Ohio anti-white "hate crime"

But if you are a believer in hate crimes as a legitimate concept, then let's hear you call for the hate-crimes hammer to come down hard on this black mob in Ohio.

Okay - if Ohio has enacted hate crime legislation, I call upon the prosecutors to bring all those powers to bear on this crime.

So let it be written - so let it be done.

Well, Rod, you'll have to come up with more investigative product than surfing the net. Was Mr Marshall in a black neighborhood? What are the local laws regarding crimes of hate or intimidation? What's the crime rate attributed to black gangs in Akron? On the surface, I'd say if Akron whites are feeling intimidated by this, then it qualifies as a crime of intimidation.

But if you're fishing for people to suggest this wasn't racially motivated, I'm not biting. Is every racial crime a hate crime?

This kind of thing is a subject everyone knows about, but one that no one seems to know what to do about, given the constraints of our culture. Given this cultural/political institutional inability, the best advice is simply do all you can to avoid groups of such people.

How sweet it is to be living in Obama's post-racial America!

It's easy enough to label this as a hate-crime in a blog comment; but will TPTB in Ohio do so? Absent an overwhelming public outcry, I doubt it. This is the danger of these so-called "hate crime" laws, their use is a political decision, not a legal one, they will simply lead to more politicized prosecutions. All laws have this problem to a certain extent, of course, but hate crime laws seem almost to be custom tailored for this use.

Something that Sigiliris got into yesterday...

If you don't believe in hate crime laws, then you can't believe in terrorism laws either. 9/11 wasn't terrorism...it was just property destruction and 3,000 cases of murder. No such thing as genocide either, under that understanding.

This kind of tortured reasoning to avoid even the appearance of understanding that some groups are disadvantaged or subject to harassment is what makes so many people suspect "conservatives" of actual racism and bigotry. It flies in the face of verifiable human experience, and makes a mockery of justice. As pointed out yesterday, painting a swastika on a synagogue is not the same as painting "Bob was 'ere", yet you, Rod, put your hands in your pockets so to speak and pretend it is.

*sigh*

Black is white and freedom is slavery indeed.

"Investigate, get all the facts and then make charges, including hate crimes, if warranted."

Amen to that.

I seem to recall that the first person prosecuted under Minneapolis's new hate crimes law was a black kid who assaulted a white kid.

One of the problems with 'hate crime' is the term itself. It is hard for me to believe that the murder of (immigrant!) Jan Pawel Pietrzak and his black wife by four black men was a love crime. But because we don't have any evidence of the perps shouting Cracker! or whatever (of course the main witnesses are dead) we don't have a 'hate crime'.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2008/11/12/2008-11-12_mother_of_murdered_marine_jan_pawel_piet.html

It is hard for me to believe the thugs (who just happened to be African American -wink wink) who sodomized white twenty-something Christopher Newsome in front of his girlfriend, then sodomized and raped his girlfriend, and killed them both did not have hate in their minds. Is hard for me to believe that the white couple weren't targeted because of race. Yet no hate crimes were charged.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20794

And here is a white woman who has been intimidated from riding the no. 27 bus in Baltimore, after being beaten while being called cracker etc. by several black yutes. Were other whites intimidated by this attack?

http://www.examiner.com/a-1363391~Kreager__Bus_attack__strengthened_my_soul_.html

Its hard for me to believe that Kristopher Kime, beaten to death by a black mob during Seattle's Mardi Gras days in 2001 wasn't targeted because he was white. And in fact we know that particular killing 'intimidated' the mayor of the city into canceling the next year's 'festivities'. Yet no hate crime, virtually no national media coverage, and even the spot linked below doesn't mention the quite visible fact that this is overwhelmingly blacks attacking whites (One white guy beating on a car)

http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/rampage-mardi-gras-mayhem.html

You see, some victims of hate crimes are more equal than others.

celtic dragon critter,

Your defense of hate crime laws using terriorism and anti-semitism as examples makes good sence. I had never thought of it like that. I still think it will be hard to read the minds of some folks but you have me thinking.

steve,

The victim in this "suffered a concussion and multiple bruises to his head and eye" .

Maybe you should be made aware of a 1993 Supreme Court ruling Wisconsin v Mitchell.

The ruling was unanimous, the opinion written by William Rehnquist.

i have family in this area - does not much surprise me, I am afraid

...and yet I am still against "hate crimes" legislation - such prosecution will just valorize what those kids did in the eyes of others in their neighborhood that feel the way they do - such a prosecution turns this assault "political" and attaches history, "struggle" militancy, all the Che t-shirted radical trappings to what was simply a mindless, ugly incident of kids acting like asses. Clearly what we have is felony assault. There are pretty stiff penalties for that. I do not want the state examining their belief system, I want it throwing the book at them for assault.

If you don't believe in hate crime laws, then you can't believe in terrorism laws either. 9/11 wasn't terrorism...it was just property destruction and 3,000 cases of murder...

Just 3000 cases? The person executed for a terrorist act and the person executed for 3000 cases of murder are equally dead.

I would investigate this crime as a possible hate crime and, if the victims' statements were credible, charge it as such.

