'beat whitey night.' in Des Moines

[trillium13 84]

As someone who lives in an urban area, I will support that it's very hard NOT to be racist.

It's very difficult to see the same demographic of people doing the same stupid stuff over and over and over and not make a connection between their race and their penchant for criminal and/or stupid activities. I'm firmly convinced it's a cultural issue more than a racial one (Africans and non-urbanized blacks don't do criminal and/or stupid things at the same rate as their urban brothas & sistas) but I can see why folks who didn't know the diffrence would automatically assume it's a racial issue.

If you're not from "the hood" or don't have the "luxury" of seeing it on your local news every single night it's probably very easy to dismiss as "they're not all like that." Certainly, they're not. I'm not saying (and I don't think anyone would say) they are. But, the closer you are to the hood and the more you experience it, the harder and harder it is to not be racist.

I have to agree with some of this. I moved from a northern state to Texas, and have experienced things that I never would have believed had I not been there.

I won't go into details. I will just say that the above makes sense to me, and that my eyes were opened by moving here.

I'd love to be able to treat everyone as "an individual" and I do try, but at least here, it is very difficult.

[Fandango 1,440]

Sorry Smoke, I missed this post. To prove a crime was racially motivated, you need to essentially prove that the perpetrator would not have commited the violent crime if the victim were not of a certain race. To use the example of the OP, they would need to prove that the only reason the teens attacked the victim(s) was because they were white, had they come up on a black person, they would not have committed a violent act. In essence, you need to show mens rea (guilty mind) that their intent was racially motivated. Law enforcement don't apply this all the time because it can be hard to prove without eye witness' or physical proof of racism.

Lisa, you are misunderstanding the purpose of the law. It does not value the life of one race over another. Law enforcement, and governments have deemed racism and racially based violence to be unacceptable. This is like punitive damages in a civil case, an additional penalty to curb socially unacceptable behavior.

Well, see...I find all violence to be equally unacceptable. Full stop.

'Socially unacceptable behavior' = racial crimes only? Maybe to everyone else, but not to me.

[Danno 1,228]

luckytxn, on 25 August 2010 - 12:42 PM, said:

Can only be a hate crime if it is a white person committing the crime.[

quote name=Jenn!' timestamp='1282756742' post='4154191]

I suggest you inform yourself before making sweeping, inaccurate statements such as this one. I know you want it to be true because it reinforces the common "reverse racism" platform, but it's not.

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

Exactly what part of that website were you referring too?

IN that handy-dandy link you posted...the first thing I bumped into was this...

Racial bias

More than half of the single-bias hate crimes were racially motivated. Of the 4,934 victims of these racial bias crimes:

72.9 percent were victims of an offender’s anti-black bias.

16.8 percent were victims because of an anti-white bias.

3.4 percent were targeted because of an anti-Asian/Pacific Islander bias.

1.3 percent were victims because of an anti-American Indian/Alaskan Native bias.

5.6 percent were victims because of a bias against a group of individuals in which more than one race was represented (anti-multiple races, group). (Based on Table 1.)

take note, of all the victims of a Racially bias crime.... Blacks which are roughly 14% of the population were 72.9 percent of the victims.

Whites which are a large majority, were only found to be victims of hate or bias crimes in 16.8% of the cases brought in the year 2008.

These types of numbers suggest the bar is set a lot higher, to prove racial bias for cases in which Whites are victims.

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

[The_Dude 1,142]

Well, see...I find all violence to be equally unacceptable. Full stop.

'Socially unacceptable behavior' = racial crimes only? Maybe to everyone else, but not to me.

I agree, violence at all is equally unacceptable, but when someone seeks out someone beats them to a bloody mess, not because the wronged them in some way, but because of their sexual preference, race, etc, that is even more abhorrent, and something that our government, and society have deemed unacceptable, hence additional penalties on top of the normal measures taken for violent crimes. You can agree with it or not, but you're sh!t out of luck.

As Hopp stated, a hate crime is simply an enhancement to another crime. There are many many other enhancements that are meant as deterant, that have nothing to do with race. So that point you make is moot.

[Fandango 1,440]

I agree, violence at all is equally unacceptable, but when someone seeks out someone beats them to a bloody mess, not because the wronged them in some way, but because of their sexual preference, race, etc, that is even more abhorrent, and something that our government, and society have deemed unacceptable, hence additional penalties on top of the normal measures taken for violent crimes. You can agree with it or not, but you're sh!t out of luck.

As Hopp stated, a hate crime is simply an enhancement to another crime. There are many many other enhancements that are meant as deterant, that have nothing to do with race. So that point you make is moot.

The difference is, I don't think it's moot. I don't think it should be a choice of 'enhancements' at all, and I think it's a slippery slope. Let's say someone is prejudiced, has a provable history of it somehow, but has never broken the law against a minority. Yet he gets into some altercation with a minority for some other reason. You can pretty much bet your azz it's probably gonna be prosecuted as a hate crime.

