Woman charged in Fort Hood-related hate crime:

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

I guess, but I might also have been murdered because I happen to be wearing a million dollar fir coat and they wanted the coat. If I wasn't wearing the coat I might be alive still.

Its not going to change the grief of my family. IMO a murder of anyone should get life in prison regardless. (I don't believe in the death penalty for ANYONE....even people like Göring or Sadam)

But what if didn't have on a fur coat but you were attacked because you wore a cross?

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

That was yet another expected bit of hate. No huge surprises there. Too bad some aren't quite catching it.

Sad but true.

[HAL 9000 96]

NOI kids offer bakery items at street corners when the weather is nice. They taste pretty good.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

In the criminal justice system, why do you think we have the sentences 'manslaughter'. 'murder 1', 'murder 2'?

Because of intent.

I can't understand why anyone would be confused as to how intentional hatred of a category of persons should play no part in justice. It has clearly played a major role all along in sentencing.

Well to be honest the same people who scoff at the idea of hate crimes are the same people with negative stereotypes of the individuals often targeted by hate crimes.

Excellent point!

[HAL 9000 96]

In the criminal justice system, why do you think we have the sentences 'manslaughter'. 'murder 1', 'murder 2'?

Because of intent.

I can't understand why anyone would be confused as to how intentional hatred of a category of persons should play no part in justice. It has clearly played a major role all along in sentencing.

Well to be honest the same people who scoff at the idea of hate crimes are the same people with negative stereotypes of the individuals often targeted by hate crimes.

Excellent point!

For the most part... that would be intuitive. But I do believe there are people that think we have finally moved on to a post-racial America for X and Y reason. Of course, luckily the number of both loud and silent bigots is going down overall... we're not quite there yet.

Some day these hate crime laws will be eliminated.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

NOI kids offer bakery items at street corners when the weather is nice. They taste pretty good.

In Chicago? I'm guessing it probably wasn't in Skokie or Niles or Palatine and definitely not in Cicero or Winnetka. I don't think that I ever saw them but then again, I was probably not paying attention.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I guess, but I might also have been murdered because I happen to be wearing a million dollar fir coat and they wanted the coat. If I wasn't wearing the coat I might be alive still.

Its not going to change the grief of my family. IMO a murder of anyone should get life in prison regardless. (I don't believe in the death penalty for ANYONE....even people like Göring or Sadam)

But what if didn't have on a fur coat but you were attacked because you wore a cross?

It just doesn't matter. Death is death. Even the most heinous of criminals should not be put to death in my opinion.

Edited November 24, 2009 by Sousuke

[meowmeowmeow 1]

John

Sad screwed up thing is, if any of us went to a Muslim country in middle east and tried to practice our religion there, we would be thrown in jail immediately, or shot, or beaten or whipped or given lashes. We as Americans are stupid to sit here and think muslims are peaceful and kind and accepting of others, that is not true. The only reason muslims are tolerant of any one in the USA is because of our laws and culture here now, but if given their way you can bet on a New York minute they would put sharia law in place immediately and ban all other religions in the USA. They cannot help themselves it is in their teachings and religion to do this to infidels such as you and I and any other American that does not belong to the muslim religion. The lady grabbing at the woman is an assualt plain and simple, not a hate crime, nice try by the muslim chapter to push that as hate crime, this case will get reduced down to an assault at best. Was it right to attack someone like that, no it is not. But would you and I be afforded the same protection from the government law in a muslim based country, NO we would not. And that I Am sure is what upsets so many Americans when they see this total hypocrisy by muslims around the world that come to the USA and live and then cry backlash or hate crime card.

An Illinois woman is charged with a hate crime for berating a Muslim woman about the Fort Hood shooting and then pulling at her headscarf. The charge could lead to three years in prison: justice or prosecutorial overkill?

Atlanta - In the days after the Ft. Hood shooting, mosques around the country bolstered their security in anticipation of a backlash from Americans angry about a Muslim man alleged to have killed American soldiers on their own turf.

Since then, only one alleged hate crime against Muslims has been directly tied to the Fort Hood rampage.

