http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2010/mar/03/two-arrested-cotton-ball-incident/

Two students arrested after cotton display
Chancellor gives men temporary MU suspension.

By Janese Heavin
Published March 3, 2010 at 8:33 a.m.
Updated March 3, 2010 at 1:11 p.m.


University of Missouri police yesterday arrested two white male students suspected of dropping cotton balls in front of the Gaines/Oldham Black Culture Center on campus.

S. Fitzgerald

Z. Tucker

Zachary Tucker, 21, and Sean Fitzgerald, 19, were arrested about 7:30 p.m., each on suspicion of one count of tampering in the second degree, a Class D felony enhanced because of the hate crime classification. They each posted $4,500 bond and were released from the Boone County Jail, with a date to return to court set for March 29.

Tucker is listed as a senior psychology major in an MU directory and is from St. Louis. Fitzgerald is a freshman political science major from Kearney and is listed as an NROTC midshipman.

Chancellor Brady Deaton has temporarily suspended the students, saying he “determined it is in the best interest of the university community.” Further action will depend on the outcome of a formal student conduct process.

MU police were called to the black culture center Friday morning after students and staff awoke to find cotton balls strewn across the lawn. The racist act, an overt reminder of slavery, came on one of the last days of Black History Month.

Police said they received an anonymous tip that led to the arrest but did not provide additional details. Capt. Brian Weimer would not confirm whether nearby video surveillance images were used in the arrest, saying he did not want to jeopardize the case.

Nathan Stephens, director of the black culture center, said he was pleased to hear about the arrests.
“I am excited that justice has prevailed,” he said. “I’m saddened for these students, but I’m also hopeful we can now continue to galvanize and make this university into what we want it to be — we being all faculty, all staff and all students.”

Asked what punishment the students should face at MU if responsible for the incident, Stephens suggested expulsion.

“I don’t think they have a place here,” he said. “I just think there has to be no tolerance at all for that kind of thing, regardless of whether it’s a crime against race, religion or sexual orientation. I would feel the same if Muslim students were harassed or members of LGBTQ community or if a woman was sexually assaulted. There’s no room for those types of behave at an institution like this.”

Attempts to reach Tucker and Fitzgerald this morning were unsuccessful.

A provision in the university’s student conduct book allows chancellors to temporarily suspend students “in order to protect the physical safety of students, faculty, staff and visitors.”

In this case, “we’re concerned about the safety of the entire university campus,” MU spokeswoman Mary Jo Banken said.

The cotton-ball display sparked a two-hour town hall forum Monday night that attracted more than 300 people.
__________________________________________________________________________________


Sure, it was dumb. It was overtly racist. Is it equal to a woman being raped (as Stephens said)?
Is it fair to charge them with a Felony for this?

3/10/2010 8:34:30 PM

I dislike hate crime laws.

3/10/2010 8:38:12 PM

definitely racist. how could it not be? who in their right minds would try to explain it any other way?

3/10/2010 8:40:57 PM

^everyone agrees that it was racist. Was it a hate crime worthy of a felony?

3/10/2010 8:42:05 PM

that's for a jury to decide.

the hate crimes law has already been passed... is this a discussion over whether or not the hate crime law should be repealed or whether or not the students' behavior rose to the level of a hate crime?

3/10/2010 8:43:19 PM

Don't know. I just thought it was an interesting event that might garner some discussion.

3/10/2010 9:23:04 PM

another fucking hate crime thread.

If you kill someone because they're black, or gay, or for any terrible reason, it should be treated as if you killed the person in cold blood, i.e. for no reason. That's as bad as it gets. That should get the worst punishment allowed by law. We don't need to be giving supposed racists bigger sentences than the guy that just enjoys murdering people for fun.

I don't even see how this classifies as a "hate crime." Who was harmed here? Sure, it's inappropriate behavior, perhaps worthy of disciplinary action by the school, but an actual crime? Really?

[Edited on March 10, 2010 at 9:34 PM. Reason : ]

3/10/2010 9:31:51 PM

I personally think littering is the appropriate legal charge for the crime.
Whatever the university decides to do is up to them.

3/10/2010 9:33:10 PM

"hate crimes"


Charge them with littering, but (of course,) make public the details. Their crime wasn't any more of a crime for being racist (or at least shouldn't be...) Under the law, they should only face penalties for littering, but society will know about them from now on. That's the real penalty.

