No Hate Required for Hate Crime in Gay Man’s Death, Judge Rules

[fightthegoodfightnow]

Source: New York TImes-Michael Brick

No Hate Required for Hate Crime in Gay Man’s Death, Judge Rules

By MICHAEL BRICK
Published: August 3, 2007
Three men arrested in the death of a gay man who was beaten and then struck by a car during an October robbery attempt can be charged with hate crimes without evidence that they were motivated by hatred for gay men, a judge ruled yesterday.

The judge, Jill Konviser of State Supreme Court in Brooklyn, said in a written order that prosecutors need show only that the victim was chosen because of his sexual orientation to pursue charges under the state’s Hate Crimes Act of 2000. The law provides for longer sentences on conviction for crimes motivated by racial, religious and other characteristics of a victim.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/03/nyregion/03plumb.html

---

It's a terrible headline, but it's regretably another example of how gays and lesbians live with the prospects of violence every day.

[19jet54]

1. Common sense Judge

Obviously, they didn't do this out of love? Duh!

[xchrom]

2. as it should be.

of course SOME here will piss and moan about ''thought crimes''.

[Solo_in_MD]

5. Then don't whine when other thoughts are crimilaized, like being anti patriotic or anti war

[xchrom]

9. god no -- no room for me when you have the market cornered on pissing and moaning. n/t

[originalpckelly]

33. What about attempted murder? Why should we prosecute someone...

for wanting to kill a person, why not just charge them with assault?

Intent is routinely used in laws all across the country, and they have never been challenged. Why aren't you complaining about attempted murder being a thought crime?

[struggle4progress]

116. What thoughts are being criminalized?

[Paladin]

6. Here We Go Again

How many times does it have to be pointed out that HATEFUL THOUGHTS aren't criminalized by hate crimes laws; CRIMINAL ACTIONS BASED ON SUCH THOUGHTS are. And rightfully so.....

[Solo_in_MD]

7. The claim here was that there was no hateful thoughts, but that they though gays were eaiser victims

IF more gays took the Pink Pistols approach, than flase perception would die rapidly.

Since you are so willing to support crimilizing thought based action, I assume you will remain silent when anti war demonsrtators are given enhanced sentiences since it was based on anti patriotic thoughts.

[xchrom]

10. speech has always been ''controlled'' -- you cannot incite to violence --

you cannot solicit underage children -- you cannot yell fire in a theater -- and so on.

if you you scream faggot and spic and nigger -- and talk amongst like minded bigots about doing violence to xyz minority groups -- then that should indeed be held as evidence against you if you commit violent acts.

but -- the obvious always has to come into play here -- you are still convicted on your ACTIONS in a hate crime.

[Solo_in_MD]

11. There are several different justifications for hate crime laws

None of them are good enough in my opinion to start down the road of thought crimes, which is what they represent, again in my opinion. Its too slippery a slope to trust the pols and the courts with.

This case is interesting because the claim is that they chose that victim because they thought he would be an easier victim due to his being gay. They have not admitted to nor has anything come so far that they did it for reasons of hate, but of expediency. One judge has said that under that state's laws, that qualifies as a hate crime. It has no bearing in other states, and may yet be overturned in NY. We shall see. It is a bit of a corner case.

Before someone fuckwit claims I support gay bashing, I would like to point out that several times I have physically intervened in gay baiting that was clearly going to lead to bashing. I just believe that starting down the thought crimes route is very dangerous and the law has the tools it needs to sentence bashers harshly without the thought crime aspects. I also think that if more gays got serious about the 2nd amendment and obtained CCWs, that the perception that they are easy targets would go away rapidly. Nothing says STOP to a bully or thug like a 9mm pistol pointed at his head.

[xchrom]

12. if the law supports the idea that targetting gay folk is easier -- then

the criminals are justified -- and the terror of their message is spread.

both by the criminal and the courts -- if on the other hand they face stiffer penalties -- for picking out any minority group -- then we have a pathway to curb this what can only be called hate and hate's subsequent actions.


the action -- the crime -- is intended to be a message.

and it works -- we've history to tell us that.

i would never support the barbaric chaos of more citizens with guns as an answer to anything.

i simply find that notion to be a hallmark of a disturbed person.

[Solo_in_MD]

13. But it does not...though it does provide stiff penalties for violent assault

The only justification for hate crimes that has any traction with me are those actions that are designed to create fear in a minority group. That covers things like swastikas on synagogues and burning crosses. While this crime was horrific, there is no evidence of an intention to create fear in gays by this robbery. Current law should be more than enough punishment for the perps. The judge has that kind of discretion. If he does not use it, the problem is not the law, but on the bench.

