Hate Crimes

[giftedmadness@hotmail.com]

(Note: I am not fully aware how far hate legislation has to go before it's active, or whether it is active in some instances. Please advise me if you know, thanks, GM)

I am a Straight-American. I am a European-American. I am a Male-American. And I am the new minority in this country. I am a minority in the sense that I have no special rights in this country. I cannot play the victim card. I have to live under a different law when it comes to a certain crime. (This may come to pass and I believe it already has in some cases.) The law that I'm talking about is the following. If a straight person mugs and beats a homosexual, he will serve more time than a gay person who does the exact same crime to a straight person. And soon possibly, if a white person mugs and beats a black person, he will do more time than a black man who commits the same crime against a white person. Why is this? Because my actions, as a straight or white man, are more hateful because my victims were homosexual or black. I serve more time because what I possibly could have been thinking while committing the crime. A person guided by reason would say, "It doesn't matter what he was thinking or could have been thinking while he beat up that man. All that matters is that he did beat the man." But proponents of hate-crime legislation, want to punish us more for what we think, on top of what we do. Apparently, it's unthinkable for a homosexual to hate a straight man. It's unthinkable for a black man to hate a white man, even when they beat them up!. Also, the media wants you to believe that hate crime, whatever that is, happens all the time. But the fact is that it's very rare, compared to the amount of crime that occurs on a daily basis. Crime should be punished for what someone does, not why they did it.

(P.S. - Yes, I didn't describe how being a male makes me a minority, but there are more women then men, maybe that's a weak point I can make.)

[Johnny]

Don't like hate crimes? Don't do them and you've got nothing to worry about.

Your chances seem to be pretty fair here:

...the fact is that it's very rare, compared to the amount of crime that occurs on a daily basis.

[giftedmadness@hotmail.com]

Don't like hate crimes? Don't do them and you've got nothing to worry about.

Your chances seem to be pretty fair here:

...the fact is that it's very rare, compared to the amount of crime that occurs on a daily basis.


You don't get it. Someone else could commit a "hate crime" and would be treated unjustly compared to their gay counterpart. The fact that there is injustice in the world bothers me, not because the injustice happens to me. That is a moot point.

[Johnny]

When gays in the US get all the rights heterosexuals take for granted, then I'll reconsider your assertions. Until then, let's enjoy our continued advantages as heterosexuals and call the bone we're throwing to them with this "hate crime" business what it is - a bone.

[giftedmadness@hotmail.com]

You're saying that it's okay because other injustices exist?

[Vagabond]

The problem in my opinion is that, while there is certainly some injustice done against eg gay people, african americans etc, instead of trying to correct those specific injustices, society gives some advantages to them that the others don't have; this is beneficial only for politicians and not for social groups. For instance - they don't try to eliminate racism, they try to make it sweeter for black people by giving them some university advantages (I have heard something like that is going on over there...? Correct me if I am wrong, I am on the wrong side of the planet). Now if I am a politician that takes such a decision, I haven't turnt racists against me since I didn't quite stop them from beating up non-white people, plus I earnt myself some non-white votes, because I gave them "priviledges". To the basis of it all though, racism not only will not be eliminated, it will be more rageful, because now white people will feel the measures are unfair to them because they are white. Truth is, they will be unfair to them because they are white.

If they really cared about taking care of the problem, they would have dealt with the problem. What they do right now sounds more like revenge; they have been unfair to you - good, time for them to pay. It will only allow racism to grow on both sides and politicians will be allowed to play with people's lives for extra votes.

They want to make a fair society for homosexuals? Good, it is their obligation anyway. Allow them to live their lives as they please. Allow them to get married if they wish. Treat them as equals, which you should anyway. Cutting down on their law penalties does not vanqish discrimination, it makes it stronger; you just put people in different boxes - one group has a better social treatment, the other better legal treatment, what kind of crap is that! Equal means equal. Being equally unfair to everyone only causes more hate.

[Division56]

Gifted, you sicken me in the deepest ways possible.


Go get gay bashed and then tell me I don't need laws protecting me.

[Vagabond]

Gifted, you sicken me in the deepest ways possible.


Go get gay bashed and then tell me I don't need laws protecting me.
You missed the point. Would you prefer having advantages that non-gays don't have, or to be protected against discrimination?