3/10/2010 9:58:59 PM

passive aggressive hate crime

3/10/2010 10:12:30 PM

Isn't one aspect of hate crime intimidation...like, the burning of crosses and nooses and shit? I'm not sure how this is anymore than ignorant racism, but where is the "hate" aspect of this?

3/10/2010 10:17:02 PM

i kinda agree, i support the idea of hate crimes but i don't see the intimidation here. just douchebaggery

i just read they were in rotc, lets hope that changes

[Edited on March 10, 2010 at 11:53 PM. Reason : .]

3/10/2010 11:48:26 PM

Its akin to leaving donuts all over the yard of a fat sorority.

3/11/2010 12:40:51 AM

i think this is a case of cheeky little bastards trying to push the envelope. they clearly know that hanging a noose is a no-no, as well as burning crosses. so the question for them then becomes, "how can we still be dirty little shitters without resorting to traditional methods of public racism."

fuck these guys, they knew damn-well what they were doing and what desired affect they were seeking. a littering offense is a slap on the wrist and a moral victory for these assholes.

3/11/2010 12:52:14 AM

Quote :

"I personally think littering is the appropriate legal charge for the crime. Whatever the university decides to do is up to them. "

Are you kidding?

Littering is the worse you think they should get for (allegedly) intentionally trying to make the blacks on their campus feel threatened and unwanted as a group?

This may not be equivalent to brutally raping someone, but it's certainly not equivalent to throwing a banana peel on the ground either.

And it's extremely unlikely that they'll be convicted of a felony for this, even if it technically fits the charges of a felony.

Just like these guys were trying to send a message with their cotton balls, to justice system needs to send a message that it's not okay for you to promote a hostile environment towards your fellow members of society just because of their skin color.

Quote :

" Under the law, they should only face penalties for littering, but society will know about them from now on. That's the real penalty."

Right... let's apply this logic to other crimes too, while we're at it.

Quote :

"Isn't one aspect of hate crime intimidation...like, the burning of crosses and nooses and shit? I'm not sure how this is anymore than ignorant racism, but where is the "hate" aspect of this?"

If the university let this slip by without any repercussions, you don't think the blacks on that campus wouldn't have felt a bit intimidated?

[Edited on March 11, 2010 at 12:58 AM. Reason : ]

3/11/2010 12:57:11 AM

^^How is it a moral victory?

[Edited on March 11, 2010 at 12:57 AM. Reason : ]

3/11/2010 12:57:14 AM

^don't play stupid. you and i both know, if this goes unpunished, the message is sent out loud and clear: racism is okay, as long as it is clever.


and as a side note, i'm generally against "zero tolerance" as a strict rule across the board, as each case is unique. i don't think you have to throw the book at them either. just give them some penalty (a misdemeanor, if there is such penalty for this) and some type of mandatory sensitivity training. the school doesn't need to resort to expulsion, but a littering fine is without question a soft punishment.

i'm sure this will end up with them giving an apology saying, "i now know that my actions may hurt others and i am deeply sorry for anyone that i may have offended" accompanied with a few crocodile tears.

[Edited on March 11, 2010 at 1:26 AM. Reason : ]

3/11/2010 1:02:34 AM

No, I don't know that, and it's not loud and clear. Nothing about this situation indicates that racism is okay or tolerated. They're going to get disciplined by the university, and people are going to know them as "the racists." No one was actually harmed, though, so they haven't committed a crime.

3/11/2010 1:06:43 AM

Quote :

" No one was actually harmed, though, so they haven't committed a crime. "

That's never been how society works though.

By this logic, possession of child porn shouldn't be a crime, masturbating in public shouldn't be a crime, giving an 8 year old pornography shouldn't be a crime, peeing on a cop car shouldn't be a crime, or downloading movies illegally, or a fair amount of other things that we have made illegal.

3/11/2010 1:13:22 AM

Quote :

"That's never been how society works though."

I don't find the appeal to tradition to be a particularly strong argument.

Quote :

"By this logic, possession of child porn shouldn't be a crime, masturbating in public shouldn't be a crime, giving an 8 year old pornography shouldn't be a crime, peeing on a cop car shouldn't be a crime, or downloading movies illegally, or a fair amount of other things that we have made illegal."

