Illegal Immigrants Now Considered A "Protected Class" Subject To "Hate Crime" Laws.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Hate crime laws are such lunacy...

----------------

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/10/14/pennsylvania.hate.crime/index.html?hpt=T1

Scranton, Pennsylvania (CNN) -- Two men on trial in a Pennsylvania federal court in connection with the beating death of an undocumented Mexican immigrant have been found guilty on all counts, including hate crimes.

Derrick M. Donchak, 20, of Shenandoah, and Brandon J. Piekarsky, 18, of Shenandoah Heights, had previously been acquitted of murder charges in state court and convicted of simple assault.

But Donchak and Piekarsky were charged in federal court with hate crimes and depriving Luis Ramirez of his civil rights. Donchak also was accused of trying to cover up the July 12, 2008, crime.

"Four people attacked one person because of his race and because they didn't want people like him living in their town," prosecutor Myesha K. Braden said during her closing argument.

Witnesses testified that racist language was used before and during the attack and that Ramirez was kicked in the head repeatedly after falling down. The defendants, they said, didn't want immigrants in their neighborhood and repeatedly ordered Ramirez to leave.

Regarding the cover up, Braden said, "They hatched a plan to leave out the kick, to leave out the race and even to leave out the drinking."

Lawyers for the defendants said that the encounter had been no more than a fight fueled by testosterone and alcohol. William Fetterhoff, a lawyer for Donchak, said Ramirez chased one of the men.

The all-white jury deliberated on the case for approximately six and a half hours before reaching a verdict. Both men face up to life in prison. Sentencing was set for January 24, and the judge denied a motion for bail, calling their crime "a crime of violence."

Donchak's head dropped as the verdict was read. His parents wept.

"We're going to be OK," said Piekarsky's mother, Tammy. "We will appeal."

Shenandoah police officer Jason Hayes, who was identified as Tammy Piekarsky's boyfriend at the trial, faces federal obstructing justice charges in the investigation, as do former Shenandoah Police Chief Matthew R. Nestor and police Lt. William Moyer.

Nestor, Moyer and Hayes are scheduled to go to trial in January. Nestor, who faces charges in an unrelated extortion case, has resigned.

U.S. District Judge Richard Caputo, who presided over the Donchak/Piekarsky trial in Scranton, is slated to preside over the officers' trials in Wilkes-Barre.

Crystal Dillman, the mother of Ramirez' two children, said she was "ecstatic" with the verdict.

"It's nice to know that there is some justice for Luis," she said.

"I won't completely move on until the federal trial of the police officers is done," she said, "until it is proven that there was a conspiracy to stop justice."

Ramirez' mother, in Mexico, is "in shock but relieved and happy," Dillman said, but the couple's two children "are not past this."

"They are coming to grips with the fact that their father is dead," she said. "They don't understand where their father went and why he'll never come home. They will never comprehend this."

Donchak and Piekarsky were tried on state charges in May 2009 and convicted of simple assault and alcohol-related offenses. County Presiding Judge William E. Baldwin sentenced Donchak to six months and one week and Piekarsky to 23 months. Both are currently on parole.

A political outcry from Latino groups followed the state trial, and politicians, including Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, urged the federal government to pursue the case. Federal authorities convened a grand jury, which indicted the pair on December 10. Prosecutors announced the indictment five days later.

The Obama administration's top civil rights official praised Thursday's outcome.

"This jury's verdict demonstrates that violence aimed at preventing people from living in America because of their race, national origin, or ethnicity is intolerable," said Thomas E. Perez, assistant attorney general for civil rights in the Department of Justice. "As this case illustrates, the Civil Rights Division will vigorously enforce the rights of every person who lives in this country to do so free of racially based violence and intimidation."

Edited October 15, 2010 by Paul and Vanessa

[Heracles 417]

#######.....

[Wayne and Claudia 40]

"Justice gone crazy." I never use the word hate but I don't like illegals. It makes a mockery of the legal process that so many of us have endured. Is it any wonder that folks who came here legally have such a distaste for illegals?

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

criminal scum become a protected class? That's f##### up.

[Peikko 1,575]

criminal scum become a protected class? That's f##### up.

If people like you would keep a proper sense of perspective as to the reality of what an undocumented migrant is, then such laws would indeed be unnecessary. Criminal scum indeed.

[Peikko 1,575]

If a criminal targets someone because he believes that his is from a particular ethnic group then it is a hate crime and there is nothing 'effed up' about that. The fact that the targeted person happens to also be an undocumented migrant is neither here nor there from the legal perspective. The US properly protects everyone on its soil because that is what the US stands for, justice, not vigilantism.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

I don't see a protected class at all. I see someone was murdered and the perpetrators getting their just due.

[Heracles 417]

If a criminal targets someone because he believes that his is from a particular ethnic group then it is a hate crime and there is nothing 'effed up' about that. The fact that the targeted person happens to also be an undocumented migrant is neither here nor there from the legal perspective. The US properly protects everyone on its soil because that is what the US stands for, justice, not vigilantism.

Funny how you never share this same level of outrage, when illegal aliens kill Americans. Under that situation, it's basically a 'oh well, ###### happens - get over it' response from you.