There Rod, that wasn't so difficult, was it? I guess we are not the giant hypocrites you had us pegged for now, are we? We apply our principles objectively and even-handedly. Don't worry, I forgive you the slight.

That said, there were very few objectors to hate crime enhancements until the issue came up of applying them to homosexuals. This seems to be yet another area where the obsessive reactive dislike to treating homosexuals as equal citizens overwhelms more rational analysis and becomes the determinative factor on any political issue remotely impacting gay equality.

About Wisconsin v. Mitchell,

The respondent, Todd Mitchell, was with a group of other African American individuals in an apartment complex in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Members of this group were discussing the film Mississippi Burning; in particular, a scene in which a white man beat a young black boy who was praying. [my emphasis] According to the facts, undisputed by the respondent, in the briefs filed in lower courts, the group had discussed the scene indoors while drinking, and later moved outside the apartment complex. Outside they were joined by Mitchell and further discussed the scene. Seeing that everyone is enraged, Mitchell asked the group, "Do you all feel hyped up to move on some white people?"

You see a problem inherent in hate crimes laws. They almost inevitably morph into restrictions on speech. Here we have an example of a movie (fictional, btw) which clearly had a political intent inciting a hate crime. I doubt many of you would want to ban Mississippi Burning. This is where many of the hate crime legislation promoters want to go. This is where some of the commentators here want to do. In fact I believe the latest legislation includes something about 'promoting hate' via electronic means. Canada of course has already crossed this line, prosecuting people for speech which is said to incite hatred, as has the UK.

Sorry for the double post.

Of course it was a hate crime. What's up with the race-baiting?

They don't call Akron "Crack-ron" for nothing. As a reader of the Akron paper every day, there's no surprise here, race entirely aside. The concealed carry law in Ohio means that occasionally the perp gets shot dead, which may not solve everybody's problem, but it at least solves someone's.

Negative proof is always a dangerous tack to take, so grains of salt, etc...

Every other year or so, I dutifully show up at our district court for jury duty. The room is very diverse, reflecting the diversity of Philadelphia's demographics, though only randomly does it match the proportions I see in our waiting room.

As one might expect, the vast majority of criminal cases seen day to day involve a minority defendent, minority plaintiff, or both.

Our media do not hesitate to describe in painful detail issues around race relations. One thing you won't see very often, though, is the "race card" being played in criminal trials.

To top off my anecdotal offering here: The one criminal trial I've sat for (so far) as a juror involved a black defendant and black victim. Our jury had only three blacks on it. At no point in the trial or during our deliberations was race raised as an issue, directly or peripherally.

Chuck, you describe what I mentioned earlier: the law clearly distinguishes intent during the trial, because "degree" of a crime is a part of the statutes. However, it does not pre-judge the defendent. It simply instructs the prosecutors on which degree of the crime should be named in the indictment.

Even more basic, intent as shown in action draws a line of distinction. If one causes the death of another, that is manslaughter. If one decides to attack another, and that attack results in death, that is murder. I am oversimplifying, I know, but again we should be examining the pre-hate-crime laws not for their shortcomings, but for how they are interpreted and enforced.

Allow me to reiterate and expand my main point: The criminal justice system, de facto, has for a long time been politicized in favor of the majority. Studies have been done, matching details as closely as possible, showing that blacks (for example) get harsher sentences than whites when the rest of the details are equal. If we are to address the inequities, we should act towards the root cause, not replace the beneficiaries of the politicization with those formerly getting the shaft as a result.

Rod,

how about this for hate crime. From the NYTimes magazine:

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.

who are these populations "we don't want to have too many of". If Gov Palin would said anything along these lines she would have been eviscerated as a racist not given a prestige piece in the NYTimes. I am waiting for Andrew to attack.

Something is wrong with this story and you are all too happy to assume the worst, if it makes you feel superior. 1. Six people were not attacked, 2 were. 2. The other "friends" were not hurt badly, are not speaking out, and are not even identified. 3. Initially, there was one guy and one attacker. Random? who's to say? 4. the article says the guy spent 5 days in intensive care. If it happened the night of the 4th, today is the 9th and he's up and around and doesn't look too much worse for wear - think about it a minute...this makes no sense.
terrorism! racism! poor unsuspecting white family innocently celebrating their cunty's heritage

GULLIBLE!

Sometime back there was a hilarious piece in a Brit paper about a tribe of cannibals which had strong ethnic preferences. They disliked white meat, too stringy, but were very fond of Asian. Presumably, then, their killings are racially motivated although tender love and not hate would clearly be at work here. Now the article didn't say whether Asians appreciated being thought superior or how blacks or whites felt about being thought inferior. But racism is inherently and deeply hurtful, so we can take it that they were at least miffed. Certainly, diversity training would be helpful but as I can't remember where the tribe lives it will have to wait for another day.

Glenda what if it was a black family being attacked by a white gang yelling this is a "white world"? Would you be so understanding of the mob? Would you make light of this man's beating in front of his family if he was a black man?

Just 3000 cases? The person executed for a terrorist act and the person executed for 3000 cases of murder are equally dead.