[MasterMerk]

I'm not an expert on American legislation... So does beating up a person of another race or sexual orientation automatically classify as a hate crime, regardless of your true intensions?

[Johnny]

You're saying that it's okay because other injustices exist?

I feel no pain in ignoring the "injustices" you have listed. When you can show me damage hate crime laws have caused on the scale of an innocent man being chained by 3 white boys only several years ago to the back of a pickup truck bumper and dragged down the road until there weren't any body parts left to be held by said chain simply because he was black and easy prey, then I will gladly discuss your problems with hate crime laws with a more serious attitude.

You've simply got to give me something more substantial to work with to defend your position beyond the equivalent of a spoiled little kid stomping up and down because he doesn't get the latest Nintendo game card. Hate crime laws exist to deter people from committing the most heinous of crimes. You said it yourself - they are rare events (thank God!). But they still happen, and these laws are completely justifiable.

What the hell are you smoking?

[giftedmadness@hotmail.com]

"But they still happen, and these laws are completely justifiable.

What the hell are you smoking?"


It's okay to make laws regulating THOUGHT? What are you smoking?

[giftedmadness@hotmail.com]

"Go get gay bashed and then tell me I don't need laws protecting me."

Getting physically bashed is the same no matter what the person doing the crime is thinking at the time. Is it more hateful when you get attacked simply because you happen to be gay?

How do "hate crime" laws help protect you from getting "gay bashed"? Has this happened to you in real life where you were protected because of the laws?

[Johnny]

"But they still happen, and these laws are completely justifiable.

What the hell are you smoking?"


It's okay to make laws regulating THOUGHT? What are you smoking?

So, knowing full well that your thoughts are your own (maybe a good thing...) regardless, you wish to claim that hate crime legislation will cause you to suffer some sort of thought-impairment.

Again, give me something meaningful to work with G-mad and lay off that stuff...

[giftedmadness@hotmail.com]

Thought impairment? What are you talking about? They say it's more of a crime to kill someone because you hate that they are gay as oppossed to hating them because they killed your mom, or any other arbitrary(sp?) notion. It doesn't matter why you kill someone, just that you do kill them. If they punish someone more for what they think while they commit a crime, they become a type of thought police. What about that do you not understand? How is that logical?

[Johnny]

If they punish someone more for what they think while they commit a crime, they become a type of thought police. What about that do you not understand? How is that logical?

The problem is this: you are claiming that hate crime legislation will unfairly punish those with certain thoughts that accompanied their crime. It is here that you, my friend G-mad, are lost. Let me help you: hate crime legislation exists to punish those who commit crimes that are repulsive on a scale that goes way beyond a domestic or familial dispute that got out of hand. My real-world example posted earlier clearly fits in the hate crimes category. It is not the thoughts that accompanied the crime that is driving such legislation. It is the crime itself, how it was committed, the murderers' identities, and the victim's identity that is driving this.

You may think whatever you wish, but if one ever commited a crime against an innocent, unsuspecting human being in such a brutal, terrible, unsympathetic, and repulsive fasion as I described earlier, I would want to see his punishment set an example so overwhelming as to deter anyone else from acting in such a manner ever again.

Now, where did you say the thought-police are supposed to paracute in?

[giftedmadness@hotmail.com]

I will never let you see the simple logic behind my argument. You are using something based on emotion.

[giftedmadness@hotmail.com]

"It is the crime itself, how it was committed, the murderers' identities, and the victim's identity that is driving this."

Exactly. You say one thing at the begining of this sentence, then conclude at the end that just because one type of person did it to another different type of person, that somehow this is a worse crime. My point from the opening of the thread. If the same exact thing happened, except the roles were reversed, it would get less punishment. How is that logical?

[Johnny]

Gifted, you sicken me in the deepest ways possible.


Go get gay bashed and then tell me I don't need laws protecting me.
You missed the point. Would you prefer having advantages that non-gays don't have, or to be protected against discrimination?

