Would you call this a hate crime?

I agree that it's just an ol' fashioned crime. I just think it's interesting how perception changes depending on audience.

I feel real bad for the guy. And I feel sorry for humanity.
 
To me, a hate crime is targeting someone because of their race/religion/sexual preference and committed a crime against them because of that fact. I fully believe these idiots would've beaten up and stolen from whoever was there that was a stranger and looked fairly defenseless.
 
[quote name='Chase']If not, why? Had the race roles been reversed, this would have been already championed by pretentious celebrities and spread across news outlets.

Warning: Somewhat graphic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwoEh-ZwlCI[/QUOTE]


Here's the deal: Black people have had it pretty bad in the US and still do considering the Civil Rights Act was less than 50 years ago. Now I don't know if you read the entirety other thread, and I assume you haven't, but those kids found in your video will be relentlessly pursued and prosecuted.

Contrast this with how Zimmerman case was handled by the Sanford Police. It took public uproar and national attention before they got serious about even considering charging him with anything.

If your argument is about reverse racism, black people are racist too, no one talks about black on white crime, etc, remember these little facts:
- If a black or white person kills a white person, they're sentenced to death at twice the rate if the victim was black.

- Black communities are subject to disproportionate police attention relative to their populations,

- Black defendants are sentenced far more severely than white defendants for the same crimes.

How is this relevant, you might ask? Well, the reason why you don't hear about black people beating up white people is because they hardly ever get off the hook, whereas you can't say the same for white people. Are both capable of racially motivated crime? Absolutely. But it's not that simple because prejudice is a very complex thing that isn't always equal.

edit: The kids that did this should be punished, no doubt.

edit2: toned it down a bit.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sir, you make good points. Like, for instance, where you say all ethnicities can commit crimes and that prejudice can be analyized and broken down into various reasons. I wish I had more to add but I'm about to head off to bed.

I read on Reddit that the shithead who beat up the tourist is bragging about it on Facebook. All of his personal info has been leaked, and his voicemail message is him bragging about the video. Oh, and all of his info has made its way to white supremecist forums. Seems like things are about to get ugly.
 
I forgot to mention that while black people may commit hate crimes out of proportion to their population as a pecentage of all hate crimes commited, white people still commit 3-4 times as many. Going from memory, biI think the number was 1800 and 5000 last year. Big numbers either way, but scale is pretty warped and it does not mean that black people are in the midst of starting a race war as some would argue.
 
I believe someone has already called you out on the misleading aspects of those statistics dohdough, you chose not to respond to them at the time but here they go again huh?

And secondly, relentlessly pursued and prosecuted because they are black? Gimme a god damn break man.
 
[quote name='Knoell']I believe someone has already called you out on the misleading aspects of those statistics dohdough, you chose not to respond to them at the time but here they go again huh?[/QUOTE]

Are you talking about this:
[quote name='dohdough']So what's your fucking point then? Especially when black people are getting punished harsher than whites in the justice system? So what if black people commit racially biased crimes out of proportion to their numbers when whites still commit numerically more racially biased crimes? Like more than 3x as many. According to your own source, whites commited 4092 hate crimes while black people commited 1254. You're a fucking joke.[/QUOTE]

So tell me. Misleading how? You want to use the response of a racist asshole like Spokker about how black people are prone to more criminality in scope and scale because of black culture? Or how Spokker ditched the thread after my following post?

Proof of which is right here on the first two posts of this page:
http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=317558&page=5

So who's lying now?

And secondly, relentlessly pursued and prosecuted because they are black? Gimme a god damn break man.
Click to expand...
Did I NOT put it in context in the next sentence or do you just like playing the dumb troll.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Are you talking about this:


So tell me. Misleading how? You want to use the response of a racist asshole like Spokker about how black people are prone to more criminality in scope and scale because of black culture? Or how Spokker ditched the thread after my following post?

Proof of which is right here on the first two posts of this page:
http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=317558&page=5

So who's lying now?


Did I NOT put it in context in the next sentence or do you just like playing the dumb troll.[/QUOTE]

Nope, the study in which it points out that sentances are based on much more than the criminal act itself. Certain details in each case gives judges a degree of which the crime was committed.

So in short you cannot simply use the base numbers as indicators of racial prejudice. If you can then I submit (and have in the past) the disproportionate ratio of black to white criminals. But of course we would look past the base numbers for that right?
 
[quote name='Knoell']Nope, the study in which it points out that sentances are based on much more than the criminal act itself. Certain details in each case gives judges a degree of which the crime was committed.

So in short you cannot simply use the base numbers as indicators of racial prejudice. If you can then I submit (and have in the past) the disproportionate ratio of black to white criminals. But of course we would look past the base numbers for that right?[/QUOTE]

You mean this part of my post?