Terrorism charges can extend to people who aided in some way in addition to charges of conspiracy. The terrorism addition can warrant the death penalty whereas conspiracy may not...any body familiar with federal criminal statutes please feel free to chime in and correct me if necessary. In any event, hate crimes and terrorism charges are enhancements as well as charges in of themselves.

Franklin is right: hate-crimes laws inherently politicize crimes. They mean well, but they ought not be on the books.

Talk about overlooking the obvious.

Some crimes are innately political acts because they fundamentally change the nature of society and who gets to participate!!!!

When a gay man is murdered by savage beating in South Carolina and his killer gets less then three years in prison, it is impossible to conclude that politics (social and administrative)are not deeply involved. When black people, white people or any other group are denied the protection of law or forced to leave an area due to fear, there are political consequences and considerations.

Sorry Rod, but you are trying to find some cosmic balance that does not empirically exist.

John E

It is almost like Rod had morphed into a Mallard Fillmore cartoon or something.

I agree. It is almost dumbfounding to read this kind of unthinking, reflexive posturing from Rod. I expect better, honestly.

If your logic is followed (a crime is a crime) then I assume you are against different penalties attached to a deliberate, pre-meditated, murder by dismemberment and a criminally negligent act (e.g. texting while driving) that kills a pedestrian.

You're confusing intent with motivation. The problem with punishing motivation, no matter how execrable it may be, is that bad motivation is defined by current social and political conventions. It's impossible not wind up enshrining these things in the law to one degree or another, but it should be avoided when possible.

Matthew Yglesias has recently been pointing out that if you only read conservative commentary, you'd think all the victims of racism in the US nowadays are white people.

Conservative commentary emphasizes anti-white incidents to counter the impression that "whitey" is main culprit in today's society. Second,e most anti-white incidents never go above a local level outside of Drudge. Someone has to make up for this slack. Look at the big pity pool party being thrown over the Philadephia incident, where no one was physically assaulted. It gets coverage on CNN. But here you have a gang of dozens attacking, uttering racial epithets, and it's, at best, a link on Drudge. Look at the Duke rape case, and compare it any number of similar cases where the races are reversed and there is no media coverage whatsoever. Finally, there are several legal and social remedies available to victims of white racism. White victims, OTOH, will not be given the same amount of help, and have sometimes been greeted with hostility.

So, yeah, Matt and J, that's what happens. If you don't like it, eff you. Do something about it.

So, CD Critter, how do you respond to the concept that previous political beneficiaries of inequities in criminal justice proceedings should be replaced by those who suffered from those inequities?

Huh?

I don't think Rod is -- or I am -- looking for "cosmic balance". Indeed, I believe that those pushing for hate crime laws are seeking revenge instead of trying to make the system work as it was designed to work.

Really? You want crime "A" treated the same as crime "B" when they are different in effect if not in kind. There is no "revenge" about it, and I am wondering where you get that idea. Again:

Spraying a swastika and neo nazi slogans on a synagogue is not the same as spraying "Kilroy was here", and trying to go through mental gymnastics and claim that they are one and the same crime of vandalism flies in the face of history, empirical experience and common sense. One is a hate crime, because the community is actually threatened. One is not, and I assume you have sense enough to see the distinction.

Arguments made earlier to the effect that a victim of murder is just as dead as a victim of terror misses an essential truth: Terror, hate crimes and genocide threaten the nature of society in ways that purely self fulfilling crime does not. They attack the very standards upon which a society rests, and invite others to cower in fear or join in. They are the apotheosis of Hobbes' predictions that the lot of man is to live in war, and they destroy the social contract between man and the state. This is why they must be sanctioned to a higher degree, and why they must be taken more seriously. You and Rob are wrong in this regard. Dead wrong.

You may as well argue that since a victim of negligent homicide is just as dead as a victim of premeditated murder with malice, they should be viewed the same as well...

Franklin:

You may wish to consider this. It's one of the best expanations for 'hate crime' legislation I've encountered:

dneiwert.blogspot.comSLASH2007SLASH10SLASHspreading-ignorance.html

Excerpt from David Neiwert:

Hate crimes are message crimes: They are intended to harm not just the immediate victim, but all people of that same class within the community. Their message is also irrevocable: they are "get out of town, nigger/Jew/queer" crimes.

That's why bias-crime laws are about imposing stiffer sentences on their perpetrators: they cause more real harm to the community. This principle -- greater harm brings stiffer punishment -- is a basic element of criminal law.

The point is that the crime commited is not directed solely against the victim, but is used to leverage the desired reaction from the victim's 'class'.

This is quite different from revenge.

The dates in the article are pretty screwy. The main article states that the attack happened on June 27th and this was after 'celebrating patriotism and freedom at a fireworks show.' But the caption under the picture says they were at a Fourth of July event.

So which is it? Or does Akron hold the Fourth of July on The Twenty-seventh of June?

If you call this a hate crime I feel sorry for you. You have bought in to the silliest of notions brought on by the left. It was a pure and simple assault. Tre3at it that way and get away, no run away from the "Hate Crime" crap.

