Hate crime? No..?

bluenatas09

bluenatas09

CAGiversary!
So I walk outside of my suburban home at around 5 o'clock this afternoon only to find "I hate $$$$$$s" spraypainted in black across both sides of my already-not-to-spectactular 89' Honda Civic.

I was speechless.

Why? Well besides the absurdity of the statement, the fact it had to of been done in broad daylight, and the obvious give away that I'm a 19 year old white male who not only lives with a black roommate but enjoys the company of whoever regardless of their skin.....it's just something that doesn't happen over in this area much.

I called the cops just to report it but theres nothing really that can be done. I only have liability and I don't have a couple of hundred dollars to hit it up with a new paintjob..so I did my best to cover the message with grayish spray paint.

-sigh-

When the cop came he made the joke, "I guess it's not REALLY a hate crime though...right?"
 
We'll you are in Louisiana ( south of the mason dixon line ), and your avatar has people in white hoods so...

Seriously though that really sucks. It's ridiculous how some people are still living in the past. I mean it's not like a "killing somebody" hate crime, but someone doesn't seem to like black people. *shakes head*
 
That does suck. I don't think it's the cop's place to make jokes like that. It's "not a hate crime" because you're white? It'd be a hate crime if it was spray painted on the side of a building and it's a hate crime that it was spray painted on the side of a car, regardless of the race of whoever owns it.

It's sad that after all these years there are some people who still feel this way. It will probably never fully go away but integration has gone a long way but there are still people alive who remember times before this country was desegregated and those people may pass that down to their children and them to theirs and so on. I'm sorry about your car.
 
Hate crimes are delineated as such based upon how intent and motive can be interpreted. Given what was sprayed on your car, intent is crystal fucking clear, and should be pressed as a hate crime if anyone is caught.

myke.
...how is it not a hate crime is what I would like to ask?
 
Ok, now I get the story. I thought they actually put cash signs on the car, which made me wonder why you thought it was a hate crime.
 
Sounds more like he was trying to lighten the mood.
His piss poor attempt at cheering you up might have been taken the wrong way :p
Always look at the bright side of things and assume people don't mean the worst, it makes your day less stressfull.

Hope you find the guys who did it and hope everything works out in the end for you.
 
[quote name='Noodle Pirate!']Sounds more like he was trying to lighten the mood.
His piss poor attempt at cheering you up might have been taken the wrong way :p
Always look at the bright side of things and assume people don't mean the worst, it makes your day less stressfull.

Hope you find the guys who did it and hope everything works out in the end for you.[/QUOTE]

If it was a test, the cop gets an F for tact. Sure, lightening the mood is fine but the joke was simply in poor taste. He didn't have to emphasize the fact that his car got vandalized w/ racist profanity. The cop could've said, "well, you'll always have your health" or some other dumb joke like that but what he said is like meeting God at the pearly gates and saying, "I brutally killed and mutaliated a buncha people for no reason... but I ate right!" That's a very bad joke.
 
[quote name='whiteboy']thats the south for ya. We're so liberal in the Bay Area...it kind of makes me sick.[/QUOTE]

screw you, the south is awesome
 
I didn't say the south was bad, things like that just happen more there than pretty much any part of america.
 
well...the whole incident just got a slight bit more confusing...

a neighbor (who happens to be famliy friend) spotted a couple of black guys outside my house who were sitting on my trunk....she thought they were friends of mine just waiting around.

Wow. I just don't know what to think about the whole situation.
 
[quote name='bluenatas09']well...the whole incident just got a slight bit more confusing...

a neighbor (who happens to be famliy friend) spotted a couple of black guys outside my house who were sitting on my trunk....she thought they were friends of mine just waiting around.

Wow. I just don't know what to think about the whole situation.[/QUOTE]

Maybe they thought it would be a funny joke? Are they possibly your or your room mates friends.
 
nah, none of my friends would do that. And it was actually at my families house in Slidell..far from where me and my roommate stay.

It's a mystery to me.
 
its kinda obvious...

black guys spray paint "i hate N*****s" on a white guys car.

white guy drives car around.

black people see the car and get angry.

white kid gets beat up.


apparently some black kids thought it would be funny because you'd get beat up more than likely by somebody else who was offended by it.... plus they'd be vandalizing a vehicle at the same time so it'd be twice the fun i guess..
 
That happened to me one time. It was a bit more cryptic though. They shoe-polished "P***y-flavored air conditioning" on my car. ? ? ? Still don't know who did it or why.
 