[quote name='dohdough']Are you talking about this:


So tell me. Misleading how? You want to use the response of a racist asshole like Spokker about how black people are prone to more criminality in scope and scale because of black culture? Or how Spokker ditched the thread after my following post?

Proof of which is right here on the first two posts of this page:
http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=317558&page=5

So who's lying now?


Did I NOT put it in context in the next sentence or do you just like playing the dumb troll.[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dohdough']You mean this part of my post?[/QUOTE]

Whoa, wait a second, I thought I had made a mistake and I guess it could be taken as one. I wrote off your responses as avoiding the topic. "I bet you didn't even read the study" is not an acceptable answer.

You then completely write off the sentancing aspect of it and say the disproportions are not explainable elsewhere, I assume you mean by arrests, charges, etc. Then you go on to put statistics up here in this thread saying that there are disproportions in sentancing.....

But do go on oh racism expert.....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
To have a hate crime charge the prosecution has to prove that the sole motive for the attack was hatred of the victim's racial group (or sexual orientation) and that it was an act designed to intimidate that section of the population.

Obviously, laws vary greatly from state to state but that's the generally way they are used in practice in most states from what I've seen. They get applied to very heinous crimes where someone was clearly and directly targeted for their race/ethnicity or sexual preference etc. as those acts are viewed as worse than a random act of violence as they're basically trying to terrorize a whole social group rather than just randomly attacking someone.

Point being, it comes down to the motive of the act, not just the race of the perpetrator and victim, heinousness of the act etc.


As for victim-offender race and the death penalty, the best study on that to date was done in Maryland by Raymond Paternoster and colleagues--think it was published in 2003. It looked at all the decisions involved in applying the death penalty in MD--from the prosecutor deciding to file for it at the start, to the points where they decide to continue seeking it, up to the decision to apply it by the jury.

They find strong bias in race of victim in the first step--the decision of the prosecutor to seek the death penalty at the outset. Cases with white victims were much more likely to have death pursued regardless of the race of the offender. And that is the most important step in the process as it starts the whole process--so it means cases with minority victims are much less often having death sought than cases with white victims.

But in any case, dohdough is 100% right. Cases with white victims get the death penalty much more often than cases with minority victims. Studies that report not finding that, tend to be studies that only look at the last step of the process--the jury or judge deciding to impose the death penalty during the penalty phase after conviction. The bias tends to come in the early steps with the prosecutor being more likely to file death eligible charges and to file to do a death eligible trial when the victim is right. There's less bias in the final steps of the process, but it still adds up to people getting death for killing whites much more often than for killing minorities.
 
Black people are more prone to commit crime due to them being poverty prone. There is a direct correlation between poverty and crime. That said, they didn't attack the dude because he was white. They attacked him because he was harmless. I've been there.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Whoa, wait a second, I thought I had made a mistake and I guess it could be taken as one. I wrote off your responses as avoiding the topic. "I bet you didn't even read the study" is not an acceptable answer.[/quote]
Citing a source without reading it or understanding it isn't an answer either. Not to mention that he has a long running pattern of posting shit he never read or understands.

You then completely write off the sentancing aspect of it and say the disproportions are not explainable elsewhere, I assume you mean by arrests, charges, etc.
Click to expand...
You need to re-read my post instead of pretending I did or didn't say anything. It's only the second post on that link. You couldn't ass yourself to be honest or something?

Or maybe I also addressed it on this post:
http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9465750&postcount=56

Then you go on to put statistics up here in this thread saying that there are disproportions in sentancing.....
Click to expand...
Yeah...just like in the posts I linked.

But do go on oh racism expert.....
Click to expand...
The least you could've done was to try not and shit up a vs. noob's first thread right away. Even I toned down my shit.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']To have a hate crime charge the prosecution has to prove that the sole motive for the attack was hatred of the victim's racial group (or sexual orientation) and that it was an act designed to intimidate that section of the population.

Obviously, laws vary greatly from state to state but that's the generally way they are used in practice in most states from what I've seen. They get applied to very heinous crimes where someone was clearly and directly targeted for their race/ethnicity or sexual preference etc. as those acts are viewed as worse than a random act of violence as they're basically trying to terrorize a whole social group rather than just randomly attacking someone.

Point being, it comes down to the motive of the act, not just the race of the perpetrator and victim, heinousness of the act etc.


As for victim-offender race and the death penalty, the best study on that to date was done in Maryland by Raymond Paternoster and colleagues--think it was published in 2003. It looked at all the decisions involved in applying the death penalty in MD--from the prosecutor deciding to file for it at the start, to the points where they decide to continue seeking it, up to the decision to apply it by the jury.

They find strong bias in race of victim in the first step--the decision of the prosecutor to seek the death penalty at the outset. Cases with white victims were much more likely to have death pursued regardless of the race of the offender. And that is the most important step in the process as it starts the whole process--so it means cases with minority victims are much less often having death sought than cases with white victims.

