Is this a hate crime?

[Nikki Stone1]

DU is talking about how racist/prejudiced words can affect people, especially in the case of comedian Michael Richards. One of the more disturbing arguments I have seen is that a person cannot be considered a racist if he or she is not part of a group in control of societal institutions. I agree that "institutionalized racism" with corresponding laws and customs is not possible except for the group(s) with control of the institutions, but personal racism does exist and can motivate actions.

There has been a recent case in Long Beach which has bothered me immensely, and I have been loathe to post about it because I don't want to start a flame war. But I think we really need to discuss it. If we don't, the freepers will get to make the issue their own and leave the question of justice aside to be replaced by their own prejudices. I believe that this crime was racially motivated based on everything I have read about it, but you be the judge.

I would like to establish some groundrules, though: Please, no flaming, no racist commentary, and no personal attacks. I'd like to see this issue really discussed within a liberal framework.

Here is an article from the Long Beach Press Telegram describing an incident at Halloween in which 3 white college students (all female) were attacked by a large number of African American teenagers at a Halloween block party.

http://www.presstelegram.com/search/ci_4654636

The 3 victims of the attack were attending a Halloween street fair event in the Bixby Knolls section of Long Beach.

"...the incident began as they walked up the haunted house and one of the males yelled, "Are you down with it?" while grabbing his groin.

Not knowing what he meant, the girls said they ignored him and went into the haunted house, only to see him and and some of his friends as they walked out. That is when the racial insults allegedly began, followed by the physical attack."

The physical attack involved the yelling of racial (anti-white) epiteths and beating the girls with skateboards, knocking one unconscious:

"The victims - Laura, 19, Michelle, 19, and Lauren, 21 - were walking away from a popular
haunted house that draws hundreds of trick-or-treaters every Halloween when the attack occurred at about 9:30 p.m. When it was all over, Laura was diagnosed with a concussion and suffered bruises and contusions all over her head and body. She has suffered fainting spells since the attack and was told it could take up to two years for the concussion to completely heal.

Lauren was the most seriously hurt, suffering a dozen fractures to one side of her face. Several of the bones around her eye socket were smashed, causing her face to droop. Surgeons are now saying they will have to rebuild part of her shattered face with metal plates and a bone graft from another part of her skull.There is a possibility that the college student's vision may be permanently damaged - which would destroy her hopes of becoming a professional photographer."

As of this past week, hate crime charges have been filed:

http://www.presstelegram.com/search/ci_4709201


Hate crime charges filed in attack
Seven girls, one boy could face imprisonment until age 25 if convicted in Halloween beating.
By Tracy Manzer, Staff writer
Article Launched:11/22/2006 09:25:54 PM PST

LONG BEACH - Hate crime charges were filed Wednesday against eight black teenagers accused in the brutal beating of three young white women on Halloween.
After reviewing the Police Department's investigation and conducting interviews with the victims, the Los Angeles district attorney's office decided to file hate crime allegations against eight of the 10 defendants, said spokeswoman Sandi Gibbons.

The allegations add a four-year sentencing enhancement to charges already leveled against all 10 teens, including assault with a deadly weapon causing great bodily injury.

I am currently looking for the original Long Beach Press-Telegram article from Nov 1, which decribes the attack in great detail. I saw this article in print awhile ago, but I haven't been able to find it on line. It is clear from that article that there was a large group involved, including more males than have been charged with hate crimes, that the attacks were unprovoked , that the teens yelled about hating whites as they beat the girls, and that an African American man broke up the attacks and saved the 3 girls from further brutality.


Other articles in the Press Telegram indicate that the NAACP condemned the attacks but are monitoring the trial to make sure that the teenagers involved in the attack are treated fairly.


http://www.presstelegram.com/search/ci_4675578

EDITED TO ADD ORIGINAL ARTICLE WITH DETAILS:
\\http://www.presstelegram.com/search/ci_4614770


"The trio - two of whom are 19 and the third 21 years old - were punched, kicked, slammed to the ground and beaten with a skateboard. Their Halloween costumes were torn and their earrings were ripped from their lobes. They were robbed and nearly killed, they said.