Two days after the rampage by an alleged lone wolf jihadist killed 13 in Texas, a Tinley Park, Ill., woman grumbled about the massacre and tugged the headscarf of a US-born Muslim woman, Amal Abusumayah, standing in line at a local grocery store.

Reaction was swift and, as prosecutors announced this week, serious: The alleged scarf-puller, Valerie Kenney, is charged with a hate crime, and she could face three years in prison and a $25,000 fine if convicted.

The incident shows that prosecutors are increasingly serious about throwing the book at even small infractions of state and federal hate-crime laws. Yet three possible years in prison in this case, critics say, is overkill, and could serve to cheapen the definition of a hate crime.

"Look, if Kenney did what she's accused of doing, it was a nasty thing to do, and it's certainly a Stupid Crime," writes Sun-Times columnist Richard Roeper. "But jail time? How about an apology, forgiveness, some kind of community service and everybody moves on?"

The Pew Research Center reported in September that Americans believe US Muslims face more discrimination than any other major religious group.

Incidents against Muslims spiked after 9/11, but soon dropped back down. And of 1,477 religiously-based crimes in 2007, 68 percent were against Jews while nine percent were aimed at Muslims.

But for many Muslims, the headscarf incident in Tinley Park – a town recently voted by BusinessWeek magazine as the best place in America to live and work – is "exactly the type of thing we worried about happening," Christina Abraham, the civil rights director of the Chicago chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), told Medill Reports, a student-written news service in Chicago.

"Usually after incidents like Fort Hood, there tends to be a spike in hate crimes. Current events cause people to act out in bigotry," she said.

According to police reports, Ms. Kenney, a bank teller, walked up to Ms. Abusumayah and shouted, "The guy that did the Texas shooting, he wasn't American, and he was from the Middle East!" (The alleged shooter, Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, is a US citizen born in Virginia.)

After being ignored, Kenney allegedly walked up behind Abusumayah and pulled her hijab, the traditional headscarf worn by many Muslim women in public.

Kenney posted a $5,000 bail, but has not yet made a plea. She is scheduled in court on Dec. 3.

"Attacking our headscarf is essentially trampling on the pride that we hold so dear," Chicago CAIR's Amina Sharif told Medill Reports. "An attack on the hijab is an attack on dignity and faith of God."

Others say both CAIR and prosecutors in the case are being overly sensitive.

"There's no defending Kenney's alleged behavior, which sounds like disorderly conduct at least, but the charge and prospective penalty are grotesquely disproportionate unless there is more to the story," writes the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1120/p02s24-usgn.html

i do not agree for the mere fact that most "muslim" governments, if not all have links to corporations and governments that are supplying them with what they want/need and thus ensuring their status in their countries. while you'd think of saudi arabia being a hardcore religious country, you should meet a lot of expats that come from there or even read up on what the royal family does in their spare time and you'll laugh. religion is also intertwined with local culture so sometimes it loses its significance to people and they take it for granted, like it is in the background always...

i think in general most people are just simple, hardworking, and normal people who just want to get through life the best they can. sadly, there are some nuts who have been a) abused B) traumatised c) indocrinated d) etc. who use religion as a tool to do crazy things.

about the teachings, that's another story. and if you want to whine about culture, that's another. every place and people have their bad seeds. i find it amusing to what length people take mainstream media seriously. most of the sh!t they put on TV or whatever is given to us in a particular light, mode, etc. i think crimes are committed by everyone just as equally because inherently the human race is kinda scummy, constantly torturing itself in many ways....

just chill. really. venting on a forum on the internet is going to get you where? i understand it's cool to share your views and debate/discuss, but it really just gets so tiring to see such warped sh!t written on here sometimes from some people. it's shocking but even if you have a foreign spouse/family tie or have lived somewhere and whatever, you can still be quite narrow in your viewpoints when it comes to world culture and its dynamics.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

1.) Bring it Friendo. Talk is cheap. If you have the statutes then post 'em, otherwise STFU.

google it yourself

2.) Black people like to scream "victim" you just repeated that. "It merely remarks upon a class of people who love to scream "VICTIM!". Who would that be?

google it yourself

3.) You know bunches of Chinese Muslims personally? Unless you have a statement of veracity from the Archangel Gabriel no one is buying it.

dude, i lived in china for 4 years, in henan province, the center of islam in china. you want phone numbers? they all start with 011-86. but you prolly don't speak much chinese...