But in any case, dohdough is 100% right. Cases with white victims get the death penalty much more often than cases with minority victims. Studies that report not finding that, tend to be studies that only look at the last step of the process--the jury or judge deciding to impose the death penalty during the penalty phase after conviction. The bias tends to come in the early steps with the prosecutor being more likely to file death eligible charges and to file to do a death eligible trial when the victim is right. There's less bias in the final steps of the process, but it still adds up to people getting death for killing whites much more often than for killing minorities.[/QUOTE]

Again, you are taking base numbers and using them because they suit your ideals.

More Blacks getting the death penalty is racismn and injustice.

More Blacks committing crimes is just a statistic that shows how the white man is still keeping them down.
 
Yikes...that video was really hard to watch, regardless of the colors of people involved. I think the part that makes me the sickest is how people are cheering and celebrating the fact that they could have killed a completely innocent man. Then to see them steal his stuff, and strip him down? WTF? I mean seriously, nobody in that whole mob had the balls to even suggest they stop? Looks like battery and sexual assualt. I don't care what the stats say about who is prosecuted at what rate. Anyone involved in this one should be locked up for a long time. You sock somebody that is obviously incapacitated like that, and they smack their head on the ground that hard, you can kill a person. Really, really shameful embarassment of human beings.

If the white guy was mouthing off, or even in his confused, drunken state (his choice to get that sloppy drunk) if he started flailing his arms around to hit people, then you could make some case for him getting laid out, but this was on par was beating the shit out of a child. There are some really sick people in this world. Where do you even start in the hopes to "rehabilitate" people that act like this?

Edit: and as DarthMaul and others have said, I don't think this is a hate crime, just a disgusting crime.
 
[quote name='berzirk']Yikes...that video was really hard to watch, regardless of the colors of people involved. I think the part that makes me the sickest is how people are cheering and celebrating the fact that they could have killed a completely innocent man. Then to see them steal his stuff, and strip him down? WTF? I mean seriously, nobody in that whole mob had the balls to even suggest they stop? Looks like battery and sexual assualt. I don't care what the stats say about who is prosecuted at what rate. Anyone involved in this one should be locked up for a long time. You sock somebody that is obviously incapacitated like that, and they smack their head on the ground that hard, you can kill a person. Really, really shameful embarassment of human beings.[/quote]
Yeah, I don't know how anyone can say that the guy deserved what he got. But like the stats say, those kids will have the book thrown at them...and HARD. I'm fairly comfortable with saying that the justice system will more more than willing to press charges.

If the white guy was mouthing off, or even in his confused, drunken state (his choice to get that sloppy drunk) if he started flailing his arms around to hit people, then you could make some case for him getting laid out, but this was on par was beating the shit out of a child. There are some really sick people in this world. Where do you even start in the hopes to "rehabilitate" people that act like this?
Click to expand...
I think most people can be rehabilitated. The problem lies in fixing what caused them to behave that way in the first place or else these events will play out over and over again.

Edit: and as DarthMaul and others have said, I don't think this is a hate crime, just a disgusting crime.
Click to expand...
I somewhat agree. I don't think the catalyst for the attack has anything to do with him being white, but it's possible that the attack became more vicious because of it, which makes the problem much bigger than those involved.
 
dmaul's point is that it's difficult to prove, legally, that the motive behind the crimes were because he was a white male. someone tried to reach into the man's pockets, and he responded by trying to defend himself (clearly very intoxicated). then the assault/robbery began.

a white person who kills another black person is not guilty of a hate crime if the only evidence you have is that they white person has a copy of "the turner diaries" in their car. you need direct evidence of victim selection.

for instance, a group of people who yell out "hey, $$$$$$!" at someone who appears to be gay (imagine your favorite archaic stereotype), chase him down and attack him - that would be evidence of a hate crime.

again, legally speaking. is this a hate crime? dunno. we have pretty stringent standards for applying hate crimes, legally speaking - so as long as a person doesn't do something that indicates their bias in the process of committing the crime (e.g., spraypainting "MUSLIMS GO HOME" on a Muslim-owned business they set on fire), you won't successfully convict for a hate crime. With that in mind, then, there are far more genuine hate crimes that do go unpunished than those that do (all by virtue of the threshold for legal application).

So, with that in mind, we need to realize that we can prove if a crime *is* a hate crime, but we do not know those that are genuinely not - due to the legal standard.
 
This is the thing that gets me about "hate crimes"... does it matter?

If these guys saw a defenseless looking white guy walking down the street and wanted to do this to him because he was white, would that make their actions worse than doing it because they wanted his wallet?

Charge 'em with the crimes committed and let the psychologists worry about why.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']This is the thing that gets me about "hate crimes"... does it matter?