As for your feelings about the ability for people to defend themselves, its your call to render yourself defenseless, just don't push it on the rest of us. You and yours may well be injured or killed for your perspective, damage that could easily have been prevented had you chosen to be responsible for your own safety, which the police have no obligation to protect. Your family, your call, but they should be fully informed about the potential consequences of your ignorance of history and the law.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

20. Hhhmmm.........

I strongly support hate crime legislation, but I'm not sure it should be based on creating fear in a minority.

I think it should be an equal opportunity crime. It should apply to anyone whose speech is used to create fear for any group regardless of their perceived minority status. For example, I'm for hate crime legislation protecting women (who are the majority) when hate speech is used to create fear and a crime is committed against a woman.

Just my opinion.



--------
edited for word omission and clarity

[xchrom]

21. it is simply lunatic to suggest that it is my responsibility

to go and get a gun tuck it in my waistband -- so i can be safe in society.

what do we need with laws and the persecution of ''crimes'' -- why define a crime in that bizarre scenario?

supossedly safe sane and responsible people shoot each other up either by accident or on purpose all the time -- i'm not safer simply because you have an elevated perspective of your self.

i don't know you and i don't know that.

what will happen is chaos -- further violent balkanization -- the national armed organization of pissed off gay cowboys or lipstick lesbians with lugars -- countered by guns carriers for the justice of jesus.

the wild wild west is dead and gone and good ridance.

when you target a minority -- be it elderly, gay folk or african americans -- you are sending a message of terror.

and you should face stiffer penalties for that -- that is merely civilized and sending the appropriate message back.

more it is the responsibility of the government to not tolerate violence -- and to come down on the violence in very, very harsh terms.
society cannot and should not tolerate any justification for the terrorizing of it's citizens.
and that's what a crime like this does.

it terrorizes the gay community -- it tells them that in the minds of broad swaths of criminals -- or even bigots that gays cannot expect to be adequately protected -- that crimes against them won't prosecuted with muscularity and appropriate severity.

the judge has it right -- you have it wrong in the extreme.

[LisaL]

24. And if they picked on, let's say, a small heterosexual man,

because he would make an easier target being small, then they should be less severely punished for doing the exact same things to him as allegedly done to the gay man, since it's not a hate crime? How is that fair? I guess I have problem with a "hate crime" laws.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

27. In My Opinion

If he called that heterosexual man a "HETERO BREEDER" prior to KILLING him, it would indeed be a hate crime.

I don't think hate crimes are limited to any group of people.

[Solo_in_MD]

36. While I disagree with your position on hate crime laws, your consistency is appreciated

not many who support the current hate crime laws are so rational.

The reality is that everyone could be defined as a minority, and that every crime against a minority is not a hate crime.

My view is that only crimes intended to terrorize a group, or could be reasonably expected to do cause group terror are really hate crimes. For example, mugging, armed robbery, etc would not normally be considered a hate crime, regardless of the minority status of the perp and victim with out exceptional circumstances. However, the perp should not breathe free air for quite some time...

[fightthegoodfightnow]

42. Thanks - I Appreciate Your Point of View

I think a case can be made that hate crime legislation protects everyone.

You write: 'The reality is that everyone could be defined as a minority, and that every crime against a minority is not a hate crime."

I think you make my case when you say everyone can be defined as a minority.

It's true that not every crime against a minority is a hate crime.

That would require hate speech to support that argument.

I understand those who argue that the fear of terrorizing a minority is a social evil that must be condemned. I agree with it. But you said it best when you stated that everyone 'could be defined as a minority'. That makes the social evil relevant to all.

[xchrom]

31. gay folk, african americans, muslims -- if you are a member of

a minority and are the victim of a hate crime -- it's not just about the victim -- but about every member of that minority community.

it's a message of hate and intimidation through violence.

good lord -- doesn't anything about the violence perpetrated and so very well documented through history agaisnt african americans teach you ANYTHING?

are you so dull witted that you can't see that not all crimes are created equal -- what the fuck is wrong with people?

[Solo_in_MD]

35. So hate and intimidation against a majority group would not be a hate crime?

Bear in mind that women are a majority, and white males are a minority.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

45. Of Course It Would

.....but alas that's just my opinion.

[Solo_in_MD]

54. You are quite right, and under NY state law everyone is covered

I did that to point out the inherent weakness of what "xchrom" was saying. He seems to have trouble articulating his position coherently

[TankLV]

121. I thought XChrome was quite clear.

YOU are the only one having trouble here...

At least I know who the idiots are...

[noiretextatique]

128. not really...it's simple

in a racist, sexist, homophobic society that until farily recently routinely dimissed violence perpetrated by the majority group against minorities, hate crime legislation was (and still is necessary). this legislation didn't just magically appear out of thin air for no reason.

[xchrom]

47. you are paranoid.

seriously dude -- you're disturbed.

i mean it -- there is something wrong with you.

[Solo_in_MD]

53. Actualy I used a reducto absurdum argument with your poorly worded statement

[xchrom]

95. and i've identified that you have a real problem.