There was a white mob that beat up and killed a hispanic illegal alien in Shenandoah, Pa., and the local all-white jury let them off, remember?

My point is: a mob doesn't get "off the hook" because they're black.

John E

It is almost like Rod had morphed into a Mallard Fillmore cartoon or something.

I agree. It is almost dumbfounding to read this kind of unthinking, reflexive posturing from Rod. I expect better, honestly.

as Rod recently said - page count=money

I think this should obviously be investigated and if it meets the criteria of Ohio's law for hate crimes then it should be treated as such. According to an earlier poster it seems as if assault is not covered under Ohio's hate crime laws - so it looks like it would not be prosecuted as such.

What is particularly disturbing about the incident is how it reminds us of the problems with mobs - large groups - especially large groups of young men. Wisdom would seem to dictate that if one sees a large group of young men coming down the street - especially in a loud and disorderly fashion - getting inside would be a good idea! I bet none of those kids as individuals would have assaulted this family.

Hattio, do please remember that I used "anecdotal" precisely because I did not intend to make a blanket assertion. What I do know, from being selected for that jury and other juries, as well as being in the selection process more times on top, that when race is a bona fide aspect of the trial then the questions asked of the jury include one to determine racial prejudice... and the news media will report on it as well. Hence my caution about negative proofs: you're right, we don't know if it wasn't reported or the prospective jurors (in my case) didn't hear it.

Maybe I should not have used my personal experience in this... sigh. :-)

The point is that the crime commited is not directed solely against the victim, but is used to leverage the desired reaction from the victim's 'class'.

And my point, Chuck -- and to you too, CD Critter -- is we already had a class-based inequity abetted and enforced by a racial (ethnic and religious!) majority. Hate crime laws do nothing but remove that majority and replace it with a series of classes defined by minority status.

If it was immoral before, what makes that moral now? :-(

CD... I get the feeling that you've lumped me in with the enemies of equal protection of the law, and any point I try to make agains hate crime legislation is going to fail on that filter. If I'm wrong about that, maybe you can enlighten me, because so far every rebuttal you've raised is a straw man.

Three people died in a drive-by shooting 100 feet from my back door, a few years ago. It was a drug territory dispute, and the murderers were caught, tried, convicted and will be in jail long after I'm dead.

After 9/11, a soveriegn nation's government was deposed by force, and the perpetrators of the murder of 3,000+ people were either killed or forced into hiding (that last outcome being, for me, a source of national shame perpetrated by GWB, because the Idiot should have hunted them all down before even thinking about Iraq, but I digress).

So, tell me: what was the difference between the drug-motivated murder and the act of terror (I call it act of war, but I'll let that go for now)?

Now, tell me the difference between a black man killed by a white man while arguing over a woman, vs. the same murder motivated by the white man's racist rage because the black man was in love with the white man's sister?

A black man is dead via 1st-degree murder, and in both cases the white man if convicted either goes to prison for life or is executed. There is no further difference in the eyes of the law, and if there is going to be racial fallout from the latter scenario then that is the fault of a society with embedded racism in the people. No law changes that. Social activism will change it. From my 12:33 post above:

When it comes to the dynamics of a society, it is always easier to pass a law and claim victory than to go out into the community and advocate for change. The former is a sop to those clamoring for redress, those same often going silent even though the law didn't actually make a difference. The latter is an effort of months or years, it shows little in the way of quantifiable results... and history shows that it is the most effective way to create actual change.

Silence is death, CD, especially after a period of noise that goes softly into the night because those speaking have been deceived.

CD... I get the feeling that you've lumped me in with the enemies of equal protection of the law, and any point I try to make agains hate crime legislation is going to fail on that filter. If I'm wrong about that, maybe you can enlighten me, because so far every rebuttal you've raised is a straw man.

Even if you are against differential protection, you argue for the very continuance of it. How I am supposed to parse that?

"I don't want GLBT murderers to get sentenced to 5 years (suspended)...I just don't want anything substantive done to stop it because I think it's discrimination...

smh...

IMHO blanket coverage would be fine. And maybe it would solve Rod's problems. (No, probably not :] ) But that's different than ignoring other facets of the issue, specifically the one outlines by Neiwert. Society has a right to discourage via the legal system some types of behavior and to adjust the penalty accordingly.

Agreed, and it is my understanding that almost everybody is, in fact, covered under existing federal hate crimes laws...except for GLBT people. It seems a little odd.

Anyway, I'm off to present a power point show on muscle, bone and joint injuries. Joy.

It was interesting to see the difference in the way the incident was described by a local newspaper and on the website of a local tv station (channel 5).

The newspaper article provided more detail, including the race of the kids (all black); the size of the group (as many as 50); the degree of violence involved (one male victim was hit and kicked for a few minutes and said it was like they were trying to take his head off his shoulders); and, things they were chanting ("it is a black world!).

The article in the channel 5 website made it seem like a much less violent incident involving a smaller group of assailants, never told the race of the assailants, and never told the reader what some of the assailants were chanting. However, the tv station article did say the assailants were as young as 9, so I guess it could not have been that bad.