"They really believed that that was it," said one mom. "They thought they were never going to see their friends or family again, that they were going to die."

A Good Samaritan - who is also black - was driving by when he saw the attack, stopped and defended the girls, pulling off their assailants, the victims said."

[nini]

1. Yes

I almost posted this article too, but since it'll end up in a flame war I didn't.


It's a hate crime by definition.

Me saying this is a hate crime does not mean I don't agree there are probably numerous 'hate' crimes against gays, Blacks, and other minorities that are not charged that way - but that fact does not change the issue in this particular instance.

[billbuckhead]

2. Absolutely a hate crime

And needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law

[Nikki Stone1]

9. I was afraid to post this for the same reason. But there needs to be

discussion by liberals on this. The article link I added at the end in an edit shows that white supremecist groups are already seeing this as their issue, and it is NOT. Fortunately, the parents of the girls are really good about it:

http://www.presstelegram.com/search/ci_4614770

"Sinister e-mails left by white supremacist groups on the Press-Telegram's Web site upset the victims even further.

"Our girls were never raised to think like that, and they won't start now," said one mother."

[nini]

15. There are some scary white supremacist types around there too

and I'M SURE they have done their share of hateful stuff.

I'm glad the parents are trying to keep a lid on this and not blame every Black person in LB. Maybe this whole thing will end up bringing groups together and get dialog started there to help avoid this in the future.

[Nikki Stone1]

21. There are actually a lot of articles on that in the Press Telegram

The community is really taking great pains not to overgeneralize this, as are the parents, which I really think is great considering how badly these girls were hurt. The fact that the Good Samaritan who stopped the attacks was African American has also helped, I think.

[Totallybushed]

43. There is never any reason

to be afraid of the truth. PC commentary is for idiots. Yes this is a hate crime. Yes, blacks (and other minorities) can be as racist as whites. Yes, there is still a lot of work to be done in America, and more in the rest of the world.

[Nikki Stone1]

46. PC commentary has its purposes though

It's a clumsy and sometimes silly way of trying to avoid insulting others while trying to deal with a hot button issue. I understand why it exists and how it can be helpful at times. But the fact that at least two of us had trepidation about posting this story indicates that PC can also be a straightjacket.

Edited to add: Notice that there is not a single nomination for the thread. Maybe it truly doesn't deserve it on its merits (or lack thereof) and that's ok, but part of me wonders if people are afraid to recommend it.

[Totallybushed]

61. Well, there may be some

room for honest disagreement about this.

But, to my way of thinking, giving offense should not be a worry unless it is gratuitous offense. If people can't deal with opinions differing from theirs, if they consistently see insult where none was intended, then they are not worth engaging, intellectually.

"Freedom of speech" means freedom to offend. Get over it.

[Nikki Stone1]

68. And that is certainly a good argument against PC language

BUt the line between accidental (unintentional) and gratuitous is sometimes hard to discern.

[Totallybushed]

130. True.

But not for long.

In any event, that is an argument not to take offense, unless the offense is so egregious that it cannot be ignored. Otherwise, just walk away. The other person may or may not be a bigot, but is probably a moron. Not a valid reason to be one, too. Walk away. Why do you care what she thinks?

[Nikki Stone1]

132. But suppose you are stuck in a situation where you are forced to deal with others?

To solve a problem, diplomatically, or to negotiate? And you can't just leave?

[Totallybushed]

151. A diplomat

learns not to take offense. Besides, unless they are using violence, there are very few situations that you can't walk away from.

You don't have to run with that clique, you don't have to do business with that person, you don't have to join that country club, and you don't have to have that specific job. Besides, how many friends have you made by calling them "racist"?

It's called "life", and it has to be dealt with.