[Solo_in_MD]

34. Fortunately, most of us know differently

it is simply lunatic to suggest that it is my responsibility to go and get a gun tuck it in my waistband -- so i can be safe in society.
I never said that. What I said was that people are fundamentally responsible for their own safety. I also pointed out that there could be consequences to you and your if you did not fulfill those responsibilities, and there would be no one to blame other than yourself.

what do we need with laws and the persecution of ''crimes'' -- why define a crime in that bizarre scenario?
Not clear what you are saying. We indeed need vigorous prosecution of violent crime, though we already have the largest percentage of our population incarcerated of any other western nation and many claim there is an inherent racial bias.

supposedly safe sane and responsible people shoot each other up either by accident or on purpose all the time -- i'm not safer simply because you have an elevated perspective of your self.
I have been considered safe and sane by several government agencies over the years. I don't have an inflated sense of self, I have a realistic view of risk and responsibilities when if comes to my safety and that of my family.

i don't know you and i don't know that.
You don't need to know me

what will happen is chaos -- further violent balkanization -- the national armed organization of pissed off gay cowboys or lipstick lesbians with lugars -- countered by guns carriers for the justice of jesus.
That has not shown itself to be true. Instead, the most interracial violence seems to happen in areas with the strictest gun control laws. Furthermore the well overdue increased issuance of CCWs has not increased violence.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

43. Safety

You write: 'What I said was that people are fundamentally responsible for their own safety."

What role does that responsibility play in relationship to the state? Does the state share an equal or even greater responsibility?

[Solo_in_MD]

65. Unfortunately, not really

SCOTUS said in DESHANEY v. WINNEBAGO, “A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services.” There have been other similar decisions, based on protecting people from crimes, and even responding to crimes in progress. The legal bottom line is that your personal safety is your problem. Sometimes, the calvary gets there in time, but people have no legal right to expect it to happen or bring suit against the state if it does not happen.

Since it is black letter law that people have no right to assume protection, it might be a good for more people to realize that they do not have any reason or right to expect more peace/safety in their immediate vicinity they themselves can assure.

Many of us who have guns for personal protection are not 'nuts'. What is nuts is to go around thinking somebody will save your ass if things get hostile. While most of us won't become victims of violent crime, some (too many) will. The police will be the ones drawing the chalk lines around the bodies; and too seldom the ones who arrive in time to protect the living.

I am not without some personal experience in this area. My best example is when a perp broke in my home while my wife and daughters were there and I was away. He found himself facing a 9mm handgun and a shotgun. It took 20 minutes to get an LEO there...even though dispatch had been notified that the intruder was inside the premises and that the occupants were armed. As I said earlier, those who count on the police to defend them can and will be sorely disappointed.

The state can not act against perps apriori and is rarely there in real time. Its up to you under those circumstances to determine how your are going to protect yourself and your family, or end up like the Petit family.

I have a somewhat longer rant on this in my journal: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Solo_in_MD/6

[fightthegoodfightnow]

71. So the State has no responsibility to protect citizens?

You are talking about 'due process'. That certainly doesn't mean that the State has no responsibility to enforce laws and by so doing, protect individuals.

[Solo_in_MD]

73. There is no requirement for the police to respond to a crime in progress or

prevent one before it happens. Law enforcement is after the fact.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

74. Ok

Ok.

So?

[Solo_in_MD]

84. You are the one who asked about what role the state has in our personal safety

and the answer is that there is no requirement for them to protect anyone on a personal basis or in real time.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

86. Really?

Hhhmmm.................

Sorry dude, but anyone who argues that the state has no responsibility to protect the public isn't going to get elected.

[Solo_in_MD]

91. Thats OK, I am not running for anything

[fightthegoodfightnow]

87. But heh.......nice try with the 'personal' thing

Nothing personal. LOL.

[Solo_in_MD]

89. When your responded to my earlier "personal safety" discussion in #43, I assumed

it was about personal safety, and not about lead in childrens' toys

[fightthegoodfightnow]

96. Right.........

YOUR Personal Safety STATEMENT

[fightthegoodfightnow]

88. Can anyone say .............Not Really

Notice how you used the word 'personal' twice and I never used it.

[Solo_in_MD]

90. Say what? That the police have no requriement to protect you? Absolutely

[xchrom]

46. you manage to take an issue of crime --

and make it about gun control and yourself.

what an ego.

again i don't know you -- i don't know how responsible you are -- or if you're going to have a bad day and go postal.
and it means the same as NOTHING if somebody else sees you as sane - it takes just once for you to go gaga and somebody winds up dead -- not an unknown occurance for humans.

as far as guns in general -- this is the most well armed society general and we have amazing crime rates.

beyond that -- it is not my responsibility to not be ''prey'' for a ''predator'' to take down when i open my front door and leave my house -- it is the responsiblity of law enforcement to make it's presense known -- be imposed upon those who act/would act in a criminal manner -- in order to make those incidents rare.

it is not sane to suggest guns to be everywhere -- that should let you know i've formed a strong opinion about you being responsble -- for citizens to be armed to the teeth -- that's iraq.

i stand by my notions that those against hate crimes laws are indeed bigots -- and the more this conversation goes on -- the more i'm convinced a real sickness grips the gun crowd.