Sounds like some punk kid stuff to me. Maybe some kids you yelled at or they never liked you did it out of spite. On the other had it seems when bored the teenager needs no motive. I had my trucks sideview mirror busted out, why cause I parked it in the street one night.
 
That's ridiculous of those kids to do that (if they really did it). Like how regardless of the color of the person that owns the car, it's still a hate crime. Regardless of the color of the person who spray painted that on the car ... it's still a hate crime.
 
That's pretty shitty. Last summer, while my mom was on her honeymoon, some guys vandalized her car, and wrote "Be Happy Bitch" on the front hood, and drew a bunch of penises all over it.

Not exactly a "hate crime" because there was no racial intent, but you know. It turned out it was intended for my sister, who had some words with the wrong people ... but my mother was very upset at first when she got back from Venice because she thought it was directed at her.

As for the cop, what can I say? They're not very helpful in this situation. My car's driver's side mirror was torn off one time (obviously a hit and run) and the cop who made the report grilled me over it, demanding I tell him the exact time and date I last used my car and why, as if I took notes (I hadn't used it in nearly a week). He told me I wasn't a very logical person because I didn't write down a log of when I used my car. Wtf.
 
I intensely dislike the term "Hate Crime"

Why should what I'm thinking when I take a particular action change the severity of the punishment?

You should always be punished for what you do, not what you think.
 
Hmmm vandals randomly kicked a dent in the side of my car, my sisters car, and someone keyed my moms car. All non related events too...I hate vandals.........
 
[quote name='fanskad']I intensely dislike the term "Hate Crime"

Why should what I'm thinking when I take a particular action change the severity of the punishment?

You should always be punished for what you do, not what you think.[/QUOTE]

The idea behind hate crime legislation is based upon the premise that such criminal activity *would not have occured* if such intent did not exist.

On a parallel, terrorism is considered upon its need to instill terror (a flimsy oversimplification, to be sure); a bomb threat may not 'harm' anyone, but it certainly is treated more harshly than the typical "do you have Prince Albert in a can" kind of prank calls.

Life is pretty fucking complex, and it's inappropriate to think that standardizing punishment for activity is of any boon to society at large.

myke.
...regardless, policymakers (presumably) endorse charges based upon criminal intent; it's a shame that we no longer care about what they did when it comes to corrections.
 
[quote name='the_gloaming']That's pretty shitty. Last summer, while my mom was on her honeymoon, some guys vandalized her car, and wrote "Be Happy Bitch" on the front hood, and drew a bunch of penises all over it.

Not exactly a "hate crime" because there was no racial intent, but you know. It turned out it was intended for my sister, who had some words with the wrong people ... but my mother was very upset at first when she got back from Venice because she thought it was directed at her.

As for the cop, what can I say? They're not very helpful in this situation. My car's driver's side mirror was torn off one time (obviously a hit and run) and the cop who made the report grilled me over it, demanding I tell him the exact time and date I last used my car and why, as if I took notes (I hadn't used it in nearly a week). He told me I wasn't a very logical person because I didn't write down a log of when I used my car. Wtf.[/QUOTE]

LMAO, I'm sorry. I'm sure that must have really sucked at the time but come on, someone drew penises on the car! You have to admit to see a bunch of wangs drawn on the car, thats just hilarious. Eh, maybe you'll laugh about it someday...
 
[quote name='mykevermin']The idea behind hate crime legislation is based upon the premise that such criminal activity *would not have occured* if such intent did not exist.[/Quote]

Of course, no crime would ever be committed if there wasn't some form of intent. Even manslaughter requres "reckless disregard" or, assumed intent.

[quote name='mykevermin']On a parallel, terrorism is considered upon its need to instill terror (a flimsy oversimplification, to be sure); a bomb threat may not 'harm' anyone, but it certainly is treated more harshly than the typical "do you have Prince Albert in a can" kind of prank calls.[/Quote]

The crime is not intending to start a panic, it is assualt. Assualt is a threat, IE a statement that "I am going to kill you".

A better analogy would be, I shot person X because he was eating butter pecan ice cream. I despise anyone who eats butter pecan ice cream. I shoot person Y because he's got $2000 in his pocket. The outcome is the same, two people are dead. Why is what I was thinking at the time important?

[quote name='mykevermin']Life is pretty fucking complex, and it's inappropriate to think that standardizing punishment for activity is of any boon to society at large.[/Quote]

Why? Why is it any more heinous that I kill someone because they are Jewish, Black, Gay, or whatever, than I kill someone because I want what is in their pockets?