I can't stop appreciating the regressive vision quoting offers on this forum. :D

I can't answer for the Big-D. But if I was in his shoes, it would be a no-brainer to take the advantages non-gays have. Hate Crime legislation, in the end, can only punish a person for acting in such a terrible manner. The chances of seeing hate-crimes against non-gays are smaller than for gays, but still, there's no shortage of innocent victims of murders that share the attributes of torture regardless of the profile. If such legislation to deter this doesn't protect the white heterosexual man in America yet (which I doubt), then I will still risk supporting it, seeing it enacted, and letting that particular gap get closed later.

I hope that hate crime legislation here does deter people from committing these atrocities, but it won't have any impact on hate or bigotry for anyone. The question you're asking can easily be translated into this new version, "Do gays want the advantages that non-gays have, or do they want to do without those advantages?"

There's no real protection from discrimination in our country that can stand up to the benefits non-gays enjoy here. Anything that you read describing a very small group of American heterosexual white men battling heroically against well-armed thought-police, staving off the onslaught of oppression by anyone not heterosexual and white is peposterous. :)

[CosmicDust]

Perhaps what Johnny is saying is that shooting your gay brother or your black boss in the same way as a normal pissed-off person would shoot their straight brother or white boss is not a hate crime. But if you kill your gay brother or your black boss and do it in a ritualized or out-of-the-ordinary way showing your contempt for the person's sociopolitical identity, then it's a hate crime.

At least, if they made the laws that way, they would make more sense. I agree that if you just have a normal dispute with someone of a different sociopolitical group and harm them as you would someone of your own sociopolitical groups, it shouldn't be classified as a hate crime.

[Vagabond]

OK... so we are talking about intentions...? How could you ever know if I shot my black boss because I hate black people and call it a hate crime, or because I thought he was an ass and would do the same if he was white as well...? Lol, sounds like mind reading, or rather arbitrary interpretation of one's intentions/thoughts...

[Utopmk]

I got in a fight with a black kid at school once, and he told the principal I called him a "n*gger." I did no such thing! I was suspended, he walked free.
Someone could pull the same shit in court.

[Star Cannon]

Hate crimes? Until mind reading is accurately developed... let us NOT ASSUME the thoughts of a criminal.

[flan2dave]

"they try to make it sweeter for black people by giving them some university advantages (I have heard something like that is going on over there...? Correct me if I am wrong, I am on the wrong side of the planet). "

It's called affirmative action, it was being used much more a decade or two ago, now it's reduced more to the university's own perogative. There was certainly a lot of disagreement over affirmative action for the reasons you state, it's only a band-aid type solution. Nowadays, they give the slight edge to minorities in admissions, at least California universities as far as I know.

I totally disagree with the idea that the reason why somebody does a crime is not important when deciding punishment. The only argument that author hinges on is that we can only know so much about somebody's motivation, thus we can not act out of fear an injustice might be caused. We can only know so much about anything for that matter. The point is not punishment however, it's to protect the innocent. If you are around somebody who hates you for no rational reason, wouldn't you be terrified? Wouldn't you want the community to do something about this person so he/she can't harm you? Nah, we'll refuse to protect you because our court systems are liable to foul up when somebody kills a homosexual, but not because they were homosexual.

edited - ah-ha, uptomk's story reminded me of one of my own. Somebody tried to beat me up in grade school. He was very short and weak, no harm done. But I still was punished the same as him because, certainly, the short person is the victim here!

[giftedmadness@hotmail.com]

Amen Vagabond.

[giftedmadness@hotmail.com]

"Nah, we'll refuse to protect you because our court systems are liable to foul up when somebody kills a homosexual, but not because they were homosexual."

Who is talking about refusing to protect someone? We will protect them from being killed, just like any other person gets protected!

[Division56]

Has this happened to you in real life where you were protected because of the laws?


If I had, you really would be the last person I would tell.

[giftedmadness@hotmail.com]

"If I had, you really would be the last person I would tell."

Do you think I have something against homosexuals?

[flan2dave]

Oh whatever then, I detest ping pong arguments. In that case, the author is only stating the obvious, it's wrong to punish those for motivations they did not have. Duh :rolleyes:

[Vagabond]

Has this happened to you in real life where you were protected because of the laws?