4.) Special interest groups have perverted the statute?

happens all the time. google it yourself.

5.) My analogy between premeditated crimes and unpremeditated crimes is valid unless you care to explain how it is faulty. Produce the statute and analysis or STFU.

a "hate" crime can be premeditated, or spontaneous, just like any other assault, except that it has a specially protected victim. this has nothing to do with the difference between planned and unplanned murder. it would be more like the difference between murder of a somalian and an eskimo. in my book there is no difference. idiot.

6.) If you believe that the justice system is faulty and unequal then don't hate, try to do something constructive about it. Make sure your arguments are sound first.

i vote every time, and am in contact with my local representative and senator on a regular basis.

7.) So we've established, by your own admission, that you have problems with what you see as special interest groups, Muslims and Jews. While I wait for you to produce the stautes that prove your point, can you tell me how many straight white Christian males have been attacked in the last year in the United States solely because they were straight white Christian males?

by my own admission i have problem with anybody being treated special under the law, except for servants of the law. i don't care if you're purple or green or a homosexual penguin. you are no more special than anybody else under common law. unfortunately, common law has been perverted to the point that blacks get academic admissions with lower scores, businesses owned by women win contracts at 20% over low bid, handicapped people have special parking space, the list goes on and on.

8.) "Identity is established through accomplishment," your own words. Being a religious person is a great accomplishment in today's society. It's not easy. Your prototypical "black woman," has an identity, she is a person of faith. It doesn't matter if she's Muslim, Hindu, Jew, Christian or any other faith. Perhaps only your version of Christianity counts, that makes her ignorant I suppose. What if she were a Catholic nun? I guess that's not real Christianity in your book? There are far more white Christians on welfare than any other group.

you obviously do not understand, and never will.

I was going to tear you a new one based on what you posted but then I remembered that aggression is Satan’s province. God is love and love is understanding so I hope that you accept Divine understanding and He fills your heart with it. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God. I am a child of God. If that makes me an “idiot” so be it. You don’t have to justify yourself to me, nor I to you. We only need to justify ourselves to Him since He alone will judge us.

[slim 1,533]

This case goes to show prosecutors have a lot of leeway in deciding how to charge someone.

Going back through this thread, justashooter raised a very valid point. If we have "more" protection for one group or another, then we "cheapen" the law for everyone else. As a gun-owning community, we've seen this way too many times. Murder is already illegal. Rape is already illegal. Drugs are already illegal. But yet, for some reason, politicians want to make guns "more illegal" so folks can't murder with them. The point of "assaulting a Muslim woman because she's Muslim" being more illegal than "assaulting a woman because it's illegal" starts to lead down the path where assaulting anyone at all isn't as "illegal" as assaulting only certain types of people. There shouldn't be a difference in assaulting anyone. Assault is illegal. Period.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

This case goes to show prosecutors have a lot of leeway in deciding how to charge someone.

Going back through this thread, justashooter raised a very valid point. If we have "more" protection for one group or another, then we "cheapen" the law for everyone else. As a gun-owning community, we've seen this way too many times. Murder is already illegal. Rape is already illegal. Drugs are already illegal. But yet, for some reason, politicians want to make guns "more illegal" so folks can't murder with them. The point of "assaulting a Muslim woman because she's Muslim" being more illegal than "assaulting a woman because it's illegal" starts to lead down the path where assaulting anyone at all isn't as "illegal" as assaulting only certain types of people. There shouldn't be a difference in assaulting anyone. Assault is illegal. Period.