[Nikki Stone1]

157. Let me think about your post

I know there's something missing, but it hasn't struck me yet. I'm going to ruminate for a bit.

[Totallybushed]

159. Go right ahead.

I'm always willing to reconsider a position if someone can convince me with a few facts and rigorous logic.

[Nikki Stone1]

176. OK, here's a shot at it. :)

Actually, the problem is that language use and interpretation is not a cut and dried area. Perception is messy, being both socially guided and shaped by the past information/training (memory) in the person's brain. In a sense, we are always "living in the past" operating from past experience. We also don't typically communicate very clearly. I remember an old psycholinguistic study that found that 45% of speech (at the phonetic level) was unintelligible. Yet it was understood by the listener because the listener, armed with past experience and knowledge of the native language, was able to judge what the sounds "probably" were. In other words, the listener's predictive mechanism was able to fill in the blanks and, most of the time, be correct in his or her predictions.


What does all this have to do with PC language? Well, assuming that this predictive mechanism is not restricted to phonology (and it's not), people's listening involves a lot of their own past assumptions, experiences, etc. through this predictive mechanism (which is based on a sort of statistical application of memory). This means that what you think you said can be interpreted entirely differently by a listener with a different set of life experiences, and that this interpretation is largely automatic because the predictive mechanism is instantaneous and constantly on line. Not only specific terms but WAYS of talking about things, contexts in which certain issues are discussed, and the ways in which ideas are linked can trigger misunderstandings, and sometimes serious or tragic ones.

PC--as clumsy as it is--provides a kind of "lingua franca", a set of terms which indicate a way of talking about sensitive issues. Just the use of these terms can show a person's desire to "speak in good faith" and this can go a long way to preventing misunderstanding or mitigating the emotional reaction when misunderstandings occur. It does this by taking the pressure off of the prediction-making; PC terms have their own predictable assumptions and contexts, which is chiefly why people object to them. Using a PC term is about a world view, not just about a switch in phonemes.

(Disclaimer: Explanation done on one cup of coffee, when poster needs at least 3 to get started. :) )

[Totallybushed]

185. Actually, that was

pretty good.

However, while the speaker might have an obligation to try to be sensitive to the listener, the listener has an equal obligation to be sensitive to the speaker. No one has a superior right to be understood by others. He has automatic responses to what is said? What is he, Pavlov's dog? He can't control his righteous anger for a moment to think through: "Did this man intend to insult me, or am I being a jackass"?

Further, being "sensitive" leads to evasions, distortions in perceptions, euphemisms, and, in short, overall dishonesty between two people trying to communicate. Frankly, if I were black, or any other type of person for that matter, I would much rather discuss things with someone who hated my guts and called me names to my face, than someone who professed having my best interests at heart, told me I was his equal, and in his heart despised everything I was and stood for. At least I would know where I stood, and that is 80% of everything.

And how do you tell the difference between this fellow and the mealy-mouthed fellow who really believed what he was saying?

[Nikki Stone1]

191. Thanks.

You may not have a problem personally with someone who says things to your face. But in a work situation, especially when things get hairy, it's good to have a lingua franca. I also get concerned in a lawsuit driven society that some things said without rancour or by accident or certainly without malicious intent suddenly become "proofs" a person's racism or other prejudice. It is far better, in a litigious society like ours, to avoid potentially costly misunderstandings by using language assumed to be safe.

I do agree, though, that it is really hard to know intent. Someone might talk to me about women in general being "hormonal" but might not stand in the way of my promotion. Someone else might use all the right words and stand in the way of my career. However, these are exceptions to the rule, I think. Most of the time, language is an indicator of past experiences and biases, but you cannot always make the assumption, especially in the face of actions to the contrary.

[Totallybushed]

198. Those are some good points

It is far better, in a litigious society like ours,.

I guess I just think that it would be better for people to not have their antennae out to be offended. We all need to cut each other some slack.