I much prefer obtaining the truth from sources such as that local newspaper, than from non-trustworthy news sources such as that local channel 5 website.

Larry wrote:

But you, and other hate crime advocates, are just pushing for the opposite, you want killing a gay person, for example, to carry harsher penalties than killing someone who is straight.

No, I don't think that's it at all. You don't get a hate crime label thrown on a case simply based on the race/gender/orientation/religion of the victim. Rather the court has to assess the motivation behind the crime.

Incidentally, those FBI stats I linked to above do list some hate crimes cases (very few, but they do exist) which were committed against heterosexuals, presumably by someone gay or bisexual. It does cut both ways.

Let's put the cart back in its rightful place, behind the horse.

This homeschool family claims that 30-50 black kids attacked them, on a neighborhood street, just after the city fireworks display was over, chanting "this is our world." The video of the father shows no signs of struggle. The daughter, a frail little thing, has no visible wounds despite her story that she was bleeding and pulled one of the attackers off her father. The mother has no visible wounds. They don't sound in shock or scared, despite talking about how scared they are. Not a single witness can confirm that even one of these 50 kids was there. There are no suspects.

The police aren't calling it a hate crime because they have enough sense to realize the story probably isn't true. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see it's not true but that hasn't prevented the right wing and racist blogisphere to embrace it and spread it within hours of it being reported. How many of you will write about it when it's determined the entire story is a work of fiction?

If you believe this story then I have a nice Nigerian man who would like to contact you about an investment opportunity.

Those who do not comprehend or dismiss the effect of the threat of violence would do well to ponder the recent serial-killer scare in South Carolina. A lone killer terrorized a large swath of the state, apparently, by "targeting" no one in particular.

An even better example is the DC suburb sniper incident a few years back. I wonder how many people changed their opinion of hate crimes after that experience...

But you, and other hate crime advocates, are just pushing for the opposite, you want killing a gay person, for example, to carry harsher penalties than killing someone who is straight.

Do you just make this stuff up, or do you get it from talk radio?

I state that crimes committed on the basis of religion, gender or perceived gender, ethnicity or sexual orientation are pernicious to society in ways that are more serious and damaging than many other types of crime, and should be considered in a harsher fashion.

I'm sure you will a strawman to beat the stuffing out of anyway, so have fun and be sure to vacuum up afterwards.

Yes, my class seems to have been canceled. I am a bit annoyed.

The police aren't calling it a hate crime because they have enough sense to realize the story probably isn't true. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see it's not true but that hasn't prevented the right wing and racist blogisphere to embrace it and spread it within hours of it being reported. How many of you will write about it when it's determined the entire story is a work of fiction?

You will notice, if you take the time to read, that I said in my initial post that the police are still investigating this, and that the allegations haven't been verified. The story has been reported by the mainstream news media. If you don't like my commenting on it in context of our recent discussion of hate crimes, tough. There's nothing racist about highlighting this news story and discussing it. Quit using sloppy accusations of racism as a way to silence discussion you don't like.

Those who do not comprehend or dismiss the effect of the threat of violence would do well to ponder the recent serial-killer scare in South Carolina. A lone killer terrorized a large swath of the state, apparently, by "targeting" no one in particular. An even better example is the DC suburb sniper incident a few years back. I wonder how many people changed their opinion of hate crimes after that experience...

Look, nobody denies that crime terrorizes people. But what on earth kind of hate crime would you have had the (now dead, thankfully) serial killer charged with? Or the DC Sniper? They terrorized people indiscriminately. Hell, if there was a crime wave in my neighborhood, all of us on this street would be to some extent terrorized. Do you think that if the police arrested the criminals in that case, that they should be charged with a hate crime? Serial rapists virtually by definition terrorize women as a class. Are they not only criminals, but hate criminals? Where does this stop?

On evidence presented on this thread, it's hard to argue against the concept of hate crimes, because hate crimes proponents will accuse you of being indifferent to the bigotry that inspires some criminals. This thread has degenerated to pointlessness. As is so often the case.

It was interesting to see the difference in the way the incident was described by a local newspaper and on the website of a local tv station (channel 5). The newspaper article provided more detail, including the race of the kids (all black); the size of the group (as many as 50); the degree of violence involved (one male victim was hit and kicked for a few minutes and said it was like they were trying to take his head off his shoulders); and, things they were chanting ("it is a black world!). The article in the channel 5 website made it seem like a much less violent incident involving a smaller group of assailants, never told the race of the assailants, and never told the reader what some of the assailants were chanting. However, the tv station article did say the assailants were as young as 9, so I guess it could not have been that bad. I much prefer obtaining the truth from sources such as that local newspaper, than from non-trustworthy news sources such as that local channel 5 website.

Oh, please. I work in the news media, and I can tell you that newsrooms often suppress details of criminal incidents that could, in the judgment of editors and producers, cause the audience to draw politically correct conclusions from the facts presented. Next time you read or watch a story about a local crime in which the criminal is still at large, and they don't have an image to show, notice to see if they describe the race or the color of the suspect's skin. It often doesn't happen, and it doesn't happen by design -- this, even though if a violent criminal is on the loose, all citizens, regardless of their race, would need to have as much information as the police do about the guy.