[quote name='mykevermin']myke.
...regardless, policymakers (presumably) endorse charges based upon criminal intent; it's a shame that we no longer care about what they did when it comes to corrections.[/QUOTE]

I fail to understand what you're trying to say here.


Post Script.
Everyone remembers Matthew Sheppard, the gay man dragged to death by a truck. There was round the clock news coverage, and a made-for-TV movie. Celebrity outrage, etc.

Even I fail to remember the name of the little boy in Georgia about two months after Matthew Sheppard. This little boy, seven or eight I believe, was kidnapped by two gay men. Raped repeatedly, and died of abuse and neglect after 5 days of rape and starvation.

Two men take actions that result in the death of another human being. But the men who dragged Matthew Sheppard to his death were sentenced much more severely. How is their crime worse?
 
[quote name='fanskad']Of course, no crime would ever be committed if there wasn't some form of intent. Even manslaughter requres "reckless disregard" or, assumed intent.[/quote]

Okay, I'm with you so far.

[quote name='fanskad']The crime is not intending to start a panic, it is assualt. Assualt is a threat, IE a statement that "I am going to kill you".[/quote]

This is in reference to the "prank call" versus "bomb threat" comparison; I'm not sure what you're saying here.

[quote name='fanskad']A better analogy would be, I shot person X because he was eating butter pecan ice cream. I despise anyone who eats butter pecan ice cream. I shoot person Y because he's got $2000 in his pocket. The outcome is the same, two people are dead. Why is what I was thinking at the time important?[/quote]

People can choose to eat butter pecan ice cream; people can choose to eat it in their own home. Other characteristics, such as race, simply cannot be hidden (i.e., they are 'immutable' characteristics). Sexuality can be argued either way (in terms of visibility); on the other hand, it is argued to be also immutable (though many disagree with that sentiment). I don't want to conjure up rational choice here, but the difference in intent is clear - what you stand to gain by murdering the second person ($2000) versus the first (not $2000).

I also wouldn't place intent in the time frame of occurring within the moment of criminal activity; I expect very few people have an epiphany that reveals some group they hate, which spontaneously compels them to murder. Criminal intent that is labeled as a "hate crime," by necessity, involves a lenghty process of identifying salient characteristics of the focused group, rationales developed as to why they are subordinate, and how to reduce their influence in your lives. Certainly, many other crimes involve much planning, but few involve risking so much (in terms of court and prison sanctions) for so little gain (one less butter pecan eater).

[quote name='fanskad']Why? Why is it any more heinous that I kill someone because they are Jewish, Black, Gay, or whatever, than I kill someone because I want what is in their pockets?[/quote]

The immutable thing again.

[quote name='fanskad']I fail to understand what you're trying to say here.[/quote]

I research in corrections, and the type of mentality you favor exists within prisons (regarding equality of sanctions). The short answer: Sentence lengths have become so long and cumbersome that the difference between 15 years and 20 years is a moot point for convicts. Those who hate been convicted of hate crimes serve slightly longer sentences than those who were convicted of similar crimes, but without the "hate" label, clearly. However, due to the constant pressure of politicians and policymakers to "get tough on crime," out prison system has created a "revolving door policy" for itself. The short story is that, because it's politically viable to *increase* sentences (show me a politician not named Kucinich who thinks we should *reduce* sentence lengths), people are spending longer in prison; in addition, prison overcrowding is a corollary of that (and the war on drugs). We have a population that spends so long in prison that all they know upon release is "prison." (if interested, do some research on the "prisonization effect"). Upon release, they continue to 'serve time,' as they cannot find a job or a place to live (labeled as a 'felon' on applications). The pressure to reenter the world of crime is enormous, due to the constraints that our society places on people in and out of prison. Long story short (too late), if our policymakers gave a flying fuck about how prisoners were treated (*rehabilitated*) while incarcerated, the problem would be greatly reduced (but *never* eliminated).

I'm in favor of greatly reducing sentence lengths and implementing rehabilitation for prisoners, to reduce the "revolving door" issue; this includes "hate crimes," though I remain convinced that they should still serve longer (or receive highly specific rehabilitation programs) than others of comparable crimes. Reducing sentence length is most certainly *not* a popular position, but it makes perfect sense for people who have a grasp of how poorly deterrence theories of corrections have worked.

myke.
...focusing on individual-level rehabilitation makes the need for an understanding of intent to be even greater, and the emphasis placed there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top