If I had, you really would be the last person I would tell.
OK, here's what the thing is... someone shoots you, and another one shoots me. We both have the same kind of injury and they both get arrested. They did the exact same thing; why should my offender have a lighter punishment than yours, unless the guy that shot you specifically declares he did it based on your sexual orientation...? If the guy that shot me was a homosexual that had a thing against heterosexuals, or a black person having a thing against white people, or a misogynist that is out to get even with women and says so himself, isn't that a hate crime as well? Guys, I really don't get it. If someone is out on a mission to eliminate a specific category of people, fry him... otherwise, how can you know he doesn't have a personal agenda on you, and not on your preferences/origins/sex etc...?

[giftedmadness@hotmail.com]

Vagabond and I are connected at the hip it seems. I think some here are being led by emotions and not logic.

[Utopmk]

Do we have any blacks on the board?

[Vagabond]

Do we have any blacks on the board?
Does it make any difference...?

[Utopmk]

Do we have any blacks on the board?
Does it make any difference...?

Not really, just curious. -_-

I just don't see it happening.

[CosmicDust]

Actually, maybe hate crime laws are a dumb idea after all, since someone could torture someone else (if the hate crime designation were reserved for "heinous crimes") and plead that they didn't do it because of the person's sociopolitical identity, or if obvious intent were the main issue then the police (or someone else) could torture the defendant into confessing to doing it because of the person's identity. If they're going to do hate crime laws, though, then severe degree and obvious intent - independent of what the police could badger out of someone - should be the requirements.

[Johnny]

Perhaps what Johnny is saying is that shooting your gay brother or your black boss in the same way as a normal pissed-off person would shoot their straight brother or white boss is not a hate crime. But if you kill your gay brother or your black boss and do it in a ritualized or out-of-the-ordinary way showing your contempt for the person's sociopolitical identity, then it's a hate crime.

At least, if they made the laws that way, they would make more sense. I agree that if you just have a normal dispute with someone of a different sociopolitical group and harm them as you would someone of your own sociopolitical groups, it shouldn't be classified as a hate crime.
:D :cheers: :D

Now, let us see what architecture truly exists for hate crime laws and compare. I'll choose my favorite state - Texas.
From http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/hcandlaw/us_stats/texas.html

IF AT THE GUILT OR INNOCENCE PHASE OF THE TRIAL, THE JUDGE OR THE JURY, WHICHEVER IS THE TRIER OF FACT, DETERMINES BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE DEFENDANT INTENTIONALLY SELECTED THE PERSON AGAINST WHOM THE OFFENSE WAS COMMITTED OR INTENTIONALLY SELECTED PROPERTY DAMAGED OR AFFECTED AS A RESULT OF THE OFFENSE BECAUSE OF THE DEFENDANT'S BIAS OR PREJUDICE AGAINST A GROUP IDENTIFIED BY RACE, COLOR, DISABILITY, RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN OR ANCESTRY, AGE, GENDER, OR SEXUAL PREFERENCE .
Seems at least in Texas the heterosexual white men have somehow altered the statute so that it can be used against anyone who acts in this manner against them also. Likely, similar language exists in your state of residency too G-mad. Stay off that stuff man, it makes you paranoid.

[Vagabond]

Gee, I thought he was talking in general terms, not specifically about Texas' legislation... theoretically, you know... :rolleyes:

Btw, I'd suggest you keep the personal offensive attacks low... generally, I mean...

[Johnny]

Please accept my sincere apologies for any inferred or direct personal attacks on my part. I do understand that there are people behind the posts, even in the rant forum. I am also human and occasionally allow my personal feelings impede my judgment.

Thanks Vagabond for the warning. I did feel I was risking moderator wrath by participating the way I have...

[Vagabond]

Thanks Vagabond for the warning. I did feel I was risking moderator wrath by participating the way I have...
I wouldn't put it this way. Like I said I meant it in general, plus it wasn't a moderator's warning, it was merely a suggestion from one member to others. I haven't been the kick-ass mod up to now and I find it quite unfair to me that you'd suggest anything of the kind - ironically or not.

[Utopmk]

This thread is hateful. I'm leaving.

[int]

If I go pig bashing with you, will you stay?

[Utopmk]

It was a half assed attempt at a joke.
But yes, I would love for you to join in my "pig bashing" in the spirit of hate crimes.

[Melody]

The problem is prejudice. This is not something that can be harvested off of people. Children in schools of diversity (such as any in California,) see first hand that people of different color, etc. are the same, so parents' homophobic exhortations are slowly losing their significance; but we still have a long way to go. Until then, I do not think condemning prejudice with weighted punishments is a bad thing.