You could argue that all of those do harm someone in some way.

3/11/2010 1:17:20 AM

^^^no, they'll be known as "the litter bugs." that's the only thing that will follow them.

you can't advocate that being socially ostracized is a valid punishment.

i mean, nobody went up to bernie madoff and said, "hey there, cheaters never prosper" and let him go on his way.

[Edited on March 11, 2010 at 1:18 AM. Reason : ]

3/11/2010 1:18:15 AM

Quote :

"You could argue that all of those do harm someone in some way. "

Likewise, you can argue that promoting a hostile environment does harm in some way.

[Edited on March 11, 2010 at 1:19 AM. Reason : ]

3/11/2010 1:19:40 AM

Quote :

"No one was actually harmed, though, so they haven't committed a crime."

Why are you all of the sudden pretending like you don't know how the law works?

There are plenty of things we punish people for that don't involve anybody being harmed. You can get actual time in prison for growing weed in your basement, even if it was just for personal use! You can get locked up for drunk driving even if you pass a field sobriety test and only blow a .08. Shit, you can get taken downtown for standing outside of a building for too long.

3/11/2010 1:53:37 AM

Quote :

"you can't advocate that being socially ostracized is a valid punishment."

The punishment doesn't need to involve the government. You have to shed the way of thinking that goes something like, "Is this bad? Then the government should do something about it." There's a lot of bad, undesirable behavior that goes on and simply doesn't warrant government involvement. This is one of those things.

Quote :

"i mean, nobody went up to bernie madoff and said, "hey there, cheaters never prosper" and let him go on his way."

Bernie Madoff actually committed a crime, though. He was running a ponzi scheme, which is against the law unless the government makes an entitlement program out of it. It's against the law because it's a scam, and people lose money.

Quote :

"Likewise, you can argue that promoting a hostile environment does harm in some way."

That's a stretch. I don't know that it really promotes a hostile environment, and unless something results from the hostile environment, you can't demonstrate that harm has been done to someone or something that belongs to them.

^Yes, I know that's how the law works here. So, yes, growing marijuana is a crime. The law itself is unjust though, because it punishes people for doing nothing wrong. When I say it doesn't harm anyone so it's not a crime, I really mean to say if it doesn't harm anyone, it shouldn't be a crime.

3/11/2010 2:04:23 AM

Quote :

""Is this bad? Then the government WE should do something about it.""

This is what government is. and when the will of the people is wrong, you speak up. you don't just rail against "government." that has got to be the single most irritating thing about libertarian thinking, in my view. it's the individual removing himself/herself from any culpability, and merely blaming government as if it is its own thinking, living creature, rather than the collective will of society.

3/11/2010 2:21:33 AM

Or, they could say: "Yes, cotton is a large part of our history. Now we are past that and...."
In affect, completely making these two look like even bigger ass holes than they already are, and deflating the entire 'uproar' at the same time.

3/11/2010 3:07:56 AM

Quote :

"If the university let this slip by without any repercussions, you don't think the blacks on that campus wouldn't have felt a bit intimidated?"

I can't say one way or the other. For any white person to think they know is pretty laughable actually. However, we can consider what kind of damage you could do with cotton balls. I suppose you could stuff them in a black guys nose, mouth, and ears. Perhaps other orifices. Are these traditionally how cotton balls were used in the past to intimidate or otherwise harm blacks? A burning cross to me implies you can be torched and persecuted. A noose implies hanging. Cotton balls...cleaning up wounds? I don't see how this is much different than someone verbally communicating racial epithets with no threat of harm included in the communication.

3/11/2010 6:31:19 AM

Quote :

"Their crime wasn't any more of a crime for being racist (or at least shouldn't be...) Under the law, they should only face penalties for littering, but society will know about them from now on. That's the real penalty."

Quote :

"Nothing about this situation indicates that racism is okay or tolerated. They're going to get disciplined by the university, and people are going to know them as "the racists." No one was actually harmed, though, so they haven't committed a crime."

Quote :

"I don't see how this is much different than someone verbally communicating racial epithets with no threat of harm included in the communication."

Quoted for truth.

Quote :

"That's never been how society works though."

