Woman charged in Fort Hood-related hate crime:

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

For example if 10 black kids beat the bejesus out a white kid simply because he is white that is a hate crime (or vice versa).

The selective enforcement of hate crimes is certainly a topic of debate, but whether or not there should be a legal distinction between hate crimes & "normal" crimes is not the debate here (IMO).

you're the criminal justice expert, so:

please show me one example of an incident in which blacks have been prosecuted for hate crimes against whites.

please show me one example of an incident in which muslims have been prosecuted for hate crimes against non-muslims.

http://newyork.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel09/nyfo052009.htm

Four Arrested for Plot to Bomb Synagogue and Jewish Community Center and to Shoot Military Planes with Stinger Missiles

The 4 in question AMES CROMITIE, a/k/a "Abdul Rahman," a/k/a "Abdul Rehman," DAVID WILLIAMS, a/k/a "Daoud," a/k/a "DL," ONTA WILLIAMS, a/k/a "Hamza," and LAGUERRE PAYEN, a/k/a "Amin," a/k/a "Almondo," are (a) black (b ) Muslm (c ) arrested and facing life sentences for targeting Jews and Jewish synagogues.

these ignoramuses are in jail for being stupid. they are not facing life in prison for targeting jews. they are facing life in prison for trying to buy missiles to shoot down aircraft with. it's not like they would actually be able to score, anyway. shooting an aircraft down with a shoulder launched missile is not like shooting a home boy in the hood for selling on your turf. it's much more complicated than that.

in this case the perps weren't muslim, anyway. they were just "jail house muslims", which means they changed their names to be "cool". i highly doubt the ever kneeled on a rug or read a koran.

so tell me, when is hasan gonna be charged with a hate crime?

Oh, so (a) they're not really Muslim (b ) they weren't really arrested and charged with plotting to kill Jews and blow up a synagogue.

I suppose they're not really black,either.

You know what? You have a serious reading comprehension problem. You should look into that.

Anyway, since the essence of your stance appears to be that somehow hate crimes in America are only prosecuted against whites and not people of color, perhaps this might convince you otherwise . (Ha! Convince JAS?? )

Anyway, in the most recent year for which FBI stats are available (2006):

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2006/table1.html

* There were 890 anti-white hate-crime incidents compared to 2640 anti-Black.

* There 76 anti-Catholic and 59 anti-Protestant incidents compared to 156 anti-Islamic and 967 anti-Jewish incidents.

I suppose those 890 whites who were victimized just don't "count", right?

Neither do the 135 Christians.

Not surprisingly, despite their relatively small share of the overall population Jews in this country continue to absorb a disproportionate share of the hate-based attacks.

Bchol dor v'dor omdim aleinu l'chaloteinu

Ok, go ahead. Start your rationalizations for why this doesn't count. I suppose the FBI is part of the vast left-wing "they're out to get me" conspiracy. J Edgar Hoover was a cross dresser, after all.

What kind of man dresses up as a cross?

[scandal 951]

What kind of man dresses up as a cross?

Burning man!

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

What kind of man dresses up as a cross?

Burning man!

Was it wearing a dress before they lit it?

[scandal 951]

What kind of man dresses up as a cross?

Burning man!

Was it wearing a dress before they lit it?

Why do you hate dresses? That's a hate crime against all dress-wearers, you know!

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

What kind of man dresses up as a cross?

Burning man!

Was it wearing a dress before they lit it?

Why do you hate dresses? That's a hate crime against all dress-wearers, you know!

They look like burqas?

[slim 1,533]

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...................... 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.

Murder laws and the like aren't a good comparison because murder laws don't take the victim's status into account, they take the perp's. Commonly, it's the status of the offender that dictates the charge in a murder case - ex: lying in wait as opposed to coming home early from work. It's the amount of forethought that dictates the charges.

In hate crimes, the offender's forethought and subsequent criminal activity has nothing to do with the charge. The only thing that matters is "who/what" they are in comparison to "who/what" the victim is. Hate crimes are actually worded as such that the motivation for the crime is based on the difference between the offender and victim. Murder charges are not doled out based on the relationship or motivation, only the amount of pre-planning that went into the crime.

Based on that, a stiffer sentence is handed down when someone should've thought "I shouldn't be doing this because it's illegal" for a longer amount of time. Husband snaps because wifey is in bed with another man, manslaughter. Pulling off an armed heist where folks get killed, murder one. The little light of right and wrong should've been going off for longer before the crime was committed.

In hate crimes, it doesn't matter whether someone instantly acts or plans an act for years. It's automatically a hate crime and it's not based on the amount of time they thought about doing or not doing the crime, it's only based on the status of the victim.