Aristotle said something like "The law is reason, free from passion." However, I think laws have a base in emotion. Our laws cannot exist without us.

If I walk up to you on the street and punch you in the face, you are being hurt and I can be arrested. If we are competing in a boxing game and I punch you in the face, you are being hurt, but I cannot be arrested. Applying pure reasoning, this would be injustice because in one case I am arrested and in the other I am not. An argument would be that the boxing game is consented while the street punching is not. This is a good argument, but I think this shows that what the law does about my punching you in the face depends on what the two of us were thinking.

Essentially, I am saying Aristotle was being paradoxical with his quote. I have not read any of his works yet, but something tells me the mofo was aware of this. He recognized that it was a beautiful goal, but he knew it was impossible for us. Just conjecture.

I also do not think reason with some emotion is a bad thing. We are humans with feelings. If we forget this, I believe a lot more people would end up terribly bitter by comparison to today.

[Vagabond]

However emotional laws are bound to step over some people's emotions anyway....

[Johnny]

Thanks Vagabond for the warning. I did feel I was risking moderator wrath by participating the way I have...
I wouldn't put it this way. Like I said I meant it in general, plus it wasn't a moderator's warning, it was merely a suggestion from one member to others. I haven't been the kick-ass mod up to now and I find it quite unfair to me that you'd suggest anything of the kind - ironically or not.

It wasn't an attack of any sort on you. It was a freely offered confession. Plus, I'm not interested in seeing you put in a position to require any discussion thread be shut-down. :D

[Jezebel]

#1
A group of gay people get together and decide that they're sick of being oppressed. They feel anger toward the heterosexuals who limit their rights and make them feel like they are lesser human beings. One night while they are driving around they come across a man and a woman who are obviously a couple, and also just so happen to be white. They decide to get out and give them a hard time. The problem esculates and they end up tormenting the couple and beating them to death.

The couple had never met the group who killed them. They had no predjudice toward gay people, and were minding their own business. They were targetted because they belonged to a larger group that the homosexuals were angry at.

#2
A group of gay people are walking down the street one night. A white heterosexual couple comes up behind them and starts mocking them. The homosexuals ignore them and continue on their way. The couple begin throwing rocks at them and yelling threats. They say that they know where they live and they are part of a larger group and they will come after them. The homosexuals get scared. They finally turn on the couple and overpower them. The situation esculates and the couple are beaten to death.

#3
A group of gay people are walking down the street and are mugged at knife point by a white heterosexual couple. The couple take all of their valuables. One of the homosexuals resists and receives a severe but non-fatal stab wound. One of the other homosexuals in the group happens to have a gun. He gets scared and shoots the couple.

---

All three situations result in the white couple dying. Should the intent in each case be looked at or should all crimes be punished equally?

Should #1 still be considered a hate crime even though the white couple weren't the minority?

Should the homosexuals in #1 be punished more severly than the ones in #2, or #2 more severly than #3, even though all resulted in two people dying? (I'm not asking if the homosexuals did the right thing in any situation, but if their punishment should be less severe because of what they were thinking when they killed the couple)

If all three situations are reversed and it is a crime committed by heterosexuals against the homosexuals, should any of them differ in the punishment received?

---

Disclaimer
These questions aren't meant to prove a point for either side. I'm just curious where people stand.

[file cabinet]

.. for clarification.. what does beaten to death mean? like with lead pipes or what?

[Melody]

I liken to think that emotional laws (which I think all are) are designed with the intent of keeping the greatest number of people happy.

Jezebel:


IF AT THE GUILT OR INNOCENCE PHASE OF THE TRIAL, THE JUDGE OR THE JURY, WHICHEVER IS THE TRIER OF FACT, DETERMINES BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE DEFENDANT INTENTIONALLY SELECTED THE PERSON AGAINST WHOM THE OFFENSE WAS COMMITTED OR INTENTIONALLY SELECTED PROPERTY DAMAGED OR AFFECTED AS A RESULT OF THE OFFENSE BECAUSE OF THE DEFENDANT'S BIAS OR PREJUDICE AGAINST A GROUP IDENTIFIED BY RACE, COLOR, DISABILITY, RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN OR ANCESTRY, AGE, GENDER, OR SEXUAL PREFERENCE .