To be clear, the definition of "hate crime" as used in H.R.1913 "Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009" (a.k.a the Hate Crimes Bill) "has the meaning given such term in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994":

SEC. 280003. Direction to United States Sentencing Commission Regarding Sentencing Enhancements for Hate Crimes.
(a) DEFINITION- In this section, 'hate crime' means a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person.

In other words, the Federal government has been able to apply additional penalties for perpetrators of hate crimes for 15 years, but only after the criminal had been convicted on another charge. The proposed bill would allow the Federal government to directly prosecute the hate crime itself. In any event, the actual definition of a hate crime has not changed.

the actual definition of a hate crime has not changed

The bit including sexual orientation is new.

When the police lable something a hate crime, even before they know who did it, they recieve federal resources in the investigation to help bring the offenders to justice. That fact is even more important then the "incresed penalties." Regardless, it is clear to all with eyes to see and ears to hear that white Americans are being denied equality before the law, equal protection under it, freedom of speech, freedom of association, and equal opportunity.

THE WRATH OF THE AWAKENED SAXON
by Rudyard Kipling

It was not part of their blood,
It came to them very late,
With long arrears to make good,
When the Saxon began to hate.

They were not easily moved,
They were icy -- willing to wait
Till every count should be proved,
Ere the Saxon began to hate.

Their voices were even and low.
Their eyes were level and straight.
There was neither sign nor show
When the Saxon began to hate.

It was not preached to the crowd.
It was not taught by the state.
No man spoke it aloud
When the Saxon began to hate.

It was not suddently bred.
It will not swiftly abate.
Through the chilled years ahead,
When Time shall count from the date
That the Saxon began to hate.

Your Name, Brian T. Johnson,

White people are the target of Hate Crimes, and the Federal government does prosecute those who commit anti-white crimes as Hate Crimes:

FBI Hate Crime Statistics 2004

During 2004, over 17,000 law enforcement agencies nationwide participated in the UCR Program. Of these agencies, 12,711 (72.6 percent) submitted 1 to 12 months of hate crime reports, from which the following statistics are derived. (See the table at the end of the Introduction.)

...In 2004, racial bias motivated more than half (53.9%) of the 9,021 reported offenses within single-bias hate crime incidents; religious bias accounted for 16.4%; bias regarding sexual orientation, 15.6%; ethnicity or national origin, 13.3%; and disability bias, 0.8%.

Law enforcement agencies reported 4,863 offenses within single-bias incidents that were motivated by the offender’s racial bias. Among those offenses, 67.5% resulted from an anti-black bias, and 20.5% were due to an anti-white bias. Slightly more than 5% (5.2) of racially motivated incidents were driven by an anti-Asian or Pacific Islander bias, 2.0% involved a bias against American Indian or Alaskan Native races, and 4.8% were directed at groups of individuals in which more than one race was represented (multiple races, group)...

And I agree with others who have commented on this thread (John E. - Agn Stoic, celtic dragon critter, grendel et. al.) that if the investigators have solid evidence that a Hate Crime has been committed, then it should be prosecuted as such.

If you think that it is moral for a killer to get life imprisonment for killing (hypothetically) you, and two years in prison for killing me, then we have nothing to really talk about.

...and...

Even if you are against differential protection, you argue for the very continuance of it. How I am supposed to parse that?

CD, for whatever reason -- and I prefer to believe that you are just too upset about the topic, rather than lumping you with the Glendas -- you really aren't comprehending what I'm writing.

How you get my desire to make the criminal justice system work as is with equal protection for everyone into those two statements just boggles my mind.

It's a very long thread. But really, you might go back and read it again, because I really think you have me confused with one or more other contributors.

Or, failing that, you and I could just have our own little flame war, if you really want to insist on putting words in my mouth. Your quoted statements are just plain false.

How many groups and classes will need to be listed under the hate crime designation before every man, woman and child could and would automatically be the victim of a hate crime?

The moment they put anything under the definition? Religion - Given that while atheism or other non-theisms aren't religions, they're positions on religious issues and covered under the first amendment and under discrimination (and hate crime) laws. Race - See Rod's example (if accurate, hate crime). Sexual Orientation - no doubt it happens to both gay and straight at times. Etc.

After all, if we are to define hate as a crime, we certainly don't need to connect it to a current act of violence. If you think I'm joking, I and some friends have real scars to show you.

Wouldn't real scars imply violence, or are they real mental scars or something? You've managed to make the world "real" ambiguous.

Anyway, I'm not sure why you're intentionally eliding the disconnect between "hate" being a crime itself and "hate" being an aggravating factor because of the disparate impact of crimes motivated by hate. There is a distinction there. It's tied to actual crimes not out of some random legal distinction (at least in theory) but because it's about the actual crimes.

The misuse of religion in custody proceedings is always bad (it gets covered occasionally over at volokh) but I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.

Simple yet elegant: equal protection under the law. No exceptions, no caveats.