For instance, let's take old Michael Richards. He said a very offensive thing, and is deservedly being shamed for it. But why does that justify a boycott of "Seinfeld" DVDs? That harms people who are not involved in the controversy at all. Why should he pay money to the individuals that he insulted? They provoked him. (He shouldn't have been so sensitive, himself. Stand-up comedy is a brutal career choice). But in any event, other than their feelings, they were not hurt. My understanding is that they used racial epithets first.

He should definitely apologize. Perhaps he should do some kind of action to show he is sincere. But demanding money shows that the individuals are mercenary. Sensitivity works both ways, or not at all.

[Nikki Stone1]

203. I agree with you insofar as

those who want payback for Richards' actions are encouraging the hurting of others not involved. That's just nasty.

Richards is doing everything possible to rehabilitate his career, but I don't think it will help. Once you wear the Scarlet R, it never goes away. Jay Leno will be doing jokes about Richards (and Mel Gibson for that matter) until he retires. They're easy marks. To my mind, that's not totally fair. There needs to be a shelf life on these kinds of things, and the humiliation one has to go through needs limits also.

Of course, RIchards should never have gone off like that in the first place. But that horse left the barn a long time ago.

I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that having a common language where the terms are defined and not as liable to misunderstanding makes things a little less hairy, and a little less dangerous.

[Totallybushed]

204. I agree, especially

with you last statement.

If people meant the same things when they used the same words, there would be far less room for misunderstanding.

[Nikki Stone1]

205. Yes. And now I have to go.

But I appreciate the time and the discussion.

Nikki

[Totallybushed]

206. Bye, bye.

See you around ;)

[bryant69]

3. I think a distinction between societal and individual racism

might be useful. There isn't and there isn't likely to be any sort of institutional racism against Whites - we run everything. We have power over societal institutions (both governmental and non-governmental). Blacks have far less power and so, on a societal level, blacks can't create institutional racism.

On the other hand when you cut a situation down to smaller groups, obviously individual blacks can hate white people and, as they did in this situation, inflict that hatred on whites.

At least that's my take, but I am a white male, so there might be nuances I'm missing.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Nikki Stone1]

13. I know it seems like kind of a clumsy division, but it has empirical value I think

If there's a better way to talk about it I am game.

[booley]

19. But hate crimes occur at the individual level.

I agree there is societal and there is individual racism. (Though they are related.)

But hate crimes legislation is created specificly for the individual. They don't and can't help with institutionalized racism..poverty or lack of education or employment oppertunities.

However, they are meant to be used against individuals who express hatred against someone of a different class and lets that hatred lead to violence.

I know for a fact that prejudice is universal. no group of classification of humans is immune to it. And while Blacks dont' have the power of the establishment created by Whites, that's not to say they dont' have any power at all.

In any case, this case shows why hate crime laws cover classifications and not individual groups. They cover race, not black or white. This was obviously a crime and the victims race seems to be a motivating factor. Hence hate crime in my book.

[Nikki Stone1]

44. That's right

The very existence of hate crimes as a class of crimes speak to individual racism. I was just hearing the argument on DU over the weekend that it is impossible for a group that is discriminated against to be racist against the group in power. That works, I think, on a societal and institutional level, but I don't think that works on the indivisual level at all.

[marmar]

4. IF a racial epithet was used, indeed it should be classified as a hate crime....

And if you look at national statistics on hate crimes, all types of people get charged with them.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. Is that the qualification for a hate crime?

I thought racism had to be the reason for a hate crime, not the use of racial epithets.

For example- if a white guy and a black guy got in a fender bender and then got in a fist fight and used racial epithets it wouldn't be a hate crime.

However, if a white guy beat up a black guy because he didn't like black guys living in his neighborhood, then that would be a hate crime.

[mondo joe]

8. Since intent can only be known with certainty by the attacker,

epithets are often used as evidence of a hate crime.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. "Since intent can only be known with certainty by the attacker"

Intent is up for the jury to decide.

This is why hate crimes require so much investigation.

"epithets are often used as evidence of a hate crime."

