and a person shot because he has a fat wallet?

 

[Foxton]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

What's the difference between a person shot because he's gay and a person shot because he has a fat wallet?

No no, you said "Personally, I think hate crime charges should be reserved for all but the most obvious cases." what is your definition for these obvious cases?

 

[walrus]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

So was this a hate crime
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/126828998.html

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

No no, you said "Personally, I think hate crime charges should be reserved for all but the most obvious cases." what is your definition for these obvious cases?

Ok, let me clarify. As the law applies now, I think they should be reserved for cases where it can be established beyond a reasonable doubt, the crimes were committed because the person was minority, and that it was the primary motivation behind the crime. If the primary motive is robbery and it just happens the person who committed the crime was white and the victim was black, it's not a hate crime. If the guy was walking down the street and some guys just wanted to beat up a black guy, yes, that's a hate crime as the law is today.

However, I'm not sure I agree with the principle of a hate crime. I'm not sure I believe there is a difference between a guy getting beat up for the color of his skin, gender, sexual orientation, etc. is any different than a guy getting beat up because he is wearing a Rolex and someone else wants it.

 

[Foxton]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

So was this a hate crime
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/126828998.html

Was it? Conflicting personal testimonies to what was going on. Some said "oh it was just black on white" and other that said it was everybody against those not in the mob. Were those 31 arrested all black? All the injured white or police? Not a lot of information to go off of and personal testimonies aren't super reliable in a panic situation.

Ok, let me clarify. As the law applies now, I think they should be reserved for cases where it can be established beyond a reasonable doubt, the crimes were committed because the person was minority, and that it was the primary motivation behind the crime. If the primary motive is robbery and it just happens the person who committed the crime was white and the victim was black, it's not a hate crime. If the guy was walking down the street and some guys just wanted to beat up a black guy, yes, that's a hate crime as the law is today.

However, I'm not sure I agree with the principle of a hate crime. I'm not sure I believe there is a difference between a guy getting beat up for the color of his skin, gender, sexual orientation, etc. is any different than a guy getting beat up because he is wearing a Rolex and someone else wants it.

You kind of mixed your view in there I think, where it can be shown that there's no reasonable doubt that it was primarily motivated out of hate for what someone is or perceived to be. (And it has to be dragging people down the street level behind their car extreme) That it?

The end result is of course the same while motivations are different. Beating someone up to steal their watch, the victims circumstances, race, gender, who they're attracted to is irrelevant. It's just the crime. The other betrays a certain viciousness and unacceptable position to even voice that's above and beyond the crime itself. I'll reference that Southpark episode where the KKK wanted the flag to stay the same and whichever side they were on were was going to lose just because their position is that caustic.

It's just a matter of degree and clearly it needs to be shown that it wasn't just some over simplified definition like 'white man against black man automatically means hate crime'. It has a nebulous component to it (what is acceptable hate? Is hating someone for being more wealthy than you the same as hating someone for having a different skin color) but you gave a decent summary that works as a good method to judge it.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

You kind of mixed your view in there I think, where it can be shown that there's no reasonable doubt that it was primarily motivated out of hate for what someone is or perceived to be. (And it has to be dragging people down the street level behind their car extreme) That it?

The end result is of course the same while motivations are different. Beating someone up to steal their watch, the victims circumstances, race, gender, who they're attracted to is irrelevant. It's just the crime. The other betrays a certain viciousness and unacceptable position to even voice that's above and beyond the crime itself. I'll reference that Southpark episode where the KKK wanted the flag to stay the same and whichever side they were on were was going to lose just because their position is that caustic.

It's just a matter of degree and clearly it needs to be shown that it wasn't just some over simplified definition like 'white man against black man automatically means hate crime'. It has a nebulous component to it (what is acceptable hate? Is hating someone for being more wealthy than you the same as hating someone for having a different skin color) but you gave a decent summary that works as a good method to judge it.

The fact that it's so nebulous and difficult to define is why I probably have conflicting views. I honestly don't expect to ever find a resolution to my satisfaction with regards to hate crime laws

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

Who kills this beautiful little boy? Why his father, of course.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...on-chicago-west-side-20110904,0,5679845.story

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

The fact that it's so nebulous and difficult to define is why I probably have conflicting views. I honestly don't expect to ever find a resolution to my satisfaction with regards to hate crime laws

I think "hate crimes" get attention for reasons that pedophiles do - is there something in the offender that predisposes them to this type of crime more than an offender of a simple robbery or "spur of the moment" offense? We throw the book at pedophiles because it's likely the psychological makeup of the criminal suggests they'll do it again and therefore they see more time than another offender that targets adults? Isn't it logical to suggest that someone "predisposed" to targeting _______ group has a similarly dangerous pysche?

Before anyone jumps my train my mind is not made up, but I think the concept itself is worthy of intelligent discourse.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

I think "hate crimes" get attention for reasons that pedophiles do - is there something in the offender that predisposes them to this type of crime more than an offender of a simple robbery or "spur of the moment" offense? We throw the book at pedophiles because it's likely the psychological makeup of the criminal suggests they'll do it again and therefore they see more time than another offender that targets adults? Isn't it logical to suggest that someone "predisposed" to targeting _______ group has a similarly dangerous pysche?

Before anyone jumps my train my mind is not made up, but I think the concept itself is worthy of intelligent discourse.

I doubt there has ever been, in the history of the world, a pedophile who only offended only once by choice. Whereas I would speculate that the majority of people who commit "hate crimess" do so only once. Thus, to me, the comparison is a non sequitor. Proponants of the concept of "hate crimes" assert that kicking my mother's teeth in because she's got money in her purse is bad. But kicking in the teeth of a "protected" old lady is worse, motivated as they assume it is, by "hate." Let's be honest here, these laws generally represent giant panders by Democrats to their most loyal constituency. I think the laws we have are quite sufficient: without any "hate crime" enhancement, two of the three guys who dragged Mr. Byrd to death are on death row, the third is in the TDCJ for life. Lawrence Brewer is scheduled to be juiced the 21st of this month. As an aside, I'm betting Bianca Jagger won't show up to protest.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

I think "hate crimes" get attention for reasons that pedophiles do - is there something in the offender that predisposes them to this type of crime more than an offender of a simple robbery or "spur of the moment" offense? We throw the book at pedophiles because it's likely the psychological makeup of the criminal suggests they'll do it again and therefore they see more time than another offender that targets adults? Isn't it logical to suggest that someone "predisposed" to targeting _______ group has a similarly dangerous pysche?

Before anyone jumps my train my mind is not made up, but I think the concept itself is worthy of intelligent discourse.

I think we throw the book at pedophiles because their crimes are particularly despicable. They target those who cannot defend themselves.

Although I understand the point you're getting at, I don't necessarily agree with the comparison between racists and pedophiles.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

I think we throw the book at pedophiles because their crimes are particularly despicable. They target those who cannot defend themselves.

I agree, but what was done to Matthew Shephard is about as heinous (not only in execution but reason) as it gets, was it not?

I doubt there has ever been, in the history of the world, a pedophile who only offended only once by choice. Whereas I would speculate that the majority of people who commit "hate crimess" do so only once.

Not only do we not know if this is true or not, explain exactly why it's so illogical to surmise that someone capable of "_______" on the basis of race or sexual orientation is less likely to repeat their behavior any less so than a pedophile? My Parise I'm not suggesting a pedophile shouldn't be locked away in the manner they currently are, but I am questioning why a hate crime offender is so much more likely to stop their behavior after one incident. Jebus, think about it.