Quote :

"Why are you all of the sudden pretending like you don't know how the law works? There are plenty of things we punish people for that don't involve anybody being harmed."

LOOK AT ME!!!!!!!! I'M SO SMART!!!!! I'M DEFENDING THE STATUS QUO WITH THE STATUS QUO!!

Quote :

"you can't advocate that being socially ostracized is a valid punishment."

Actually, yes you can. (what? are you gonna stop us? from advocating something? good luck. )
This social ostracization is especially useful when the act they're being ostracized over is a non-crime such as speech, or a petty crime such as littering. Hate crime laws are 100% bullshit. Hate is not a crime. (Do any of you that support these laws also support the idea of having "thought police"?)

Quote :

"i mean, nobody went up to bernie madoff and said, "hey there, cheaters never prosper" and let him go on his way."

Why did you present this argument? No one is arguing that what Madoff did isn't a crime. Try to make sense. We're saying that being socially ostracized is a valid punishment because there was little to no actual crime. (or at least shouldn't haven't been.)

[Edited on March 11, 2010 at 8:35 AM. Reason : ]

3/11/2010 8:33:50 AM

It's pointless. Everyone on this board that supports hate crime legislature *WANTS* to punish people for hating. They want a world where everyone is forced to love each other and no one has the freedom to think what they want.

Punishment for littering = X.
Punishment for littering + hate = X + Y.
Punishment for hate = Y.

3/11/2010 9:02:43 AM

I don't think the cotton balls convey the same message as a burning cross. The latter is typically used to say "Get out or get hurt" while the cotton balls seem like a simple insult akin to "HAHA FAG".

If it were up to me, I'd have them suspended for a semester, and not involve the police.

3/11/2010 9:39:12 AM

^ agreed.

I think this was the best analogy:

Quote :

"Its akin to leaving donuts all over the yard of a fat sorority."

It's mockery, not intimidation. I think there's a marked difference.

3/11/2010 9:47:15 AM

I bet $20 that d357r0y3r is a White Christian male.

^It's a whole lot different than that.

[Edited on March 11, 2010 at 10:01 AM. Reason : ]

3/11/2010 10:01:16 AM

Except I wouldn't suspend someone for putting donuts in front of the fat sorority. I'd laugh my ass off.

3/11/2010 10:06:31 AM

Don't you get it? Black people deserve special privileges in these matters. It's the only way we'll ever have equality.

Discriminating against black people is WAY more evil than discriminating against fat people.

V, and there it is!

[Edited on March 11, 2010 at 10:18 AM. Reason : V]

3/11/2010 10:15:05 AM

Fat people weren't enslaved for 400 years.

3/11/2010 10:16:47 AM

^
At least not until the invention of chocolate.

3/11/2010 10:52:29 AM

Quote :

"^ At least not until the invention of chocolate."

lawl

3/11/2010 11:13:32 AM

I think its an insult to self-respecting African Americans to suggest that they would be intimidated by some redneck prank.

I grudgingly oppose the idea of hate crimes, or any other crime based on intent, because I think it amounts to the persecution of thought, which is the worst kind of crime a government can commit against its citizens.

That said, it is incorrect, as a matter of fact, to say that a crime based on racial hatred is the same as a crime based on, say, a romantic dispute. The two are different.

Quote :

"This may not be equivalent to brutally raping someone, but it's certainly not equivalent to throwing a banana peel on the ground either."

Or maybe it is?


[Edited on March 11, 2010 at 11:17 AM. Reason : ]

3/11/2010 11:15:41 AM

Quote :

"That said, it is incorrect, as a matter of fact, to say that a crime based on racial hatred is the same as a crime based on, say, a romantic dispute. The two are different."

They may be different, but the question is should they be punished differently (i.e., one more harshly than another)?

Motivation is not something we should punish. Premeditation is. Using "romantic dispute" as your counter point insinuates a heat of passion crime. I say someone snapping and killing a white person because they're white in the heat of the moment is equivalent to someone killing a dude because he walked in on him banging his wife.

3/11/2010 11:22:48 AM

Being racist is not illegal, nor should it be. It falls under the whole free speech thing. The punishment of a crime should have nothing to do with the beliefs of the criminal, only what action was taken. In this case, the criminals littered. That the littering was particularly offensive to a certain group of people is irrelevant. And it is quite a stretch to try to turn this into a threat of some type.