[Solo_in_MD]

52. Subject: I just followed your lead...

Your viewpoint on the role and responsibilities of law enforcement is not in line with US law and court precedent. They respond after the fact, not before. They can not control crime apriori, the effort in NYC a while back showed that clearly. If you live in the US I am surprised that you are not aware of that. There are many at DU that blame the Korean xtians for their predicament, the same logic would apply to you should anything like the recent home invasion that has been in the national news happen to you. Maybe if the tools that were in the movie Minority Report actually existed and worked would you vision be realizable. Otherwise the prison population will continue to grow in the US, made up chiefly of the poor and minorities. I for one do not want to see that happen.

I am against those hate crime laws that are effectively thought crimes. I am not against those that address clear intimidation. I am far from alone on in that position here on DU and on the left. Its not a left/right issue. Like firearms, good progressives are on all sides of it. I respect those who honestly disagree with my position, I also don't call them nuts and bigots.

[xchrom]

94. i think the notion of thinking that hate crimes are thought crimes

is nutty.

american history, european history, world history is replete with examples of what happens to selected minorities who are targeted for for violence.

the fact that you put the lessons learned over time -- you put your ''thoughts'' above the persection of people is sick.

it's sick and it''s bigoted.

people who commit the crimes in this case are prosecuted in the end for their actions -- hate crimes is a designatiion -- like some murderers are pick out for special circumstances -- i.e. serial killers, killing more than one person at a pop, cop killers.

this isn't the jungle -- this isn't the survival of the fittest -- which is what you have done, what the supremes have done with your reasoning about how people should live.

you have diminished your humanity.

[Solo_in_MD]

106. It s clear you do not understand the legal process and reasoning of hate crime implentation

you should read up on it.

Along the way, look up reducto absurdum, your style makes you way too easy a target for it

[xchrom]

115. it's clear that is do -- and that you do not.

are there degrees of how a criminal can be charged? -- yes.

motives? -- yes.

special circumstances? -- yes.

and what you CAN NOT -- WILL NOT accept is that at the end of the process in hate crimes -- and all the others -- is that it is your actions that get you convicted.

actions.

what hate crimes -- or special circumstances -- do -- is point out where these crimes fall -- why they are more heinous than another crime.

it's you that won't accept that because of some fantasy about your ''special'' thoughts that you have.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

97. Thank You for Your Support of Hate Crime Legislation

You write: 'I am against those hate crime laws that are effectively thought crimes."

None exist. Name one. You can't.

I appreciate your support of hate crime legislation when you say "I am not against those that address clear intimidation."

[mrreowwr_kittty]

114. Thank you! n/t

[LanternWaste]

127. When the blame falls on the civilian populace...

When the blame begins to fall on the civilian populace of a country for not defending themselves from criminal activity (as happened upthread), I believe one of two have happened-- the NRA won the battle for our hearts and minds; or the "post-apocalyptic wet-dream fantasy world" is peeking through...

With that being said, I will emphatically state that I stay as far away from people with guns as I can, regardless of whether they're the "good" guys or not-- It's simply one more accident I don't have to worry about.

[alarimer]

82. I think the judge's decision here is wrong

I am a little uncomfortable with hate crime legislation for the same reasons you are. But if we are going to have hate crime laws that carry extra penalties, the prosecution should have to PROVE it was a hate crime. It just makes common sense.

Picking on someone because they are perceived to be an easier target does not rise to the level of hate. It is prejudice if they thought their victims were somehow weaker because they are gay but I am not sure that is HATE. I know, sort of a subtle semantic difference but I think it matters.

Mostly, though, I think motivation matters especially in hate crime. You can prove someone beat up someone else without going into their motivation and that will carry whatever penalty it carries. And from the article, if I were on the jury, I would only convict them of a hate crime if the prosecution could prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Otherwise, I would convict them of the lesser charge.

[Paladin]

22. I'm Not Going To Waste Any Further Time Arguing With You

I'll just mention that the fact that one of our DU gun rights extremists is against hate crimes laws is completely and utterly unsurprising to me. What would be surprising would be seeing you guys not pimping a far right-wing talking point once in a while....

[Solo_in_MD]

37. Unable to defend your position, so you fire an ad hominum smoke screen and then run and hide...

You shame your screen name

[Chovexani]

109. Well, if we're resorting to attacks based on screen name

The fact that someone from godsforsaken Maryland is a psychotic gun freak who doesn't think hate crimes legislation is necessary is utterly unsurprising to me. One more reason I'd never live in that shithole state, everyone down there is just as ignorant.