Yes, that's my point.

[mondo joe]

16. You asked if that's the qualification for a hate crime.

And in some practical sense, it is, because it provides evidence of bias.

[JacksonWest]

92. Hate Crime = Thought Crime

for the reasons you just said. It's seems silly to charge someone with hate-hate is only measured by speech. Not that people should use racial slurs-but a hate crime really just punishes someone for saying certain things during the commission of a crime. Why not have a "terror" crime, where-if someone threatens to "kill you" during an assault-you add four years to their sentence?

Don't get me wrong. I can respect enhancing a sentence because of motive and the details of the crime-but I don't support an out and out "hate crime" where you can be charged with "hate". It sort of creates a slippery slope toward abandoning the first amendment. IN this case the "hate crime" statue sounds like a sentence enhancer. I wonder if the prosecution has to prove the elements of the hate crime as well as the underlying offense-or if the judge can enhance the sentence based on testimony.

But, by every definition-it is a hate crime.

[kiahzero]

94. No one's being charged with "hate." (n/t)

[JacksonWest]

96. They're being charged with a "hate crime".

Which is on top of an underlying charge. And as the article says:

Typically, he said, a prosecutor must be able to prove that the defendants went out with the intent to attack someone based solely on their gender, race, religion or sexual orientation.

The keyword being "intent". So, hate, or the intent to harm someone based on race/gender/race/religion/or sexual orientation is key.

Saying they're being charged with hate is accurate, as it is synonymous with the element of the crime.

[kiahzero]

97. They're being charged with terrorizing a discrete group. (n/t)

[JacksonWest]

101. I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

You seem to want to disagree with whatever is posted. The charges are assault with a deadly weapon causing great bodily injury, aggravated assault, and the hate crime statute:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/422.6-422.95.html#Scene_1

The law mentions hate: It is the intent of the Legislature to encourage counties,
cities, and school districts to establish education and training
programs to prevent violations of civil rights and hate crimes.

It does not mention discrete, or terror, or terrorizing.

Is the hang up that I said that they were being charged for hate? I'm not trying to play semantic games. It seems pretty straight forward to me.

[kiahzero]

105. You're playing semantic games.

You're focusing so much on the words that you're neglecting to think about meaning.

[JacksonWest]

114. Really?

All you said was that they weren't being charged with hate. What meaning is lost on me? My point was that hate is determined-or intent- by their verbage during the assault. And, as such, I feel that hate crimes are a slippery slope.

[kiahzero]

116. Intent is only partially determined by their remarks at the time. (n/t)

[Karenina]

103. I've been scratching my head about this OP.

:freak: It's an OBVIOUS "hate crime" (although I truly believe violent crime always has an element of hatred in it). The perpetrators are black and the victims white. The perpetrators have been apprehended and WILL BE PROSECUTED to the fullest extent of the law. They, deservedly, will have THE BOOK thrown at them. What is the issue here? :freak:

Had the victims been black it would STILL BE A HATE CRIME. It would also not likely be prosecuted as such, as GENDER would then be the sole criteria. AND we would not likely be hearing of it, as horrific as it is. There would not be the OUTRAGE that can be witnessed downthread. The case in question is quite straightforward.

This case is MUCH LESS SO and MUCH MORE COMMON:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2805356

And, of course there's THIS:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2808927

[Nikki Stone1]

147. Both of your links concern police brutality, not hate crime

We've had many incidents of police brutality in the past month or so that have been appalling. The UCLA case comes to mind, of course. But there are a number of especially public ones that we can point to through the last few decades, and many of these public cases involve urban police officers exercising some form of petty tyranny on minority groups to which they do not belong. Some see these cases, which seem to be growing in number, as "business as usual", but others of us, noting a growing pattern of excessive force, wonder if we are seeing the emergence of a more overt police state. You can read your own links to see discussion of the latter concern.