In court, those situations you listed would all be dealt with differently. #1 would be considered a hate crime. #2 depends. Were they being mocked because of their homosexuality? If it was obvious they were, it would be a hate crime. If not, the offenders would just get tried normally. #3 would not be a hate crime. They could probably get away with self-defense, too.

I.e., the governments don't blindly implement the concept of "hate crime." Or at least Texas doesn't seem to.

[CosmicDust]

How I'd classify them:
#1: hate crime
#2: manslaughter (or something like that)
#3: self-defense, possibly manslaughter, depending on how they handle it

[int]

It was a half assed attempt at a joke.
But yes, I would love for you to join in my "pig bashing" in the spirit of hate crimes.

I know. We're on the same page. :)

[INTrPosr]

Mother, mother, there's too many of you crying
Brother, brother, brother, there's far too many of you dying
You know we'ver got to find a way
To bring some lovin' here today, hey

Father, father, we don't need to escalate
War is not the answer, for only love can conquer hate
You know we've got to find a way
To bring some lovin' here today

Picket lines and picket signs
Don't punish me with brutality
Talk to me, so you can see
Oh what's going on, what's going on
Yeah, what's going on, ah, what's going on
Ahhh....

Mother, mother, everybody thinks we're wrong
Ah but who are they to judge us
Simply 'cos our hair is long
Ah you know we'ver got to find a way
To brind some understanding here today

Picket lines and picket signs
Don't punish me with brutality
Talk to me, so you can see
What's going on, yeah what's going on
Tell me what's going on, I'll tell you what's going on

The Late Marvin Gaye's "What's Going On: The Ecology Song

[Johnny]

Great song, there...with a great bassline... :sombrero:

[libertarianjim]

All three situations result in the white couple dying. Should the intent in each case be looked at or should all crimes be punished equally?

Intent is a very important element of any crime, but I would say that intent or motive should be weighed when determining whether charges should be brought (that is, whether charges should not be brought in a case of self-defense) and what level at which charges are brought (Murder one, murder two, manslaughter, etc). These levels are of course codified by law and mandate that motive be weighed. And of course, you have to convince the judge or jury of the accused's reason to commit said crime.

But after the conviction, once you reach the penalty phase, you have to punish the crime and the crime alone. While modifications can be made (within the sentencing guidelines allowed by law) for particularly brutal or heinous crimes, the identity of the victim should not make a difference.

[Claverhouse]

You're saying that it's okay because other injustices exist?

I feel no pain in ignoring the "injustices" you have listed. When you can show me damage hate crime laws have caused on the scale of an innocent man being chained by 3 white boys only several years ago to the back of a pickup truck bumper and dragged down the road until there weren't any body parts left to be held by said chain simply because he was black and easy prey, then I will gladly discuss your problems with hate crime laws with a more serious attitude.

Ho hum, Race really is very boring whether from the fascist inclined or the liberal angle. I agree with giftedmadness, a crime is to be strictly punished on it's own ( lack of ) merits, and hang the motivations, real or assumed.

I looked up the Texas killing above on Google and found some earnest right-wing sites pointing out the equally gruesome murders committed by blacks on whites, which are not categorised by the establishment as 'Hate Crimes' simply because the boot's on the other foot. Do I thus agree with them that these also are 'Hate Crimes' racially motivated ? If you accept the rationale of punishing for race hatred, maybe; but I would say it doesn't matter, all the scum who do hideous crimes should be executed if their guilt is clear. Attempting to read minds is an uncertain business at the best of times: just administer justice for the acts.

The point being that these cases are not publicised by an establishment which has it's own agenda, not necessarily in line with those it purports to protect. ( Were I a black American I would be strongly tempted to join Mr. Farrakhan's lot, were it not for those bow-ties they affect; and not join with the kindly liberal clintonistas who would keep power by guiding and protecting me ).