Now, I have to ask, why don't we protect all victims and prosecute all offenders the same way? Is it because they're different? If we're going to start drawing lines between our differences, then I have to ask, where do they start? And the $64,000 question is - WHERE DO THEY STOP?

[PlatyPius 5]

The charge could lead to three years in prison: justice or prosecutorial overkill?

prosecutorial stupidity.

I disagree.

I think she should serve the entire 3 years. Why? For being stupid. What is it with these stupid redneck f##ktards and their belief that anyone who doesn't look like them "isn't an American!!!1", even if the person is a 3rd generation American?

Personally, I'm growing weary of living in a country with a bunch mental midgets. Anything that can be done to either educate them or cause them grievous pain and suffering is something that I'm all for.

I'm sure she believes that Obama was born in Kenya, too. That's where we need to start - that group. Arrest them ALL for stupidity.

[Niels Bohr 72]

I think Platy deserves something for putting that.

Such quality post!

The charge could lead to three years in prison: justice or prosecutorial overkill?

prosecutorial stupidity.

I disagree.

I think she should serve the entire 3 years. Why? For being stupid. What is it with these stupid redneck f##ktards and their belief that anyone who doesn't look like them "isn't an American!!!1", even if the person is a 3rd generation American?

Personally, I'm growing weary of living in a country with a bunch mental midgets. Anything that can be done to either educate them or cause them grievous pain and suffering is something that I'm all for.

I'm sure she believes that Obama was born in Kenya, too. That's where we need to start - that group. Arrest them ALL for stupidity.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

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...................... 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.

I think that we've beaten this topic to death but let me just point out a few things.

Murder laws and the like aren't a good comparison because murder laws don't take the victim's status into account, they take the perp's. Commonly, it's the status of the offender that dictates the charge in a murder case - ex: lying in wait as opposed to coming home early from work. It's the amount of forethought that dictates the charges.

Murder laws and charges and sentencing almost certainly take into account the victim's status. A perp who kills a pregnant woman, a police officer, an innocent bystander with six kids, a child, will be facing a different outlook than one who kills a fellow drug dealer during a buy. The lying in wait rule requires extensive planning and stalking or following. A jealous husband who walks in on the wife and kills in the heat of passion will almost certainly face manslaughter unless he knew of the affair and made a concerted effort to execute his plan.

In hate crimes, the offender's forethought and subsequent criminal activity has nothing to do with the charge. The only thing that matters is "who/what" they are in comparison to "who/what" the victim is. Hate crimes are actually worded as such that the motivation for the crime is based on the difference between the offender and victim. Murder charges are not doled out based on the relationship or motivation, only the amount of pre-planning that went into the crime.

A hate crime has everything to do with forethought as well as the act. In the case at bar, the perp uttered epithets before committing the assault. If someone paints swastikas in a synagogue, then the act itself would be vandalism but the reasoning behind it and the intended effect on the victim (s) would be even more important. If the perp punches a guy at the supermarket because the victim cut in front of him in line then that is assault but if the perp punches the same man solely because or primarily because he's wearing a kufi or a kipa then that becomes not a personal attack, i.e. the guy (only this guy) and not any Muslim or Jewish guy as opposed to any Muslim or Jewish guy will do. The wording of hate crimes legislation takes into account the differences between the perp and victim as it should. That is the impetus of the act after all. I've addressed the issue of murder charges in the previous section suffice it to say, murder prosecutions take into account many factors.

Based on that, a stiffer sentence is handed down when someone should've thought "I shouldn't be doing this because it's illegal" for a longer amount of time. Husband snaps because wifey is in bed with another man, manslaughter. Pulling off an armed heist where folks get killed, murder one. The little light of right and wrong should've been going off for longer before the crime was committed.

In hate crimes, it doesn't matter whether someone instantly acts or plans an act for years. It's automatically a hate crime and it's not based on the amount of time they thought about doing or not doing the crime, it's only based on the status of the victim.

Hate crimes are crimes of bias, intimidation and terror so the temporal aspect doesn't figure in as much. It isn't as simple as white guy attacks black guy, presto, instant hate crime. It's far more than that. It requires a higher standard of proof than a regular crime but it serves a very important purpose. Here is what the preamble of the NY Hate Crimes Act states:

§ 485.00 Legislative findings.

The legislature finds and determines as follows: criminal acts involv-

ing violence, intimidation and destruction of property based upon bias

and prejudice have become more prevalent in New York state in recent

years. The intolerable truth is that in these crimes, commonly and

justly referred to as "hate crimes", victims are intentionally selected,

in whole or in part, because of their race, color, national origin,

ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexu-

al orientation. Hate crimes do more than threaten the safety and

welfare of all citizens. They inflict on victims incalculable physical

and emotional damage and tear at the very fabric of free society.