We have it. And I'm not sure how "The law has other problems so we should fix those before doing anything else related to it" is a serious argument.

How many groups and classes will need to be listed under the hate crime designation before every man, woman and child could and would automatically be the victim of a hate crime?

I think this is a reasonably good question, and it seems to me as though we're getting there. All blacks, hispanics, and other minorities (who, together, probably constitute a majority in a lot of places); all women; all GLBT people; members of all religious groups; all disabled people....who's left? White non-religious, non-disabled straight males.

How long can it be before someone picks up on the idea that this tiny group is now THE disfavored class in this society, and demands that all crimes against them be classified as hate crimes? (There certainly do seem to be a number of people who hate these guys....)

On the other hand, if all crimes become "hate crimes" we're back where we started, which is where I think we should have stayed in the first place. In some sense, all crimes are "hate" crimes. (It's certainly not love!)

With the state of law enforcement in this country right now, we'd best focus, I think, on crime, period, and leave off the extra considerations.

.I want all divorce judges who permit loss of child custody due to the parent being a pagan charged with a hate crime,

Divorce is a civil proceeding, but you get half points for effort.

How many groups and classes will need to be listed under the hate crime designation before every man, woman and child could and would automatically be the victim of a hate crime?

Your obtuseness on this is staggering. We seem to be talking past one another, so it has become an exercise in futility. The definition of what constitutes a hate crime has been gone over exhaustively, and you continue to deliberately misconstrue it into a zero sum classification war. Whatever. I'm finished here.

Yes, the horrible crimes committed by gangs/mobs of Black teens are a terrible reality in too many US cities. And please, let's not have anyone think that HATE CRIME LAWS will ever be used against violent Black racist gangs/mobs.

In my City of Chicago (we led the nation in total murders last year) the Black racist gangs don't even hide their affiliation, what they are about - it's in the name"

The Black Gangster Disciples

Attorney General Holder testified before the US Senate Judiciary Committee that S909 the Fed Hate Crime law would not protect all Americans, but would only protect so called historic "victim groups" such as Blacks, gays, Hispanics, Jews - so if White Americans are victims of violent racial attacks - well, the victims are out of luck.

The solution for all of us is to just understand the cultural marxist corruptions of our legal system - Hate Crime Laws are not equal and fair - they are designed to push a PC agenda.

The rest of us should just insist that all violent crimes are prosecuted in a firm, fair way. There is no such thing as a non hateful murder, rape etc.

I send my best to the White victims in Ohio. The next time they should be armed with 2nd Amendment rights and Attorney General Holder and the Politically Correct powers that be in Washington can decide if they want to try to persecute a White family that shoots Black criminals/mobs trying to do racist hateful crimes that are NOT HATE CRIMES.

Jack Ellis
Chicago, IL
www.bikers4freedom.com

I agree with Justice Rehnquist and the venerable Blackstone:

"Moreover, the Wisconsin statute singles out for enhancement bias-inspired conduct because this conduct is thought to inflict greater individual and societal harm. For example, according to the State and its amici, bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest. The State's desire to redress these perceived harms provides an adequate explanation for its penalty-enhancement provision over and above mere disagreement with offenders' beliefs or biases. As Blackstone said long ago, 'it is but reasonable that, among crimes of different natures, those should be most severely punished which are the most destructive of the public safety and happiness.'" [citations omitted]

This sets forth the rationale for hate crimes. I find it compelling. If someone else, such as Rod, does not, then he needs to address the substance of the argument, not spew forth rote bullet points unrelated to the real issue as to the legitimacy of such legislation. As a matter of debate, then, the proper argument against hate crimes, which hasn't been raised by anyone in response to the comments in this thread, would be: 1. to assert that bias-motivated crimes are not more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, do not inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, do not incite community unrest, or more specifically, incite fear of violence and chill the exercise of individual liberty among the targeted class, and 2. to support that assertion with actual evidence.

So c'mon, antihatecrimerz! Bring your legitimate case to the table. Let's hear it!

There is another defense for you, I must confess. You could (as Geoff seems to have done) conclude that SCOTUS was wrong in finding that such statutes were directed at conduct, not speech, and also conclude that SCOTUS was wrong in determining that such statutes did not have a chilling effect on legitimate speech, and then conclude that the restriction on speech outweighs the value of the societal purposes set forth above which provide the consitutional basis for such sentencing enhancements. This won't get you off the analytical hook, however, as you wil still have to weigh the value of the greater harm posed to society by such crimes, as set forth above, against the free speech restriction.

Take your time. I'll wait for a sophisticated, well-thought out argument.

Okay, Alanmt. I'll bite.

I have a long list of dead Jewish relatives on my mother's side. I have a paternal heritage that goes back for a few centuries of ethnic and religious strife. I know exactly where public safety and happiness gets us.

Who gets to set those definitions, hm? Who defines them and enforces them? In a recent thread, Rod tells us about a lily-white pool membership that tossed a bunch of black inner-city kids out because of their local definition of public safety and happiness.

Happiness for the family of a crime victim (and the victim as well, if surviving) is to take the perpetrator(s) out and give them what they dished out. That's where Rehnquist's logic goes.