Edited October 15, 2010 by Heracles

[Obama 2012 1,714]

If a criminal targets someone because he believes that his is from a particular ethnic group then it is a hate crime and there is nothing 'effed up' about that. The fact that the targeted person happens to also be an undocumented migrant is neither here nor there from the legal perspective. The US properly protects everyone on its soil because that is what the US stands for, justice, not vigilantism.

No it doesn't. The moment you try someone for a "hate crime" you take away from your normal murder/assault. Hate crime legislation discriminates against crimes that are just as bad, if not worse. You're punishing thought, which is completely absurd.

If a person assaults another person, give them the same time no matter the reasoning... other than intentional v. unintentional.

[Peikko 1,575]

No it doesn't. The moment you try someone for a "hate crime" you take away from your normal murder/assault. Hate crime legislation discriminates against crimes that are just as bad, if not worse. You're punishing thought, which is completely absurd.

If a person assaults another person, give them the same time no matter the reasoning... other than intentional v. unintentional.

More Paul nonsense. The criminal justice system ALWAYS tries to determine motive behind criminal violence and the prosecutor proceeds on specific charges based on their finding as to the most likely motive. Are you suggesting that the American criminal justice system is absurd? I wouldn't put it passed you mind.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

More Paul nonsense. The criminal justice system ALWAYS tries to determine motive behind criminal violence and the prosecutor proceeds on specific charges based on their finding as to the most likely motive. Are you suggesting that the American criminal justice system is absurd? I wouldn't put it passed you mind.

Not nonsense at all. You're treating victims differently here even...

A crime is determined to be planned (pre-meditated), on a whim/part of a another cause (second degree), or accidental.... The investigation/case determines this and is fair enough. Nothing else punishes actual thought though. It's not even an equation other than determining if a crime was pre-meditated or not.

If it's indeed a "hate crime" against someone, then charge it as a pre-meditated crime. Treating it based on the "hate crime" factor alone though is discriminatory against victims of the exact same crimes, just because the 'reasoning' was different.

If you want a pre-meditated assault to be 10 years, then make it 10 years all around. Don't tack on an extra 5 because the person did it because of race/creed.....

[Peikko 1,575]

Not nonsense at all. You're treating victims differently here even...

A crime is determined to be planned (pre-meditated), on a whim/part of a another cause (second degree), or accidental.... The investigation/case determines this and is fair enough. Nothing else punishes actual thought though. It's not even an equation other than determining if a crime was pre-meditated or not.

If it's indeed a "hate crime" against someone, then charge it as a pre-meditated crime. Treating it based on the "hate crime" factor alone though is discriminatory against victims of the exact same crimes, just because the 'reasoning' was different.

If you want a pre-meditated assault to be 10 years, then make it 10 years all around. Don't tack on an extra 5 because the person did it because of race/creed.....

Harming someone you do not know from Adam because you don't like an ethnic group for some reason is very different from harming someone you know specifically because of a perceived grievance. These differences of motivation are material in determining a persons liklihood of committing a new offense for one thing and it is also used to determine mental stability etc, which is part of what determines a longer sentence. The law is very nuanced, which is as it should be - it is not a one size fits all mechanism, no matter how frustrating you find that, which, obviously you do.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Harming someone you do not know from Adam because you don't like an ethnic group for some reason is very different from harming someone you know specifically because of a perceived grievance. These differences of motivation are material in determining a persons liklihood of committing a new offense for one thing and it is also used to determine mental stability etc, which is part of what determines a longer sentence. The law is very nuanced, which is as it should be - it is not a one size fits all mechanism, no matter how frustrating you find that, which, obviously you do.

No, I don't believe in punishing thought though. Regardless of how one feels about bigots/racists, that's still protected free speech. The actions of harming another person aren't protected, but those thoughts are. You cannot punish someone based on their thought process. It's very very wrong and a dangerous precedent to set. I mean what other thoughts and actions will we choose to add on?

All hate crimes legislation is, is apologist BS trying to appease minority crowds in order to gain votes.

[Peikko 1,575]

Funny how you never share this same level of outrage, when illegal aliens kill Americans. Under that situation, it's basically a 'oh well, ###### happens - get over it' response from you.

One, I am not 'outraged' about this, I am merely pointing out why hate crimes are pernicious and why calling everyone who might fit the illegal immigrant category as criminal scum leads to people indiscriminately harming people of specific ethnicities.

Two, I have never expressed the opinion that it is 'oh well, never mind, get over it' when a legal citizen is harmed by one that is not legally present in the US. Such a suggestion that I might think that is scurrilous in the extreme, and you have absolutely no evidence that I believe any such nonsense. Next time you feel like making such a statement, find a quote of mine that backs it up or be prepared to suffer the consequences.

[Peikko 1,575]

No, I don't believe in punishing thought though. Regardless of how one feels about bigots/racists, that's still protected free speech. The actions of harming another person aren't protected, but those thoughts are. You cannot punish someone based on their thought process. It's very very wrong and a dangerous precedent to set. I mean what other thoughts and actions will we choose to add on?

All hate crimes legislation is, is apologist BS trying to appease minority crowds in order to gain votes.

It's not thought when someone beats up and kills someone based merely on the fact that they fit some profile of types of people one doesn't like rather than specific individuals because of actual harm. Hate crime legislation addresses very real problems. Would you prefer it is Jews for example had no recourse if someone swathed their synagogue with swazistickers? Is that the sort of apologist bullshit that appeases minorities and gains votes?