Crimes motivated by invidious hatred toward particular groups not only

harm individual victims but send a powerful message of intolerance and

discrimination to all members of the group to which the victim belongs.

Hate crimes can and do intimidate and disrupt entire communities and

vitiate the civility that is essential to healthy democratic processes.

In a democratic society, citizens cannot be required to approve of the

beliefs and practices of others, but must never commit criminal acts on

account of them. Current law does not adequately recognize the harm to

public order and individual safety that hate crimes cause. Therefore,

our laws must be strengthened to provide clear recognition of the gravi-

ty of hate crimes and the compelling importance of preventing their

recurrence.

Accordingly, the legislature finds and declares that hate crimes

should be prosecuted and punished with appropriate severity.

With respect to the offence here's what the NY law states:

1. A person commits a hate crime when he or she commits a specified

offense and either:

(a) intentionally selects the person against whom the offense is

committed or intended to be committed in whole or in substantial part

because of a belief or perception regarding the race, color, national

origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability

or sexual orientation of a person, regardless of whether the belief or

perception is correct, or

(b) intentionally commits the act or acts constituting the offense in

whole or in substantial part because of a belief or perception regarding

the race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious

practice, age, disability or sexual orientation of a person, regardless

of whether the belief or perception is correct.

Now with respect to the example I gave above and your contention that any situation such as a mixed race crime where the perp is white and the victim is not is automatically a hate crime, that is just not true. Here is what the law in New York states:

2. Proof of race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion,

religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation of the defend-

ant, the victim or of both the defendant and the victim does not, by

itself, constitute legally sufficient evidence satisfying the people's

burden under paragraph (a) or (b) of subdivision one of this section.

So clearly there must be an additional element of bias or prejudice to make the charge.

Now, I have to ask, why don't we protect all victims and prosecute all offenders the same way? Is it because they're different? If we're going to start drawing lines between our differences, then I have to ask, where do they start? And the $64,000 question is - WHERE DO THEY STOP?

It is not because they are different but because some very sick people see them as being different and sub-human. Until the sickness is gone we must do something. All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. In answer to your question, it stops when these events are relegated to the history books. As nowhereman has pointed out, the people who complain loudest about hate crimes legislation are least likely to be the victims of a hate crime. The preamble to the Constitution of the United States states:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

If you're arguing for stricter sentencing for all crimes, that's another issue.

[slim 1,533]

It is not because they are different but because some very sick people see them as being different and sub-human. Until the sickness is gone we must do something. All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

So now we don't have a right to look at other people the way we want to - provided we don't take action?

It seems to me there are specific groups of people afforded "more" protection than others. By very definition of offering someone "more" based on a status, you're cheapening the overall value of that protection.

Spray painting graffiti on the side of a building, regardless of the meaning, is vandalism. Whether the message spews hate or is just correct punctuation and legibility (cause that's how I roll, motherf'er!) matters not. When we "make it matter" then we're taking away from the fact that it's just spray paint.

Let's go this route - (maybe it's a better comparison)

White collar crime where millions of dollars are stolen usually ends up with a slap on the wrist.

Robbing a bank at gun point usually ends up with years in jail.

Why?

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

It is not because they are different but because some very sick people see them as being different and sub-human. Until the sickness is gone we must do something. All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

So now we don't have a right to look at other people the way we want to - provided we don't take action?

It seems to me there are specific groups of people afforded "more" protection than others. By very definition of offering someone "more" based on a status, you're cheapening the overall value of that protection.

Spray painting graffiti on the side of a building, regardless of the meaning, is vandalism. Whether the message spews hate or is just correct punctuation and legibility (cause that's how I roll, motherf'er!) matters not. When we "make it matter" then we're taking away from the fact that it's just spray paint.

Let's go this route - (maybe it's a better comparison)

White collar crime where millions of dollars are stolen usually ends up with a slap on the wrist.

Robbing a bank at gun point usually ends up with years in jail.

Why?

As long as you don't break the law you are free to hate anyone you want. Some groups need more protection because they are targeted for specific types of crime more than others. Kiddie porn vs. regular porn for example. Ensure domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare for all of society including the most targeted groups. Spray paint is not just spray paint when it carries a message or is done for a specific purpose. It does matter, whether you choose to believe that or not. It is a violation of personal freedom and the freedom to practice religious freedom. What if someone spray painted a Star of David on the inside of a church, I doubt that you'd feel the same. I wonder if you'd feel the same way if someone took a dump on or burned the flag? It's only free speech. There is no cheapening of the law if it maintains order in society and thus ensures the protection of everyone. If you cut your hand would you put a bandage on your knee, of course not.