Well, there's been another dragging, this one just last week in Martin, South Dakota. Three Indians from a reservation there severely beat a White man, 21-year-old Brad Young, tied a rope around his neck and to the back of their truck, and dragged the White man until they thought he was dead. Then they cut the rope loose from their truck and drove off, leaving their unconscious and badly injured victim lying in a field, where he was later found. His ears had been torn off, and his face and neck were so badly lacerated that his family couldn't recognize him. The sheriff, noting the viciousness of the attack and that the victim was White and his attackers were Indians, told reporters that it was clearly a "hate crime."
The fascinating thing about this particular incident is that it is practically a mirror image of the dragging of a Black by three White men in Jasper, Texas, last year: three White men and a Black victim in the first case; three Indians and a White victim in the second case.

Another:

This other
murder happened just two months after the Jasper murder. Last August 1,
a 26-year-old Black ex-convict, Christopher Coleman, dragged a
46-year-old White woman, Patricia Stansfield, to her death near the
little Illinois town of Streator. The Black stole a car belonging to a
friend of Patricia Stansfield and dragged the White woman two miles
along Illinois State Road 18 from Streator into the countryside while
she screamed and pleaded for her life as her body bounced and scraped
along the pavement.

And other vile things.

In August 1999, white supremacist Buford Furrow gunned down several people at a Jewish Community Center in Los Angeles, and shot and killed a Filipino letter carrier. In the three days following the shooting, over 150 newspapers wrote nearly 200 articles about the slaughter.
On November 11, 1999, in Kansas City, an Ethiopian man shot and killed two co-workers and wounded a third person. All the victims were white. The Ethiopian shooter, who also shot and killed himself, left a letter referring to "bloodsucker" whites. To date, how many newspapers carried a story about this apparent race-based shooting? Eleven...


On that horrible October 18th in 1995, Richard Will and a friend had been pulled over in a black community so known for violence it was nicknamed Vietnam. The driver had a warrant out for his arrest, and it is believed the two were there to purchase drugs. The police arrested the driver and forced 31-year-old Richard to find his own ride home from Chicago Heights. I suppose the (racist?) police felt that was fitting punishment since they couldn't nail him on anything. That decision played a big part in Richard losing his life that night, but I doubt the Chicago police feel any remorse for their irresponsible actions.
Richard called a female friend and waited on the corner for his ride. He was then spotted by a group of racists, one of whom stated he would beat up the next "White guy" he saw. Richard, unarmed and standing alone on the street corner was the perfect target. The hate group quickly pounced on him in typical gang style. They beat him, knocked him down and kicked him as he struggled for his life. He cried out "No, not again." In response to his repeated pleas for mercy, one of the racists poured lighter fluid on him and set him ablaze. The racist McClain later said, "It looked like somebody had already beat him before. We just watched him burn.

Are these 'Black' crimes ? Are the converse 'White' crimes ? Does sympathy only go one way ? Na, they're crimes. There's no reason to think one group of humans more culpable because of their colour. The trouble is not that are members of a racial group, but that they are humans.


And yes, we do have black people here. Not myself included, but I can read and remember, and one excellent member has mentioned it in his own case.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Johnny]

Are these 'Black' crimes ? Are the converse 'White' crimes ? Does sympathy only go one way ? Na, they're crimes. There's no reason to think one group of humans more culpable because of their colour. The trouble is not that are members of a racial group, but that they are humans.

And yes, we do have black people here. Not myself included, but I can read and remember, and one excellent member has mentioned it in his own case.

Firstly, I do appreciate your work here Claverhouse, but to me your offerings only reinforce the need for hate crime laws in our States.

It is completely ridiculous for you to imagine that your boredom is reason to revoke a law designed to discourage people from inflicting the additional suffering that hate can inspire. :sombrero:

*edit: Though my position on this matter is inflexible, I do however agree with you regarding the Farrakhan bowtie image...:lol:

[Salad]

hey, did anyone see that southpark episode where cartman punched token and then he got sent to jail for a hate crime but stan and kyle needed him to be a fat-ass on their sled so that they could beat the girls in a race so they went to the mayor and did a presentation on how much hate crime prosecution sucks and the mayor said it made the most sense out of any presentation she had seen so she pardoned cartman and they won their race because cartman threw romperstomper's clogs at the girls sled so that the girls would spin out of control and off the clif???????????

oh yeah, cartman also hid cigarettes and disneyland up his ass in that episode. what a great episode

[giftedmadness@hotmail.com]

Claverhouse, you are truly wise. ;-p