I think this one is a good example of somebody who should be charged with a racially motivated hate crime:

Quote :

"Declaring that white people "shouldn't be listening to rap music," a 14-year-old Florida boy allegedly assaulted a man Monday night in what police say was a racially-motivated attack. The teenager was arrested after he allegedly struck the 22-year-old victim, who is white, in the face. According to a Palm Bay Police Department report, a copy of which you'll find below, the victim was on a sidewalk listening to rap music when he was confronted by the boy and other teenagers. The suspect told the man to turn off his music, adding that he was "white and he shouldn't be listening to rap music." When the victim replied that he "could listen to whatever he wants," the suspect "repeatedly" punched him in the face. Though "other black juvenile males and females...attempted to get involved in the dispute," the victim fled "before any further battery could occur." The man sustained a swollen left eye during the assault, cops reported. The teen attacker gave a fake name when initially approached by cops, but was later identified by his mother. The boy was arrested and booked into Brevard County's juvenile detention facility for misdemeanor battery and giving cops a false name. However, if the incident is determined to be racially motivated, the battery charge could be elevated to a felony via a so-called hate-crime enhancement."

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2010/0728101rap1.html

7/29/2010 7:43:53 AM

Under the definition of the statute, yes it should be classified as a hate crime, but that doesn't make "hate crime" legislation any less idiotic.

7/29/2010 8:20:28 AM

Quote :

"I think this one is a good example of somebody who should be charged with a racially motivated hate crime: Hate crimes are fucking retarded. "

FTFY

7/29/2010 9:02:08 AM

yep

7/29/2010 9:14:51 AM

The attacker should've told police he was a New Black Panther Member. Eric Holder would then come to his rescue.

7/29/2010 9:57:32 AM

I don't see how anyone could classify this as a hate crime, because the victim is white.

7/29/2010 10:17:05 AM

the bigger issue is how in the hell a 22 year old got beat up by a 14 year old.

7/29/2010 10:25:17 AM

"Punch person because they looked at you funny" = misdemeanor.
"Punch person because you don't like the color of their skin" = felony.

We've been down this road before. It's legislating thought. You know, I know it. God knows it. It's fucking stupid and wrong. At the end of the day the victim is not more traumatized from being punched by a racist douche than being punched by an asshole that wasn't necessarily displaying his racism at the time.

^Had his homeboys. Also, 14 yo doesn't necessarily mean small or hasn't been weight training for a few years already.

[Edited on July 29, 2010 at 10:28 AM. Reason : .]

7/29/2010 10:28:16 AM

I agree, I think hate crimes are stupid. Committing violence on somebody should have the same consequences, regardless of your motivation. But as has been discussed several times before, hate crimes can apparently only be perpetrated by white people and not on them. Just curious what the PC/thought police who support hate crime legislation feel should be done in this case.

7/29/2010 12:02:39 PM

yep

7/29/2010 12:05:13 PM

Quote :

"I agree, I think hate crimes are stupid. Committing violence on somebody should have the same consequences, regardless of your motivation. But as has been discussed several times before, hate crimes can apparently only be perpetrated by white people and not on them. Just curious what the PC/thought police who support hate crime legislation feel should be done in this case."

We're telling you, open your fuckin ears

7/29/2010 12:12:48 PM

The article never really identifies the attacker's skin color, though it's mildy implied that he is black.

7/29/2010 12:47:49 PM

Quote :

"the bigger issue is how in the hell a 22 year old got beat up by a 14 year old."

1) Have you been to a middle school lately? There are some dudes there I wouldn't want to fight.

2) If he had fought back and won, can you imagine how that might look? And who would believe his story?

Running away was the smart move.

7/29/2010 12:48:28 PM

1.) Hate crimes are retarted. A murder is a murder. Assault is assault. Irregardless of if its because you thought they looked funny, they sat in your favorite seat at the bar, they are an obnoxious fan of the team you hate, or because of skin color. If you really want to elevate a crime such as KKK clansmen lynching two black men, then you could argubly slap on conspiracy and other felony offenses to increase the seriousness of the crime.