Just to reiterate what many people as well as I have posted, the law has always recognized special circumstances. If you look at murder, we have such things as lying in wait and the felony murder rule. These are special circumstances that dictate the charge to be filed, their purpose is to deter such actions by anyone in the future. This is the same case with the hate crime. No one is cheapening the law, that is not a valid argument since it ignores the body of US law that has been in existence for many, many years. The felony murder rule is a good analogy. We decide to rob a bank and one or both of us is armed. The guard pulls on me and I shoot him dead and you do nothing. We will both be charged with murder, eventhough you did nothing and I had no intent to kill the guard, I just wanted to rob the bank. It should be manslaughter but for the felony that we were actors to. I knew or might have suspected what could happen under the circumstances, carrying a loaded weapon in the commission of a felony. You, as my major accomplice, not an auxilliary person such as the getaway driver, will face the same charge. Murder 1 and, on conviction, almost certainly a trip to death row. Let's say the police show up and paint the ceiling with my brains. You are responsible for my death, eventhough you did nothing. You might or might not get charged with another count of murder (you should but the prosecutor may not care since she's got you on one count already) but you would certainly face at least one count of murder. A police bullet goes wild and kills a customer. You get another count of murder, eventhough you had no intention of hurting anyone and you only wanted to rob the bank. If you look at the agency theory used by some states, one of the actors (you or me) must have caused the death, if you look at the proximate cause theory, the but-for test is used But-for the actions of the accused the person would not have died. The other bank guard tries to grab your gun and has a heart attack, guess who gets hit with another count of murder. In many states such as Texas the getaway driver would be guilty of felony murder since he planned or aided and abetted the felony that caused the murder. He would likely not be executed. Hope this clears up the misconception of unequal protection under the law and special circumstances. You may be advocating stiffer sentences but that is a collateral issue.

Edited November 24, 2009 by IR5FORMUMSIE

[rebeccajo 14]

This case goes to show prosecutors have a lot of leeway in deciding how to charge someone.

Going back through this thread, justashooter raised a very valid point. If we have "more" protection for one group or another, then we "cheapen" the law for everyone else. As a gun-owning community, we've seen this way too many times. Murder is already illegal. Rape is already illegal. Drugs are already illegal. But yet, for some reason, politicians want to make guns "more illegal" so folks can't murder with them. The point of "assaulting a Muslim woman because she's Muslim" being more illegal than "assaulting a woman because it's illegal" starts to lead down the path where assaulting anyone at all isn't as "illegal" as assaulting only certain types of people. There shouldn't be a difference in assaulting anyone. Assault is illegal. Period.

Just to reiterate what many people as well as I have posted, the law has always recognized special circumstances. If you look at murder, we have such things as lying in wait and the felony murder rule. These are special circumstances that dictate the charge to be filed, their purpose is to deter such actions by anyone in the future. This is the same case with the hate crime. No one is cheapening the law, that is not a valid argument since it ignores the body of US law that has been in existence for many, many years. The felony murder rule is a good analogy. We decide to rob a bank and one or both of us is armed. The guard pulls on me and I shoot him dead and you do nothing. We will both be charged with murder, eventhough you did nothing and I had no intent to kill the guard, I just wanted to rob the bank. It should be manslaughter but for the felony that we were actors to. I knew or might have suspected what could happen under the circumstances, carrying a loaded weapon in the commission of a felony. You, as my major accomplice, not an auxilliary person such as the getaway driver, will face the same charge. Murder 1 and, on conviction, almost certainly a trip to death row. Let's say the police show up and paint the ceiling with my brains. You are responsible for my death, eventhough you did nothing. You might or might not get charged with another count of murder (you should but the prosecutor may not care since she's got you on one count already) but you would certainly face at least one count of murder. A police bullet goes wild and kills a customer. You get another count of murder, eventhough you had no intention of hurting anyone and you only wanted to rob the bank. If you look at the agency theory used by some states, one of the actors (you or me) must have caused the death, if you look at the proximate cause theory, the but-for test is used But-for the actions of the accused the person would not have died. The other bank guard tries to grab your gun and has a heart attack, guess who gets hit with another count of murder. In many states such as Texas the getaway driver would be guilty of felony murder since he planned or aided and abetted the felony that caused the murder. He would likely not be executed. Hope this clears up the misconception of unequal protection under the law and special circumstances. You may be advocating stiffer sentences but that is a collateral issue.

[NickD 203]

She from Illinois? Has to be slightly south of Chicago where the bible belt begins, and logical reasoning ends.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

NOI kids offer bakery items at street corners when the weather is nice. They taste pretty good.