Gods I love the ignore function.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

51. Is that based on what the defendants said?

It's possible that they made that claim upon learning about the enhanced hate crime penalties. Sounds pretty dubious to me. Gay-bashers deliberately seek out gay victims because they are gay.

As for the comparison with war protestors, when attempts are made to change the hate-crimes statute to include "unpatriotic thoughts", I will be right there with you. Until then, no sale.

[Solo_in_MD]

55. It was the position their lawyer took in the court arguments and it could easily be as phony

as a $3 bill.

Also note that I am against some, but not all of the hate crime laws. I am worried about those that effectively criminalize thought as a slippery slope to worse. I also worry about the opportunity for selective and capricious enforcement, a tradition in small towns and with egotistical prosecutors. As long as violent crime has harsh punishments available under law, I believe that judges can handle the issue with the discretion they already have.

There are progressives on all sides of this. I respect those who have honestly held positions different than mine, on this topic and others. I also don't call them names.

[xchrom]

8. did you misunderstand me? --

i'm not against hate crime laws.

i'm FOR them in a big bad way.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

14. So True

That's sooo true.

Somehow we've got to get that message out more.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

50. It's disheartening to see progressives drinking the RW koolaid on this one

The thought of the perpetrator has always been considered in charging and sentencing. If you kill your spouse deliberately to collect on a life insurance policy the law treats it substantially differently than if you kill your spouse in a fit of rage. First degree murder vs. second degree or manslaughter. I don't see why the comparison is so hard to grasp. :shrug:

[Solo_in_MD]

58. Its not nearly that simple (unfortunately)

I oppose some, but not all hate crime laws since they are on the slippery slope of thought crimes. I do that since I believe there are other ways to address anti social indvduals who commit violent crimes for *whatever* reason. Progressives are on all sides of this one due to the macro issues it presents. Its not just RW talking points.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

61. There is No Slippery Slope to Thought Crimes

..........when it doesn't exist. Hate crime is about a physical violent crime.

[Solo_in_MD]

66. You might want to read some of the critques on this...

[fightthegoodfightnow]

70. Are You Saying that Someone has been convicted of a Hate Crime

......that did not involve a physical crime?

[Solo_in_MD]

72. There are some critiques of hate crime laws from a wide variety of authors that make interesting

reading

[fightthegoodfightnow]

75. You Didn't Answer the Question

Did you?

[Solo_in_MD]

77. Without Westlaw access, I am not sure it is answerable

[fightthegoodfightnow]

80. That's a Cop Out

it was really a simple question.

Look it up on Westlaw or heck......provide evidence or a case that supports your argument.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

81. The THOUGHT Police Argument Doesn't Carry Much Weight if it's Unfounded

Those who strongly oppose hate crime legislation because it legislates thought can't back it up by providing ONE case where someone was convicted of a hate crime that did not involve a physical crime.

The fact that you can't says it all.

[Solo_in_MD]

83. That is not the argument being made

[fightthegoodfightnow]

85. So Thoughts are Not Being Criminalized?

So Thoughts are Not Being Criminalized?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

112. Which ones do you support? n/t

[skiddlybop]

3. Once again, the Times gets it wrong

the headline is not supported by the story. "Intention" refers to the hatred. Here we go again with the right-wing exploiting the Times' false reporting.

[SunDrop23]

4. Good decision by the judge.

[Socal31]

15. This is bad....

So now if a white guy gets in a random fight with a black guy, it is somehow worse than two whiteguys fighting? Holy shit batman...

[fightthegoodfightnow]

19. No

'Fighting' is not a crime.

Murder is.

Calling for someone's murder is not a crime. Doing it is.

A black man can call for the murder of whites and it's not a crime. The minute he actually kills a white man, that murder can be a hate crime and a new set of rules applies to the admission of that speech and a new set of penalties comes into play.

A white man can call for the murder of blacks and it's not a crime. The minute he actually kills a black man, that murder can be a hate crime and a new set of rules applies to the admission of that speech and a new set of penalties comes into play.

Hate crime is an equal opportunity criminal activity. Unfortunately, there is more than enough hate in this world for people of all races, creeds, sexes and sexual orientations.


----------------------------
edited for word correction

[Bacchus39]

93. fighting is a crime

or is it not until you make an offensive comment?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

99. Fighting is Not a Crime

...........and neither is an offensive comment or a hateful, racist, homophobic, bigot comment in and of itself. Not until you commit a violent crime.

[Solo_in_MD]

105. Offensive speech is curtailed in many places and countries

that includes anti gay and racial remarks.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

108. Offensive speech is not criminal in this country.

Offensive speech is not criminal in this country.