2.) Strictly speaking, according to past precedent and current law this thug should have his charge elevated on the premise of being a "hate crime." In an equal society the law should be applied evenly both ways. Last year some white high school student was beaten up by some black teens for dating a black classmate. I do not know what became of this but had the situation been reversed, shit would have hit the fan and the story would have been all over the news.

7/29/2010 1:10:47 PM

maybe the media views this story as something of a "dog bites man" type of issue....



jk, brah!!

7/29/2010 1:22:03 PM

Quote :

"1) Have you been to a middle school lately? There are some dudes there I wouldn't want to fight."

The ones you wouldn't want to fight are 18 and still in the 7th grade.

7/29/2010 1:24:41 PM

How can it be a hate crime against a white person? You can't hate whites. You're all a bunch of racist morans.

7/29/2010 1:38:29 PM

Quote :

"Hate crimes are retarted."

Quote :

"Irregardless of if its because"

7/29/2010 1:47:51 PM

Yeah what a bunch of imbesills.

7/29/2010 1:50:23 PM

Quote :

"But as has been discussed several times before, hate crimes can apparently only be perpetrated by white people and not on them."

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2008/victims.html

Quote :

"Racial bias More than half of the single-bias hate crimes were racially motivated. Of the 4,934 victims of these racial bias crimes: 72.9 percent were victims of an offender’s anti-black bias. 16.8 percent were victims because of an anti-white bias. 3.4 percent were targeted because of an anti-Asian/Pacific Islander bias. 1.3 percent were victims because of an anti-American Indian/Alaskan Native bias. 5.6 percent were victims because of a bias against a group of individuals in which more than one race was represented (anti-multiple races, group). (Based on Table 1.) "

7/29/2010 4:17:03 PM

Only commenting because I saw this article earlier today.

Quote :

"the bigger issue is how in the hell a 22 year old got beat up by a 14 year old."

According to the police report, kid's height is "506" (5'6"?), weighs 115, and has a "Slender" build. Regardless, the more important part is he had other guys and girls with him who attempted to join in the dispute.

7/29/2010 4:23:03 PM

Quote :

"I don't see how anyone could classify this as a hate crime, because the victim is white. "

That's funny... because this is being charged as a hate crime.

7/29/2010 11:58:00 PM

http://downloads.southparkstuff.com/sounds/epi712/712_kickmrharrisonsass.mp3

Quote :

"RANDY: Let me handle this, Sharon. You gotta put these cult people in their place or else they never stop! I'm gonna go kick this Mr. Harrison's ass! This, Mr. Harrison is, is a white guy, right? STAN: Yeah. RANDY: Jyeah, I'm gonna go kick his ass! "

[Edited on July 30, 2010 at 12:24 AM. Reason : ]

7/30/2010 12:21:00 AM

If he just walked up to this dude and started talking shit about how white people shouldn't listen to rap music and then assaulted him...

...that sounds pretty much exactly like a hate crime to me.

7/30/2010 1:30:04 AM

/facepalm

7/30/2010 9:47:21 AM

^^

Quote :

"Under the definition of the statute, yes it should be classified as a hate crime, but that doesn't make "hate crime" legislation any less idiotic."

7/30/2010 10:45:57 AM

Would this still be a hate crime if the assailant were white?

Do we know what race the assailant is?

7/30/2010 11:19:02 AM

^Probably a black person.

His friends who were trying to get into the dispute were "other black juvenile males and females.."

7/30/2010 12:12:49 PM

If you put the verbal emphasis on the word "black" in that statement, it could imply the assailant is NOT black. Also, "other black juvenile males and females...attempted to get involved in the dispute," doesn't neccessarily mean these people were trying to harm the victim. They could possibly be coming to his aid.

I'm not trying to say that's what happened. Its highly likely everyone's interpretation of the article (black kid assaulting white man, other black kids joining in the assault) is the correct one. I'm just pointing out that certain details were left out of the article, as if we should just assume the assailant is black, and the interlopers were on his side.

7/30/2010 12:55:50 PM

White people shouldn't be listening to rap music. That is all I have to say.