The case in the OP is not about the police at all and should not be compared to police brutality cases. The case above is about a brutal crime that is arguably a hate crime, but possibly not; it took the authorities almost a month to decide to add hate crimes charges to at least some of the minors involved in the case. I wondered how many people would classify this as a hate crime and how many would not.

Also, if you read the OP, I am concerned about a lot of the discussion on what racism is in recent weeks. I have seen posts that have basically said, more or less, that one can only be racist if one is in a group that has control. While this works for institutionalized racism--and yes, that is still pervasive after 40 years of civil rights legislation--this does work for the case above. It seems to me that there needs to be some kind of distinction made between institutional and personal racism.

[Karenina]

150. Thanks, Nikki, for your response.

You correctly point out the flaws in my comparison.

Of course, I read your OP several times and am flooded with emotions having been the target of "hate attacks" by blacks, whites and men.

Bear with me while I sort my thoughts out...

[Nikki Stone1]

158. You're welcome, Karenina

And I'm sorry if this topic upset you. There are certain topics that set me over the edge, too. I was just trying to explore an idea here based on an incident that disturbed me greatly and that was close to home. It's my way of trying to work out my thoughts and seeing what others have to say.

[Karenina]

207. There's something about the "mob mentality"

and the "nuclear option," that we are seeing played out with increasing frequency on all levels of interaction. I did try engaging DUers on this point vis-a-vis the Richards flap; no interest.

It does not surprise me at all that most of the attackers were girls. Where did THAT come from? That and so many other questions desperately need attention. I confess to a knee-jerk reaction in reading about the crime you cite. Black on white (female) crime? The perpetrators WILL BE PROSECUTED TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW. And then some, if possible.

WHAT are the root causes of SO MUCH PSYCHIC AND PHYSICAL VIOLENCE in the good ol' U.S. of A??? IMHO, ALL OF IT is born and bred in an abiding hatred. I'm SO HAPPY I no longer live there...

BTW, your response (on ONE cup of coffee yet) was BRILLIANT. Anyone operating in an environment where his mother tongue is not primary will grok the truth of what you wrote. :hug: My motto is: It's not about what I say, it's about what my listener HEARS. I cannot control that but I damn sure can make an effort.

[Catherine Vincent]

5. It appears to be a hate crime to me.

This is in California?

[nini]

7. Yes. Long Beach is in the Los Angeles harbor area

this is my neck of the woods :-(

[Nikki Stone1]

17. Ah. I used to date someone down in the Long Beach area

A long time ago. I was living just north of LA at the time. I didn't pay too much attention to what was around me, unfortunately. What is this area like?

[nini]

39. It's a mix of everything.. just like most medium size cities

There's a huge homeless problem around downtown area that has been revitalized over the last 25 years or so. So, you have the extreme poverty nestled in with the high rise rich buildings.

It's mostly a middle class city with some areas of very rich and some poorer areas.

There's a huge Cambodian and Vietnemese population as well as Whites, Blacks and Hispanics. Most people are good but there are always the few of every group that has to be assholes.


It's probably like most cities its size with similar problems etc.

[Nikki Stone1]

42. THanks for the description. It sounds like a mini LA

with its rich and poor sections, its ethnic mix and tensions. The area where this attack occurred was Bixby Knolls: apparently a richer area?

[nini]

52. yes.. it's a mini L.A.

Bixby Knolls is definitely the 'Beverly Hills' area of LB.


BEAUTIFUL homes - probably in the 5-6 million range for 'some' of them.

[Nikki Stone1]

86. Wow! I didn't realize it was such a posh area.

Were any of the kids involved on either side from the area itself?

[uppityperson]

11. Hate crime, and there is a difference between individual and societal racism

Of course an individual can be racist. Saying "It is all societies fault" is a way of avoiding personal responsibility for our actions. Societal and individual racism can encourage one another, feed off each other, but of course there is individual, personal racism.

[IntravenousDemilo]

12. But of course. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. n/m

[kiahzero]

14. Yeah, it was pretty clearly a hate crime

I don't see a problem with charging it as such. The evidence presented seems clear that the girls were attacked because they were white women.