[fishwax]

123. no, that's not what it says at all

The judge, Jill Konviser of State Supreme Court in Brooklyn, said in a written order that prosecutors need show only that the victim was chosen because of his sexual orientation to pursue charges under the state’s Hate Crimes Act of 2000. The law provides for longer sentences on conviction for crimes motivated by racial, religious and other characteristics of a victim.

So the prosecutor has to show that the victim was chosen because of his orientation/race/etc. That's not the same as "if a white guy gets in a random fight with a black guy."

[northshore]

16. Total nonsense.

I guess I am out of luck. I'm just a white, married heterosexual who works and pays taxes. I get no special protection.

A crime is a crime. Have a problem with the punishment, lobby for tougher laws.

It's called equal protection and it's in the Constitution. Look it up.

[Occulus]

17. Equal protection- you mean, as in Federal nondiscrimination laws?

Or is it equal protection, as in, you can't go out and bust up some fags because you'll get punished more for doing it to us than you would doing it to someone else?

Do you for some reason think gays do not deserve to be protected just a wee bit more- considering we're common targets for assaults and other crimes, up to and often including murder?

You, who CAN get married, even though I can't, are whining about equal protection?

Are you sure you're on the right board?

[I Have A Dream]

104. Spot on.

:thumbsup:

[fightthegoodfightnow]

18. NONSENSE INDEED

You write: a crime is a crime. Bullsh*t.

I'm so sick of this. There is first degree and second degree murder, so before you tell me about a crime being a crime, distinguish those two for the murder victim. Where is your equal protection clause for that?

If I were to murder you (which I'm not), because I'm a militant homosexual (which I am) who feels the justice system has betrayed me and my people (which it has) and if I were to advocate (which I'm not) your murder (which I most certainly am not) and ACTUALLY murder you (which I am most certainly not) because of your post, I could be convicted of a hate crime.

You assume that a "white, married, heterosexual who works and pays taxes" hasn't been a victim of hate crimes. They have, despite your assumption that you live in a priviledged class that the justice system has been very good to. We're going to give you another 'special' right.


-----------
edited for clarity

[Lars39]

23. You've benefited in ways you aren't even aware of just because

you're white.

[Faygo Kid]

25. Remember lynching? Targeting blacks because of their race?

It is in society's interests to eliminate crimes targeting people for particular characteristics, including race and sexual orientation.

Using your logic, there should have been no anti-lynch laws because each lynching is an individual crime and should be treated as such.

A crime is not always "just" a crime, it can be a source of intimidation against a class of persons.

Welcome to DU. I think.

[dsc]

26. On the subject of looking things up

Here is the New York Hate Crimes Statute

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/nycodes/c82/a81.html

S 485.05 Hate crimes.
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.

end of quote

Note what this law actually says. You would be covered by this law since you have a sexual orientation. It doesn't say gay or lesbian. So if a gay person targetted you because you are straight he or she would be charged with a hate crime.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

29. Thanks for Posting What I Knew the Law Said

Hate crime laws protect EVERYONE and that is the proper value society places on them.

[LisaL]

38. Well, that statute pretty much covers everyone.

Have they forgotten anything there? If you want to punish someone for killing a victim while committing a robbery, by all means, give the perp a life in prison or a death penalty. Why exactly some sort of hate crime is needed on top of it is beyond my understanding.

[Solo_in_MD]

39. Which means it is discretionary and can be capriciously applied

Unfortunately, how capricious is impossible to tell.

[LisaL]

41. It certainly is.

If they picked an elderly victim because an elderly victim is easier to rob I suppose it would be a hate crime too because of age discrimination. The statute also covers gender, so if they specifically looked for a man or for a woman, would that be a hate crime as well?
I am not sure what kind of victim would not qualify as a hate crime victim using this hate crime statute.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

44. Not Necessarily

You write: 'If they picked an elderly victim because an elderly victim is easier to rob I suppose it would be a hate crime too because of age discrimination."

Not unless you could introduce evidence that the person had a bias toward all elderly individuals based on the speech he made.

[LisaL]

48. The judge just ruled that there is no need for the suspect to

be motivated by hatred for it to be a hate crime. So, if that ruling stands, no, there is no need for evidence that the person had a bias toward all elderly individuals.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

49. That's to stand trial .... and not necessarily for conviction. Big distinction.

That's to stand trial .... and not necessarily for conviction. Big distinction.

[Solo_in_MD]

57. Actually that may flow into the jury instructions...

I am assuming this is not settled NY law or it would not have gone up for a ruling.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

60. Flow No Where

The court was clear: that's to stand trial.

What the jury decides is up to the jury. Nothing the court ruled suggests otherwise.

[Solo_in_MD]

68. Jury instructions are there to explain to jurors how apply the law

There is a standard set of them of them in most jurisdictions, but they are often tailored at trial by the judge after discussion with the lawyers. If this is a *new* interpretation of the law, a modified jury instruction could well be given.