And Hitlerjugend offered similar-to-scouting programmes for children--try again!

[HAL 9000 96]

NOI kids offer bakery items at street corners when the weather is nice. They taste pretty good.

In Chicago? I'm guessing it probably wasn't in Skokie or Niles or Palatine and definitely not in Cicero or Winnetka. I don't think that I ever saw them but then again, I was probably not paying attention.

Don't know about the Skokie/Niles Jews but I think they're not that bad as it comes to NOI kids selling pastries. LOL

As for them 'Christians' in Palatine... I'm sure some pitchforks would be rounded up as they run the kids to Barrington and then into the Fox River. That's a fact.

But these kids would certainly regret going into Cicero and its hidden Klan safe houses. As for Winnetka... well... I'm sure between the million dollar homes owned by Arab nationals and Bears players they could allow some pastry selling. Although I'm sure some 'usual' North Shore resident would object to a sharply dressed black kid with a white box on any Winnetka street...

Nah dude... you have to to the South Side... S. Stony Island, 79th street... that area where the Skyway goes on through to Indiana. Not many mansions around there!

This case goes to show prosecutors have a lot of leeway in deciding how to charge someone.

Going back through this thread, justashooter raised a very valid point. If we have "more" protection for one group or another, then we "cheapen" the law for everyone else. As a gun-owning community, we've seen this way too many times. Murder is already illegal. Rape is already illegal. Drugs are already illegal. But yet, for some reason, politicians want to make guns "more illegal" so folks can't murder with them. The point of "assaulting a Muslim woman because she's Muslim" being more illegal than "assaulting a woman because it's illegal" starts to lead down the path where assaulting anyone at all isn't as "illegal" as assaulting only certain types of people. There shouldn't be a difference in assaulting anyone. Assault is illegal. Period.

Just to reiterate what many people as well as I have posted, the law has always recognized special circumstances. If you look at murder, we have such things as lying in wait and the felony murder rule. These are special circumstances that dictate the charge to be filed, their purpose is to deter such actions by anyone in the future. This is the same case with the hate crime. No one is cheapening the law, that is not a valid argument since it ignores the body of US law that has been in existence for many, many years. The felony murder rule is a good analogy. We decide to rob a bank and one or both of us is armed. The guard pulls on me and I shoot him dead and you do nothing. We will both be charged with murder, eventhough you did nothing and I had no intent to kill the guard, I just wanted to rob the bank. It should be manslaughter but for the felony that we were actors to. I knew or might have suspected what could happen under the circumstances, carrying a loaded weapon in the commission of a felony. You, as my major accomplice, not an auxilliary person such as the getaway driver, will face the same charge. Murder 1 and, on conviction, almost certainly a trip to death row. Let's say the police show up and paint the ceiling with my brains. You are responsible for my death, eventhough you did nothing. You might or might not get charged with another count of murder (you should but the prosecutor may not care since she's got you on one count already) but you would certainly face at least one count of murder. A police bullet goes wild and kills a customer. You get another count of murder, eventhough you had no intention of hurting anyone and you only wanted to rob the bank. If you look at the agency theory used by some states, one of the actors (you or me) must have caused the death, if you look at the proximate cause theory, the but-for test is used But-for the actions of the accused the person would not have died. The other bank guard tries to grab your gun and has a heart attack, guess who gets hit with another count of murder. In many states such as Texas the getaway driver would be guilty of felony murder since he planned or aided and abetted the felony that caused the murder. He would likely not be executed. Hope this clears up the misconception of unequal protection under the law and special circumstances. You may be advocating stiffer sentences but that is a collateral issue.

Double thumbs.

She from Illinois? Has to be slightly south of Chicago where the bible belt begins, and logical reasoning ends.

Tinley Park... actually a nice suburb. SW suburb. Where all kinds of diverse people live, work, and play.

NOI kids offer bakery items at street corners when the weather is nice. They taste pretty good.

And Hitlerjugend offered similar-to-scouting programmes for children--try again!

Ah I see. The same Hitlerjugend the current Pope was a member of.

Nice fail.