[TechBear_Seattle]

18. The question that has to be answered is...

Was this group looking for victims, or were they looking specifically for white victims? The first situation is a crime; the second makes it a hate crime.

While the use of epithets can be used as evidence of motivation, it is not itself proof of motivation, and thus not itself proof of a hate crime.

[masshole]

23. Why would they need to be "looking"?

What if the alledged attackers were simply out for a stroll and happened upon the three girls. Why would it make any difference?

[mondo joe]

27. They don't. Here's the CA Penal Code section that defines a hate crime.

As defined in California Penal Code section 422.55, hate crime means “a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of one or more of the following actual or perceived characteristics of the victim: (1) Disability, (2) Gender, (3) Nationality, (4) Race or ethnicity, (5) Religion, (6) Sexual orientation, (7) Association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics.”

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

28. The key word here is "because."

Would this group have attacked any group of victims, or were they specifically looking for white victims?

[mondo joe]

34. Only they can know that. There are two questions at hand:

Is there sufficient evidence to charge them with a hate crime.

Do posters think this was a hate crime.

In either case, no one but they can KNOW what they would have done in a hypothetical. We can only offer opinions on the legitimacy of the charge, or our own guesses.

[TechBear_Seattle]

40. A question about the California statute

"a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of one or more of the following actual or perceived characteristics of the victim", including gender.

A rapist is likely to be picky as to the gender of his victim. Does that mean all sexual agression are, by definition, hate crimes as well? Does one set of laws displace the other, or can a rapist be charged with both rape and a hate crime against a woman?

[mondo joe]

58. Don't know. Sorry. NT

[TechBear_Seattle]

38. I was unclear

But as others have asked, would this group have similarly attacked a group of black women? That was the direction I was going.

[Nikki Stone1]

129. I imagine that would depend on the context

nt

[Nikki Stone1]

25. That's the problem with hate crimes in general-getting into the intent of the attacker

The fact that hate crimes have been filed (almost a month after the incident) against some of these teens means that at least some of the crowd could be argued to have been targeting whites. It remains to be seen what a jury will do with this. Jury selection will be crucial, I imagine.

[Warpy]

20. It's a hate crime, but I don't find the color of the attackers

particularly relevant. They didn't attack white males. They attacked three WOMEN.

Oh, right, hate crimes are never based on gender.

[Nikki Stone1]

22. You know, it started with a guy grabbing his crotch and making sexual comments

that the girls didn't understand because they were slang terms. By the way, here is more on the injuries:

"Lauren suffered 12 fractures in her face that may require multiple surgeries to repair. It's not yet known if the damage to her eyesight will be permanent or if she will lose some or all of her teeth.

Michelle's face is also bruised and swollen as is the lining that surrounds her lungs.

And Laura, like Lauren, suffered a concussion as well as multiple contusions on her back and the back of her head."

[Warpy]

56. So it's THEIR FAULT for not responding to crude men?

Sorry, this is a typical hate crime against women. Race is irrelevant here.

[Nikki Stone1]

64. Good Lord, NO!

But wouldn't that make all sexually based or even tangentially sexual crimes against women "hate crimes"?

[Der Blaue Engel]

74. A good deal of assaults on women should be classified as hate crimes

if not most. (Sexual or otherwise. Spousal abuse, for instance.)

[Warpy]

109. Aren't they?

Just asking

[Nikki Stone1]

181. Actually, no

I don't think I've ever seen a publicized hate crime based on the victim's status as a woman. I wonder if this crowd yelled bitch or whore, and if they did, if that would qualify the assault as a hate crime.

[kiahzero]

183. No.

If a perpetrator commits a sexual assault wholly or partly because of the victim's gender, a hate crime has not been committed unless the perpetrator also acts upon some animosity or other bias motivation toward the victim's gender.