From where I sit, people demanding extra "protection" from hate crime laws are just unhappy with the current slate of penalties and punishments. Indeed, they think additional punishment will somehow deter others from committing those crimes. Take a look at the history of crime and punishment in the US. Tell me how well that will work.

They are also unhappy with the unequal, favorable treatment of some perpetrators on the basis of their standing amongst a privileged majority (or minority, like those with the gold making the rules). That's your root cause. Address that. Do something about that.

R Hampton:

I don't see a parallel, let alone similarity. The targets of assasinations are already of a special class, whether they be elected or appointed officials, cultural/religious/etc. leaders, what have you.

Or, are you suggesting that the primary definition of hate crime be "politically motivated"? With respect, I don't see the validity of that when the perpetrators' average age is 12 (just for example).

I have a bias concerning police and other law enforcement officers. They are, by definition, in constant mortal danger and no amount of money makes up for that. I would tend to not object to explicit and severe sentencing guidelines should they be the victims of premeditated murder. But I would not characterize such murders as hate crimes.

Alanmt Go back a hundred years and you can find all sorts of articles --legal and scholarly -- about how segregation promoted the peaceful coexistence of the races (and thus community harmony) etc. Now we have the assertion that punishing people for their thoughts, instead of crime, helps promote community cohesion. Why are today's opinions right and yesteryears wrong? Seems to me we've had far more riots, interracial crime etc. since the end of segregation -- which is not btw an argument for reinstitution of same, just a statement of fact.

I would argue that hate crimes have historically been used as a gateway to restrictions on speech.

I would argue that they are applied very unevenly. 69% of racial 'hate' crimes charged are against blacks, but we know that black commit something like 85 to 90 percent of interracial crime -- that kind of discrepancy doesn't wash.

I would argue that because of the blantant discrpancy in application of such laws, they actually sow discord.

I would argue that particularly federal 'hate crimes' laws are there to give prosecutors a chance to retry cases when they don't like juries' decisions.

None of this means such laws are unconstitutional -- except maybe the last point. It does mean they are politicized and really just plain wrong.

Your Name,

Also, I need to emphasize that hate crimes themselves are usually attacks aimed to restrict First Amendment rights like free speech. That's why a hate crime investigation prompts the FBI to; "forward completed reports to U.S. Attorneys and the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice, [to] decide whether a federal prosecution is warranted. They may move forward, for example, if local authorities are unwilling or unable to prosecute a crime of bias."

If this family in Cleveland were indeed attacked because they were white, then we can correctly surmise that the attackers' motive was to make them, and their neighbors, afraid to go outside their homes. So contrary to your argument, the greater damage comes from the "hate crime" that sows discord and restricts civil rights.

I think this thread is very important for it has shone the light on a heretofore unknown type of American, one without race, without gender, without national origin, without any sort of religious or ethical belief system, one with no discernible physical abilities and, yet, no lack thereof, as well.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are witness to the very first, well, not sighting, but identification of the newest victim group, the inviso-Americans.

Oh, and the quote is not from wikipedia, but the FBI's website on Hate Crimes.
1. http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/hate.htm
2. http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/overview.htm

R Hampton, you are proving my case for me, thank you.

They *robbed* strangers and friends, they didn't torture/rape/murder strangers and friends. Yet somehow with the interracial , black woman/white man couple this MO changed and we get torture, rape (husband forced to watch) / murder. If that isn't an indication of a hate motive, I don't know what is?

Again its statistics. If a group commits 9 robberies without violence, and a tenth that features brutal violence and sexual degradation, any statistician, any social scientist will start looking for the factor that caused the difference in behavior in the tenth case. Well, we have an obvious one in this case -- black men not being too happy that a 'sistah' -- an attractive one at that -- was with whitey.

And please, while individuals (like SGT Pietrzak's mother) might make complaints, organized , approved victimhood with their pressure groups will always win out.

Stari,

The investigation was being covered up from the beginning by the military. Military investigators called August Provot's murder a "random act." In fact he was bound, beaten, shoot three times, and burned.

As for your analogy with an interracial hate crime, the U.S. military doesn't have an official policy of catering to racial bigots at the disadvantage of any race, but the U.S. military does have an official policy of facilitating harassment, blackmail, and murder against gay soldiers, sailors, and marines. It's called "Don't Ask; Don't Tell."

Mrzim moj stari momak

Mrzim (to hate) takes the accusative, so you've got to decline the direct object , making it

Mrzim mog starog momaka.

I'm a bit skeptical. "'This is our world' and 'This is a black world'" don't sound like the kind of thing the alleged perps would actually say if they were committing a hate crime against white people.

It sounds like bad movie dialogue written by people with limited imagination and limited experience of the culture of the speakers.

Reminds me a little bit of the McCain campaign worker in Pittsburgh who claimed a black man beat her up and carved an 'O' into her face. Her story never seemed particularly realistic, and it turned out to be entirely made up.

But I could be wrong.

1. The family should sue the police department for discrimination if no hate crimes are filed.

2. Pack always. Nothing like a 40 cal when things get really ugly.