7/30/2010 1:03:53 PM

hate crimes are asinine, but, by definition, this is a hate crime - 100%. shitty situation for this guy to end up in. he can't win. if he fights back and fucks this kid up, now he is in the position where he looks like he committed a hate crime against a juvenile.

7/30/2010 2:56:02 PM

I'm not sure why we have specific terminology to delineate a certain type of offense.

How about we drop the "hate crime" part of it and just say that unprovoked assaults should carry more punishment than a provoked one. Because at the end of the day, just about any assault is going to stem from some form of dislike.

7/30/2010 4:13:25 PM

I'm still wondering if anyone figures this would be a hate crime if the perp were white as well.

7/30/2010 4:20:49 PM

^^

7/30/2010 4:23:51 PM

i wonder what he was listening too...if it was some wack bullshit, i support him getting his ass beat...if it was dope, then it was truly a tragedy that music led to this

7/30/2010 4:28:54 PM

AHA, I just realized this happened in Brevard County.

The kids (of all races) down there run wild. My friend warned me: "There are no children here. Just punks." I didn't know what she was talking about it until I got ran up on by a pack of kids "asking" for money. I interpreted it mostly as begging, but I still felt really intimidated. It was like, "You got some money? Hey, lady, you got some money? Give us some money. We hungry. We want to eat. Give us some money!"

7/30/2010 4:34:16 PM

Quote :

"White people shouldn't be listening to rap music. That is all I have to say. "

7/30/2010 6:31:23 PM

Quote :

"Potty Mouth: I'm not sure why we have specific terminology to delineate a certain type of offense."

?

Because people didn't act right.

People were murdering other people and getting acquitted (or not even charged at all!), and the states weren't doing shit about it. The federal government had to find a way to step in with prosecution.

Of course, people continued not to act right.


I think you all may have some okay arguments against hate crime legislation, but please, please don't act like you don't understand why we have this "specific terminology." It's like, "Oh, I'm so confused by all of this. I was totally unaware that a black man had been ambushed, beaten nearly unconscious by some white supremacists, urinated on, and then dragged behind the back of a truck until he finally died as his head hit a culvert at the right angle, and then dragged some more until his head eventually came off entirely, and his limbs were scattered up and down the road... Nope, I don't understand these hate crime laws at all!"

7/31/2010 2:57:22 AM

Quote :

"I'm not sure why we have specific terminology to delineate a certain type of offense. "

motive, mens rea, has always been part of our scheduling system for crimes. even way before hate crimes were added we had specific terminology to delineate offenses based on certain factors written into the law. serious crimes have never been sentenced based only on actus reus, what logical argument can you make about how this is different?

[Edited on July 31, 2010 at 7:46 AM. Reason : .]

7/31/2010 7:46:18 AM

Quote :

"Nope, I don't understand these hate crime laws at all!"

My point is, my impression of the way these laws are applied seems they are used rather subjectively. You always see language like this

Quote :

"However, if the incident is determined to be racially motivated, the battery charge could be elevated to a felony via a so-called hate-crime enhancement."

What is the determination and who determines it, people that themselves may have racial bias? I guess I'm just fucking sick of 3000 page laws written to be as vague as possible that are to have their gaps filled in later with more vague language. Just call it what it is, an unprovoked attack. It should carry stiffer penalties by itself without involving other human beings to determine if and how race played a factor.

Quote :

"motive, mens rea, has always been part of our scheduling system for crimes. even way before hate crimes were added we had specific terminology to delineate offenses based on certain factors written into the law. serious crimes have never been sentenced based only on actus reus, what logical argument can you make about how this is different?"

I'm barely inclined to debate about this so I offer up my .5 cent. Why is motive a consideration? Why should we punish someone less who committed the ultimate crime (murder) because they did it in a fit of rage (2nd) versus someone who is cold and calculated (1st)? Do you really want to give either individual a chance to kill again?

7/31/2010 8:33:25 AM

Quote :

"Why is motive a consideration? Why should we punish someone less who committed the ultimate crime (murder) because they did it in a fit of rage (2nd) versus someone who is cold and calculated (1st)? Do you really want to give either individual a chance to kill again?"

thats a false dilemma, there are more options. neither has to have a chance to kill again, although i certainly would want motivation to come into account. if someone accidentally kills someone in a situation that meets the standards for man slaughter to me that is not as bad as someone who maliciously plans and murders someone. some of you are saying they are the same crime, the taking of a life, but i disagree and the way our legal system and penal code are setup do as well.