3/11/2010 11:22:56 AM

So there's no difference between shooting someone in the head during a robbery and executing a black man and writing "dead nigger" on his chest?

3/11/2010 11:27:27 AM

Quote :

"I say someone snapping and killing a white person because they're white in the heat of the moment is equivalent to someone killing a dude because he walked in on him banging his wife."

It might be the equivalent, but it's not the same. Er, you know what I mean. They might be comparable, or worthy of equal treatment in the eyes of the law, but they're not the exact same thing.

Quote :

"So there's no difference between shooting someone in the head during a robbery and executing a black man and writing "dead nigger" on his chest?"

The question is whether the difference is one that ought to be prosecuted. In other words, should the government be prosecuting the thought (intent) behind the crime? If you think it is, then are you not advocating for the institution of thought crimes?

[Edited on March 11, 2010 at 11:33 AM. Reason : ]

3/11/2010 11:27:27 AM

^^ The first may be ruled 2nd degree, I'm not sure. While the second would certainly be ruled 1st degree. But why should murdering someone because they're black (or white) legally be any different than murdering someone because you thought they looked at you wrong?

[Edited on March 11, 2010 at 11:33 AM. Reason : .]

3/11/2010 11:32:44 AM

^^

well in terms of ramifications, I would say no. In my opinion both should be executed. Until we have the technology to resurrect folks and kill them multiple times, we can only execute someone once.

[Edited on March 11, 2010 at 11:33 AM. Reason : a]

3/11/2010 11:33:02 AM

Quote :

"But why should murdering someone because they're black (or white) legally be any different than murdering someone because you thought they looked at you wrong?"

Because racial discrimination is wrong.

And crimes that are based on racial discrimination are horrible.

Quote :

"In other words, should the government be prosecuting the thought (intent) behind the crime? If you think it is, then are you not advocating for the institution of thought crimes?"

Yes, isn't that why we have different degrees of murder? Or is there no difference between a crime of passion and a crime that is premeditated?

[Edited on March 11, 2010 at 11:35 AM. Reason : ]

3/11/2010 11:34:30 AM

And premeditated murder for any other reason besides discrimination isn't horrible?

3/11/2010 11:35:56 AM

its entirely moot because 30 years in prison isn't different from 60 years in prison. If you were going to rehabilitate the criminal, then the reason for their crime would be important. Where you're just going to add years to a sentence, its pretty much irrelevent. It doesn't make the community any safer and its not more "just".

3/11/2010 11:36:27 AM

^Good idea.

All murders, regardless of circumstance, will now be 20 years in prison. No exceptions.

Quote :

"And premeditated murder for any other reason besides discrimination isn't horrible?"

No one's saying it isn't.

However, the lesser the crime the worse it is to be racially motivated.

There may not be a huge difference between killing someone and killing someone because they're black.

But there's a huge difference between me spraypainting "fart" on the side of a Synagogue instead of spraypainting a swastika.

They're both defacing private property, but there's a difference in intent. And that's really the core of the issue here: intent.

[Edited on March 11, 2010 at 11:43 AM. Reason : ]

3/11/2010 11:40:09 AM

Quote :

"Yes, isn't that why we have different degrees of murder? Or is there no difference between a crime of passion and a crime that is premeditated?"

As I said, I don't think we ought to be punishing thoughts, and so it follows that I think laws based on that premise (such as the matter of degrees) are wrong. That said, the issue of "heat of the moment" crimes is one that involves crimes committed in the absence of thought. So, I think it's a fair question as to whether we should treat crimes of reflex differently than crimes of motive, but only in the sense that the absence of thought might be considered as a mitigating factor.

In other words, I think comparing intent vs. intent is different from comparing intent vs. no intent. Similar, in a way, to comparing things done on purpose to things done by accident.

[Edited on March 11, 2010 at 11:52 AM. Reason : ]

3/11/2010 11:46:25 AM

Quote :

"All murders, regardless of circumstance, will now be 20 years in prison. No exceptions."

which is just as effective as 50 years in prison.

[Edited on March 11, 2010 at 11:46 AM. Reason : k]

3/11/2010 11:46:28 AM