Jury instructions tend to be one of the most confusing part of the jury system, especially to first time jurors.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

69. I've Sat on a Jury

There are guidelines as to when and if such instructions are given and whether it is before or after conviction.

[Solo_in_MD]

76. Then you understand that there will be instructions given on how to apply the hate crime law

to the case being presented to them. If there will be a modified instruction given based on the state court ruling is TBD.

In a case I was a juror on, the defense tried to establish a new precedent as part of their defense, sort of like this one. They were barred from making it in court, but it was all over the media. It worked.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

78. All about When Such Things Can be Introduced

Isn't it?

[Solo_in_MD]

79. Not always

in the case I was on, it was the usage of a duress defense.

[LisaL]

120. So you say. Nothing in the article supports that idea.

The judge ruled the suspects can stand a trial for a hate crime even if the prosecution doesn't have evidence they hated gays. The judge likely will instruct the jury accordingly with his belief that no hate proof is needed for this to be a hate crime.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

136. Nonsense - Here's Reality

You write: 'The judge ruled the suspects can stand a trial for a hate crime even if the prosecution doesn't have evidence they hated gays."

Nonsense. The judge said the fact that they targeted a gay man is enough to meet the threshold for the court/jury to decide if indeed the defendents had a hatred of homosexuals. The judge is NOT permitted to express his belief in any way.

[Solo_in_MD]

56. You just took the defendants side with your post...is that what you wanted to do?

They argued that they targeted a gay guy because they thought they were easier marks...though in the end it may be a false claim

[fightthegoodfightnow]

62. The Bias was without merit, but real to them as they clearly stated

And as you stated, it was without merit.

Nevertheless, their bias and bigotry was the foundation of their crime.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

40. Oh.....that's simple

Prosecutors are not allowed to introduce certain evidence without the support of hate crime legislation because it is may be viewed as irrelevant to the crime when just the opposite is the case.

It puts the burden on the defense rather than the prosecutor.

[Dogmudgeon]

28. It's nonsense -- until you get mugged

I was nearly killed by a gay-basher. I remember him screaming, "I'll kill you, faggot!" and other such things.

I'm straight.

Criminals don't ask for I.D. You should not fool yourself into thinking you're "safe" because YOU know you're not gay (or black, or Mexican, or Jewish, or whatever).

--p!

[fightthegoodfightnow]

30. You Would Be Covered Under Hate Crime Laws

.........and I'm sorry to hear that happened to you.

[Solo_in_MD]

59. I have intervened in such situations, and have been called gay, fagot and worse

Thugs know no bounds...

[fightthegoodfightnow]

63. Very True

..........and thank you for doing what is not only decent, but good.

[singingtothewheat]

67. Thugs

It is absolutely true that thugs know no bounds. The whole reason there are hate crime laws is that the thugs aren't all just young males in blue jeans with shaved heads and tee shirts that pronounce just how mentally messed up they are. These laws are in effect because of public outcry that over and over again minorities were not getting a fair shake in our wonderful court systems.
The game was, Oh no, some poor guy was beaten nearly to death by a group of "thugs", then for fun they towed him behind a car until most of the skin was stripped from his bones. Oh! Wait! He was gay, Oh never mind then or, well he somehow must have deserved to be treated like (insert whatever, I can think of a good reason for that sort of treatment).
Integrity in the court system obviously needs alittle NUGS.
This is nothing like a thought crime, read the article. This guy was picked out for what he was or was presumed to be. The article never said, they accidently picked out a gay man and because he was gay they are being charged with a hate crime.
Singing.

[Kingshakabobo]

32. Poor baby.........

Post your address. I'll get some of my gay friends to come over and beat the fuck out of you while calling you "breeder." That way we can be charged with a hate crime and you'll feel all protected.:eyes:

[Bacchus39]

92. your life is less important

if someone murdered you it would just be another dead white heterosexual male. you mean you don't see the difference? well, neither do I.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

113. Where does it say in the law that you get no protection or that anyone gets 'special' protection

Enjoy your short stay at DU with those right wing talking points. :thumbsdown:

[mitchtv]

117. Right .and painting swaztikas on a synagogue

is just vandalism like grafitti
out of luck , ...and common sense
Gays are just crawling with special protections

[Zhade]

118. Yes, your post IS total nonsense.

Your ignorance disgusts me.

[LostinVA]

124. Oh brother -- boo hoo

White, straight men have it soooo bad in this country.

[noiretextatique]

131. yes, you are a bigger victim

than the man who was actually murdered...

[ContraBass Black]

64. An extremely misleading headline.

[leaninglib]

98. Based on this judge's logic,

all crimes are hate crimes.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

100. How So?

How so?

[leaninglib]

101. "...no evidence required..."

[fightthegoodfightnow]

102. LOL........

There was EVIDENCE they targeted him because he was a homosexual.

The Grand Jury heard it.
The Judge heard it.