Or this 'beat whitey' night = cops think it's 'very possible' it could be racially motivated. Hello????

Having to second guess what gets treated as a hate crime and what doesn't DOES make it about race/sexual preference/etc. And if we're really striving for true equality, well then, these 'enhancements' need to go.

If it's a heinous crime, then treat it as such. Regardless of intent. If a woman was raped and stabbed because the perp felt like it, or because she was Mexican, and he's a racist...well, does that really change what happened to the woman? She was raped and stabbed regardless. Don't tell me that one has more of a 'terrorizing' effect over the other.

eta: I tried to be as clear as poss, but my brain is muddled tonite got a lot on my mind, it's late, and I gots the preggo brain right now, so this is the best I can do tonite

Edited August 26, 2010 by Happy Bunny

[The_Dude 1,142]

The difference is, I don't think it's moot. I don't think it should be a choice of 'enhancements' at all, and I think it's a slippery slope. Let's say someone is prejudiced, has a provable history of it somehow, but has never broken the law against a minority. Yet he gets into some altercation with a minority for some other reason. You can pretty much bet your azz it's probably gonna be prosecuted as a hate crime.

This is where you are wrong. If he singled out a minority and shouted epithets at him and attacked, then yes, he would be prosecuted for assault with an hate crime enhancement attached. If it were simply an altercation, then no, his past isn't taken into account. To prove a hate crime, the key element is the state of mind at the time of the attack.

Or this 'beat whitey' night = cops think it's 'very possible' it could be racially motivated. Hello????

So in your view, 10 kids beating on one person simply because of his race, is equivalent of a regular fight? I'm sorry, but that's insane.

Having to second guess what gets treated as a hate crime and what doesn't DOES make it about race/sexual preference/etc. And if we're really striving for true equality, well then, these 'enhancements' need to go.

No offense Lisa, but you don't know what goes into determining what is and is not. It is a completely separate investigation. It isn't something that law enforcement takes lightly or bandies about every time there is an altercation between people of different ethnic groups.

If it's a heinous crime, then treat it as such. Regardless of intent. If a woman was raped and stabbed because the perp felt like it, or because she was Mexican, and he's a racist...well, does that really change what happened to the woman? She was raped and stabbed regardless. Don't tell me that one has more of a 'terrorizing' effect over the other.

You seem to disregard the intent of hate crime enhancements each and every post. You also seem to discount out of hand the effects of racist attacks. Nothing I can say will change your mind I suspect, so I would suggest you talk to someone who has been through it. I've seen the terror and anguish that lingers, for years after it happens. Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to dismiss it.

[Danno 1,228]

This is where you are wrong. If he singled out a minority and shouted epithets at him and attacked, then yes, he would be prosecuted for assault with an hate crime enhancement attached. If it were simply an altercation, then no, his past isn't taken into account. To prove a hate crime, the key element is the state of mind at the time of the attack.

So in your view, 10 kids beating on one person simply because of his race, is equivalent of a regular fight? I'm sorry, but that's insane.

No offense Lisa, but you don't know what goes into determining what is and is not. It is a completely separate investigation. It isn't something that law enforcement takes lightly or bandies about every time there is an altercation between people of different ethnic groups.

You seem to disregard the intent of hate crime enhancements each and every post. You also seem to discount out of hand the effects of racist attacks. Nothing I can say will change your mind I suspect, so I would suggest you talk to someone who has been through it. I've seen the terror and anguish that lingers, for years after it happens. Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to dismiss it.

Clearly from the stats provided, these hatecrime charges are way out of balance when you look at population numbers and when they are most often used.

In my experience, the only racially motivated attacks... have Been not "against" blacks but carried out "By" blacks.

MAybe you have known people who attacked Blacks... for being black, but I highly doubt it.

Hate crimes laws are a gross mockery of "equal protection under the law".

[Fandango 1,440]

This is where you are wrong. If he singled out a minority and shouted epithets at him and attacked, then yes, he would be prosecuted for assault with an hate crime enhancement attached. If it were simply an altercation, then no, his past isn't taken into account. To prove a hate crime, the key element is the state of mind at the time of the attack.

So in your view, 10 kids beating on one person simply because of his race, is equivalent of a regular fight? I'm sorry, but that's insane.

No, but 10 kids beating up on one person simply because of his race is equal to 10 kids beating up on one person simply for sh!ts and giggles, yes.

Take for instance, that kid who was doused with rubbing alcohol and set on fire...all over $40. Now, if it was 'racially motivated', somehow the punishment's worse, but at the end of the day, the kid as is, is plenty traumatized. Over $40. Someone set a human being on fire for $40. At that point, I don't care what race the perp was, or the victim, or the sexual preference of either. The kid was set on fire. End of. Lock him up and throw away that key.

No offense Lisa, but you don't know what goes into determining what is and is not. It is a completely separate investigation. It isn't something that law enforcement takes lightly or bandies about every time there is an altercation between people of different ethnic groups.