You wish to compare apples to oranges, white collar crime to hate crime, so it's not a valid argument. The likelihood of injury with a gunman is many times higher than with a banker. You are again arguing penalties and sentencing. You are repeating your idea that hate crime prosecution will take away resources from the prosecution from other types of crime and will lead to lesser penalties for other crimes. That is not true in the least. Fortunately, hate crimes are still quite rare. I think penalties for white collar crime are far too lenient but that's another issue.

[HAL 9000 96]

I think this is ALL that needs to be said:

As long as you don't break the law you are free to hate anyone you want. Some groups need more protection because they are targeted for specific types of crime more than others.

Yes, we live in an age where this kind of target is definitely on the wane, but that does not mean its over and done with.

With 'regular' old criminals... its not that hard to spot, really- even in an alcohol dis inhibited state:

2 charged with beating Muslim man

A Muslim man who works at a rural slaughterhouse raided last month by federal agents investigating an alleged terror plot was beaten outside a Grundy County bar Sunday morning in what may be a hate crime, authorities said today.

Scott Finch, 32, of Diamond, and Luke Harty, also 32, of Ransom, are charged with aggravated battery after they allegedly attacked Faud Nafie, 35, outside Uncle Dave's Bar and Grill in Kinsman, Grundy County Sheriff Terry Marketti said.

After his arrest early Sunday, Finch told police he was defending himself and the country from "terrorists," Marketti said.

Finch and Harty "punched and kicked" Nafie repeatedly "in the face and head" outside the bar after going out for a cigarette, Marketti said.

Nafie works at a goat and sheep farm and processing plant that slaughters animals according to Muslim tradition in Kinsman, a town of 110. The business was raided Oct. 18 by FBI agents investigating the plant's owner, Tahawwur Hussain Rana.

Rana, who faces federal terrorism charges, allegedly used money he made from the plant to fund a plot targeting a Danish newspaper that published cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

Authorities in Chicago are looking into allegations that Rana and another Chicago-area man may be linked to other plots, including a terrorist assault in Mumbai last year that left more than 170 dead.

Plant workers, including Nafie, have not been accused of any wrongdoing.

In addition to the felony aggravated battery charge, Finch also faces two misdemeanor counts of obstructing a police officer, for allegedly failing to give himself up and hiding when cornered shortly after the incident, and for struggling and resisting arrest once caught.

Marketti said today that prosecutors intend to bring Finch and Harty before a grand jury, and seek hate-crime charges.

Both men are free after each posted a $1,000 bond, Marketti said, adding he thought the men "let their alcohol do their thinking for them."

"I don't think there will be any further problems down there," he said, adding that the incident was "isolated" and that there had been no other alleged hate crimes since the federal raid.

Bar staff at Uncle Dave's told the Tribune last month that workers at the plant often visited the bar without incident.

Dave Hammen, owner of Uncle Dave's, said the bar had been closed for half an hour when the alleged assault happened.

His barman asked Finch, Harty and Nafie to leave at 12.50 a.m., "but half an hour later he heard fighting out there and called police and an ambulance," Hammen said. "There was a big pool of blood out there when it was done."

Hammen said all three men were regulars in the bar and that Nafie and other workers at the meat processing plant had never caused a problem. He echoed Marketti's description of the incident as "isolated," saying he wasn't sure a hate crime charge was necessary and that the attack was not in keeping with the tiny town's friendly ethos.

"I guess when people have too much to drink they do what's in their heart," he said. "But it isn't right, what happened."

Records show that neither Finch nor Harty has a criminal conviction in Grundy County, though the mother of Harty's child was awarded an order of protection against him in 1999.

Both Harty and Finch are next due in court Dec. 10. Link

[Ban Hammer 14,569]

wait a second, what's a muslim guy doing in a bar?

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

wait a second, what's a muslim guy doing in a bar?

It's a bar and grill and someone's got to be the designated driver. Designated drivers usually get free non-alcoholic drinks.

BTW, this incident took place in Illinois.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

1. Nation of Islam is not Islamic and its members are not Muslims. This is a statement of fact, not a racist statement. Their beliefs have little in common with doctrinal Islam.

2. Jails are breeding grounds for all sorts of religious groups calling themselves Muslim, but they are not in line with Islamic teachings.

3. There is no such thing as a Muslim name. There are names that have come to be associated with Muslims, but, they were they in use during pagan times, too. So-called "Muslim" names are simply traditional Arab names, bestowed on babies by proud non-Muslim Arab parents, as well, as Muslim parents.