[noiretextatique]

133. what part of that is so hard to comprehend?

they went on a gay website, lured him somewhere, beat him, then chased him into traffic
maybe they did all of that because they really, really love gay men, not becuase they were looking for a target :shrug:

[fightthegoodfightnow]

137. Wrong Thread

I think you are responding to the wrong person.

I strongly support hate crime legislation.

[noiretextatique]

138. no...just amening you

:hi: and your excellent posts in this thread.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

140. Silly Me - I'm Slow - LOL

Thanks............it's amazing how some folks just don't get what hate crimes are. The right has done a great job of redefining what it is. Keep up the good fight!!!

[Solo_in_MD]

107. Actually it is the way NY state law reads

If your are targeted because you are a member of a minority group, it doesn't matter if there was hate. Its pretty much black letter law.

Their lawyer claimed that they targeted thier victim because gays they thought gays made easier targets, not becuase they hated gays. The judge said it stills qualifies under the NY statute. Whether what the lawyer said is true or not is not clear.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

110. Trials

You write: 'Their lawyer claimed that they targeted thier victim because gays they thought gays made easier targets, not becuase they hated gays. The judge said it stills qualifies under the NY statute. Whether what the lawyer said is true or not is not clear."

Based on what has been disclosed so far, a reasonable case can be made for either side and *that* is why there will be a trial for a hate crime.

[LostinVA]

125. Oh brother

Like glass.

[tidy_bowl]

103. In order for there to be..

...a hate crime there must be proof of hate. The judge is so very wrong in this decision. It is like saying you can have a murder without circumstantial evidence or a body. It's just not possible otherwise you could just randomly pull someone off the street and prosecute them for anything.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

111. In order for there to be a

......conviction, there has to be evidence to support not just the crime but the hate speech. That's why there will be a trial.

The judge may no ruling on the merits of the claim; only that it can be heard as a hate crime. The judge is right on target.

[LisaL]

119. Where exactly did you get that idea?

Certainly the article does not say that at all.
And no, that's not why there will be a trial. A trial was going to be there whether these three were going to be charged with a hate crime or not.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

134. Of Course It Does

There has been no ruling on the case. Only that it can be TRIED as a hate crime.

[noiretextatique]

132. they targetted a gay man

that is sufficient proof.

[truthisfreedom]

122. They should call them discrimination crimes instead, then.

If that's where we are headed. Making no judgement here, just trying to point out what's happening.

[Kingshakabobo]

142. That might make it easier for the morans on this thread that can't get past...

.....the word "hate" and their stupid ideas of "thought crimes." It doesn't help that the headline in the OP is misleading. Why are they making an issue out of the lack of "hate" when "hate" isn't part of the statute (except for the name). The test that has to be met is "targeting based on real OR perceived characteristics." This case CLEARLY meets that test.

[Elspeth]

126. This should mean that targeting a woman for rape should be considered a hate crime

since a woman IS chosen for gender characteristics over which she has no control.

I'm all for that by the way.

[noiretextatique]

129. me too...it is terrorism eom

[noonwitch]

130. My problem with hate crime laws in murder cases

It's prosecutorial overkill and unnecessary. The sentence for murder, whether it be a term of years, a life sentence or the dp, is usually the max. Adding on the hate crime is unnecessary.

I do think the only cases in which hate crime legislation makes any difference is in non-violent offenses like graffiti. One should pay a higher penalty for writing "Die, Jew" on a jewish person's garage door than if they write "John loves Mary". The intent is different, therefore so should the punishment.

Violent crimes should be punished by strict laws. Hate crime convictions shouldn't be necessary to get justice.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

135. Reality

You write: 'The sentence for murder, whether it be a term of years, a life sentence or the dp, is usually the max. Adding on the hate crime is unnecessary."

Not at all...........there are sooo many variations of 'murder' on the books each requiring a different threshold to uphold for a conviction. First degree murder, second degree, manslaughter, premeditated first degree, etc. Contrary to your perception, you'd be surprised what a murder will get you. I've seen it first hand having sat on jury in a murder trial.

In addition, certain evidence can be introduced under hate crime legislation that may not, in many jurisdictions, be introduced otherwise.

[SayWhatYo]

144. I tend to agree with you...

[Taverner]

139. No evidence, no crime

Now that doesn't mean they shouldn't go to jail for LIFE for taking a human LIFE...

But if there isn't evidence that it was, in fact, a hate crime - then it is not, in fact, a hate crime.

[treestar]

141. It depends on the wording of the state statute

It may be labelled a "hate crime" but it sounds like the statute itself doesn't require proof of "hate" but proof that the victim was chosen for being a member of the category.

A legal decision will be based on what the statute says.

[Taverner]

143. That makes sense

choosing a person for being a member of the category would define the action as a hate crime - but as I read the story, it looked like a straight up robbery and murder.