You seem to disregard the intent of hate crime enhancements each and every post. You also seem to discount out of hand the effects of racist attacks. Nothing I can say will change your mind I suspect, so I would suggest you talk to someone who has been through it. I've seen the terror and anguish that lingers, for years after it happens. Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to dismiss it.

None taken, that's why I am always asking for an answer. No, I'm not a cop nor a lawyer, but from what I read in the papers and the web, I don't think it's right. Ok, take your example for a second....let's assume it's the 'added fear/terror' aspect. HTF is anyone supposed to quantify Victim A's fear terror as somehow being worse than Victim B? Maybe YOU shouldn't be so quick to endorse it.

[SuperDuper! 230]

The difference is, I don't think it's moot. I don't think it should be a choice of 'enhancements' at all, and I think it's a slippery slope. Let's say someone is prejudiced, has a provable history of it somehow, but has never broken the law against a minority. Yet he gets into some altercation with a minority for some other reason. You can pretty much bet your azz it's probably gonna be prosecuted as a hate crime.

Or this 'beat whitey' night = cops think it's 'very possible' it could be racially motivated. Hello????

Having to second guess what gets treated as a hate crime and what doesn't DOES make it about race/sexual preference/etc. And if we're really striving for true equality, well then, these 'enhancements' need to go.

If it's a heinous crime, then treat it as such. Regardless of intent. If a woman was raped and stabbed because the perp felt like it, or because she was Mexican, and he's a racist...well, does that really change what happened to the woman? She was raped and stabbed regardless. Don't tell me that one has more of a 'terrorizing' effect over the other.

eta: I tried to be as clear as poss, but my brain is muddled tonite got a lot on my mind, it's late, and I gots the preggo brain right now, so this is the best I can do tonite

Did you ever give a wrong answer in life?

[Fandango 1,440]

Did you ever give a wrong answer in life?

Piss off, how's that for an answer?

[The_Dude 1,142]

No, but 10 kids beating up on one person simply because of his race is equal to 10 kids beating up on one person simply for sh!ts and giggles, yes.

Take for instance, that kid who was doused with rubbing alcohol and set on fire...all over $40. Now, if it was 'racially motivated', somehow the punishment's worse, but at the end of the day, the kid as is, is plenty traumatized. Over $40. Someone set a human being on fire for $40. At that point, I don't care what race the perp was, or the victim, or the sexual preference of either. The kid was set on fire. End of. Lock him up and throw away that key.

I'm done arguing the merits of it. Clearly, I view racism as a much darker social phenomenon than you do, and herein lies our difference of opinion apparently. But the fact of the matter is that law enforcement, and the courts do feel that it is loathsome social cancer that needs to be addressed.

None taken, that's why I am always asking for an answer. No, I'm not a cop nor a lawyer, but from what I read in the papers and the web, I don't think it's right. Ok, take your example for a second....let's assume it's the 'added fear/terror' aspect. HTF is anyone supposed to quantify Victim A's fear terror as somehow being worse than Victim B? Maybe YOU shouldn't be so quick to endorse it.

I'm not a mental health professional, so I have no idea how to quantify the effects. I have seen victims of it, and have known people who have endured it. But the prosecutors and law enforcement do take it into account in their sentencing recommendations, and judges do use it when weighing in the penalty phase of a trial.

[SuperDuper! 230]

Piss off, how's that for an answer?

Rude.

Parenting skills much?

[Fandango 1,440]

Rude.

Parenting skills much?

LOL personal attack much?

[Fandango 1,440]

I'm done arguing the merits of it. Clearly, I view racism as a much darker social phenomenon than you do, and herein lies our difference of opinion apparently. But the fact of the matter is that law enforcement, and the courts do feel that it is loathsome social cancer that needs to be addressed.

I'm not a mental health professional, so I have no idea how to quantify the effects. I have seen victims of it, and have known people who have endured it. But the prosecutors and law enforcement do take it into account in their sentencing recommendations, and judges do use it when weighing in the penalty phase of a trial.

Rob, I'm not trying to argue, just giving my flip side to the coin here. I really, truly, and honestly do not see that the perp being racist makes the crime worse. I've been thinking about that kid that got set on fire since I read about it on here. What a horrific experience he went through, I can't even imagine the sheer evil of the kids doing it to him. To think that they could have been punished even more severely if the boy was a minority of some sort, or there was racism involved where he was, just kinda baffles me. Evil is evil, no matter what the specific motives.

It's not that I don't think racism is wrong, or a cancer on society. But once things cross the line to law breaking, I think the act itself should be the deciding factors, not the intent behind it.

But thanks for your input!

[Scott & Lai 12]

The term is still in use, but it is inaccurate. The term Anglo-Saxon refers specifically to the people who ruled Britain during the middle ages up until the Battle of Hastings.

If they don't exist, where did they go? When did they become extinct?? Are you saying everyone of English decent today is decended from the Normans?