If these guys saw a defenseless looking white guy walking down the street and wanted to do this to him because he was white, would that make their actions worse than doing it because they wanted his wallet?

Charge 'em with the crimes committed and let the psychologists worry about why.[/QUOTE]
Is there a difference between 1st degree murder and involuntary manslaughter? Of course intent matters.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']

If these guys saw a defenseless looking white guy walking down the street and wanted to do this to him because he was white, would that make their actions worse than doing it because they wanted his wallet?
[/QUOTE]

Yes. Beating up a guy because you wanted to steal from him is, while horrible, is ultimately an act of greed with some tangible reward. Beating up a guy because of his skin color/religion/sexual orientation is an act of sheer malice stemming from prejudice and asserting your sense of superiority over the individual.
 
[quote name='Purple Flames']Yes. Beating up a guy because you wanted to steal from him is, while horrible, is ultimately an act of greed with some tangible reward. Beating up a guy because of his skin color/religion/sexual orientation is an act of sheer malice stemming from prejudice and asserting your sense of superiority over the individual.[/QUOTE]

Running under the assumption that the attacks are equally severe, however, the end result is the guy getting robbed actually has more harm inflicted upon him than the guy getting beat up because he's X.

I'm not saying the "why" doesn't matter - of course it does. If I shoot someone for keying my car vs. shooting someone for holding a knife to my wife's throat, obviously the "why" is very important.

But it's a very tricky area. How do you tell someone who got the crap beat out of them that their attack was less important because the attackers wanted their wallet vs. the attackers didn't like the way they look?
 
I always wondered, if in a situation like this, which doesn't appear to be a hate crime, if after the victim recovered he sought out the attackers and killed them and after doing so told the police:

"I hate them.. they all deserved to die"

would it be considered a hate crime (I know it is still murder) assuming like in this situation the original victim was white and his original attackers (second victims) were black.

The answer is no right?
 
a defense attorney would be able to easily wipe "they all deserved to die" of any cognizable group application. "they all" = the attackers, not the group they are identified as.
 
[quote name='Purple Flames']Yes. Beating up a guy because you wanted to steal from him is, while horrible, is ultimately an act of greed with some tangible reward. Beating up a guy because of his skin color/religion/sexual orientation is an act of sheer malice stemming from prejudice and asserting your sense of superiority over the individual.[/QUOTE]

And also because of the effect on the group in general, the message being sent. It's not just to brutalize the immediate victim, but to intimidate others as well.
 
[quote name='ElwoodCuse']And also because of the effect on the group in general, the message being sent. It's not just to brutalize the immediate victim, but to intimidate others as well.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. That is the rationale behind hate crime laws. The act is worse than a random crime as it's designed to intimidate a whole group of people.
 
And a random mugging doesn't intimidate a large group of people?

There was a time where you didn't enter Central Park at night for a reason - and that reason wasn't for fear of hate crimes.
 
Difference is the motive of a hate crime is to create fear among a certain segment of the population. It's basically an act of terrorism.

Very different from general fear of crime being heightened after a string of robberies or burglaries as those criminals had no motive of intimidation. They were just robbing people and burglarizing places to generate income. Heightened fear was just a side effect, not something they set out to generate.
 
I do understand what you're saying, but look at it this way -

On one hand, you have someone(s) causing physical harm on someone, *maybe* causing monetary loss to them and intentionally "terrorizing" a smaller group of people within a location.

On the other hand, you have someone(s) causing physical harm on someone, causing them monetary damages and unintentionally "terrorizing" *everyone* within a location.

Aside from the extent of the physical harm (which, of course, the punishment should be reflective of - but I assume is probably typically worse during an attack motivated by hate vs. an attack motivated by greed), the second case causes far more damages.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Running under the assumption that the attacks are equally severe, however, the end result is the guy getting robbed actually has more harm inflicted upon him than the guy getting beat up because he's X.

I'm not saying the "why" doesn't matter - of course it does. If I shoot someone for keying my car vs. shooting someone for holding a knife to my wife's throat, obviously the "why" is very important.

But it's a very tricky area. How do you tell someone who got the crap beat out of them that their attack was less important because the attackers wanted their wallet vs. the attackers didn't like the way they look?[/QUOTE]

Isn't it that our representatives/judiciary/society have determined that these laws are in play to deter such acts to end violence against minority groups? This legislation came about because of the heinous murders of James Byrd and Matthew Shepard.

Here are the wikis to jog some memories here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Byrd,_Jr.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathew_Shepard
 
I think most experts and "experts" in the study of criminal justice and such would agree that laws don't do a lot to deter violent crimes, as those who commit violent crimes typically aren't rational or in a rational state of mind.

I think we have a few experts/"experts" around here that might be willing to expand on that further.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top