7/31/2010 10:56:10 AM

Quote :

"some of you are saying they are the same crime, the taking of a life"

I don't think anyone else but me is making an argument regarding this but me, and I'm not saying they are the same thing. One is the result of an accidental death, the other two are intentional, no need to further delineate in the latter cases. We have classes of crimes, we should just decide which class they all go in and thats it. Eliminate all the extra overhead of determining how long a sentence should be, having hearings about what good character someone had so they deserve leniency compared to the next guy, etc. Having these sorts of systems in any area just makes them ripe for abuse and favoritism.

7/31/2010 11:13:44 AM

Quote :

"We have classes of crimes, we should just decide which class they all go in and thats it."

well mens rea is part of how the determine what class. and if you are ok with having a class system why is having a class for hate crimes so outrageous? it's an extension of the same thing.

i also really don't like what you are saying about making things the same in every case. the risk of allowing judicial freedom is unfairness, but i don't think mandatory sentencing guidelines are a good idea and i think their track record shows that.

7/31/2010 11:23:40 AM

mens rea is intent, not motive. Granted, presence of motive has been used widely to argue mens rea and justifiably so but we don't usually punish crimes more harshly based on motive.

See murder of abortion doctor in the name of killing babies. The fact that the perpetrator has (in his own mind at least) a virtuous motive, we wouldn't punish him less nor should we.

However, if he planned the murder, prepared, with full knowledge of the consequences, then he should be punished harshly. If he just snapped seeing the doctor perform an abortion and whacked him with a stool, then he should be punished less harshly (relatively speaking). That's punishing based on mens rea and is extremely valid in terms of what we should be enforcing.

We should be reinforcing people against willfully planning to commit crimes in full knowledge of the consequences. We should not be reinforcing people against hating others.

7/31/2010 9:59:00 PM

i meant to type intent, but i should have discussed motive. motive too is used to determine charges for some other crimes as well. for example obstruction charges require a corrupt motive.

[Edited on July 31, 2010 at 10:32 PM. Reason : .]

7/31/2010 10:25:06 PM

Quote :

"for example obstruction charges require a corrupt motive. "

A)You've lost me.
B)I wouldn't agree with any other charges that require a specific motive anyway.

8/1/2010 1:23:14 AM

to charge someone with obstruction the court must show they had a malicious motive to obstruct, this is why fear of reprisal is a defense for obstruction because it changes the motive (a motive still exists, but it is not malicious, see how that works?). ( see US v Reeves and decisions in the first, third and eleventh circuit courts establishing this precedent )

motive is used to determine other crimes and sentencing so how is this different?

[Edited on August 1, 2010 at 9:11 AM. Reason : .]

8/1/2010 9:03:25 AM

meant to add:

^^so in the case of obstruction you would not agree that a person who has a malicious motive should be punished more harshly than someone who is doing it because they feel unsafe or have been threatened? motive is a reasonable thing to consider, in both cases the intent is clear and you are saying that should be sufficient for the court, but i think the person with the malicious motive should have a different punishment than the person who has been threatened and that is a distinction our court system already makes.

8/1/2010 9:36:08 AM

Quote :

"well mens rea is part of how the determine what class"

Thanks for restating the argument?

Quote :

"if you are ok with having a class system why is having a class for hate crimes so outrageous?"

Because there is no such thing as a hate crime.

Quote :

"but i don't think mandatory sentencing guidelines are a good idea and i think their track record shows that"

Remove the war on drugs and mandatory sentencing and this problem goes away.

Btw, are you a law student or did you get wiki smart on this?

8/1/2010 10:29:40 AM

Huh? Being well read on a topic is a bad thing? I've written a paper about it, why is constructing an argument a bad thing? Maybe I could just follow your lead and dismiss eveything then vaguely insult you.

8/1/2010 10:37:29 AM