If a perpetrator commits a crime wholly or partly because the perpetrator perceives that the victim's disability, gender, or other protected characteristic makes the victim more vulnerable to the commission of the crime, a hate crime has not been committed unless the perpetrator also acts upon some animosity or other bias motivation toward the victim's disability, gender, or other protected characteristic.

88 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 141 (an Opinion from the CA Attorney General)

[Nikki Stone1]

184. Thanks. What that means is that

it would be extremely difficult to charge a rapist of any kind with a hate crime.

It seems kind of odd, that. Somehow that violence against women is not provoked by hatred of women as a group but by something else. In the case of serial rapists, that just seems illogical.

[kiahzero]

188. That would seem to be the point, actually.

It's basically saying that attacking someone sexually because they happen to fit your sexual orientation, that doesn't automatically make that sexual assault a hate crime.

[Nikki Stone1]

192. I know, I got that point

I just don't always think it's true. And I think that's one reason why many people want to look at this case as just a sexually based crime and not a hate crime: a sexually based crime is somehow less objectionable because women are not seen as a object of hate in cases of assaults and rapes, but as objects of sexual desire. That's what bothers me.

[kiahzero]

194. That's not what the law was intended to do

Remember that the purpose of legislation like this is to provide for additional punishment where someone attacks everyone of a given class by way of attacking a random member of that class.

[Nikki Stone1]

196. Yet by your logic

A serial rapist in a given area would have to be charged with a hate crime since ALL of the women in that area are affected by his crime(s), and that is possibly his intent. He is attacking an entire group, forcing them into fear, terror even, by attacks on one or two members of that group. His actions, regardless of what he says, are about women generically and affect all women.

[kiahzero]

197. There you might have a case.

If you can prove his rapes were out of animus towards women rather than other motives, I think prosecuting such a person with hate crimes would be consistent with the above interpretation.

[Nikki Stone1]

200. What are the motives of serial rapists ?

I imagine the FBI has profiles, but to me, whether the rapist hates his mother (and uses all other women to substitute for her) or simply hates women, his actions have the same effect on women that crimes against a racial group have on that group. In fact, I would argue that painting a swastika on a temple actually, in the end, is less of a physical threat than the rapes of more than one woman in an area. I'd also argue that there could be more hate in the latter--the former could be a prank or something done on a dare.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

199. Yes, and why not?

There is such resistance to the idea, even from people who have no trouble seeing the hate aspect in attacks on gays or racial minorities. When men do things to women ,specifically because of their gender, there is this curious blind spot.

Oh, it's just a man doing something to a woman or girl. Nothing to see here. Boys will be boys, you know. She was probably asking for it by drinking and wearing that short skirt.

[hughee99]

110. Is this about gender and not race?

One of the excerpts from the OP...
"Seven girls, one boy could face imprisonment until age 25 if convicted in Halloween beating"

If 7 girls and 1 boy are the alleged attackers, isn't it possible that this was not about gender but about race?

[Warpy]

142. Quite possibly

Would they have attacked a MALE?

[hughee99]

143. Who knows...

but I didn't read any reports of "gender based" insults, just racial insults. Personally, it seems to me from the posts so far that there is AT LEAST as much information to suggest it was racially bases as there is that it was gender based.

[Warpy]

144. From the article:

Several neighbors told police that the males who started the incident on Halloween had harassed several other trick-or-treaters, including other black children, before attacking the victims.
Although the victims and witnesses heard many of the attackers say they hate whites, as well as other racial slurs, the incident began with a lurid sexual comment and gesture, Schirn added.

"Initially, this began with a catcall and a guy grabbing his crotch," the prosecutor said.

---------two 15 year old boys have been arrested and charged with the beating. Nine girls and one boy were arrested at the scene, probably as eyewitnesses.

I'd say this is a great example of a gender based hate crime. Race is incidental.

[hughee99]

146. I didn't see it that way...

The part about "witnesses heard many of the attackers say they hate whites, as well as other racial slurs" makes me think that at least it could be both. From what I've read here, it seems a stretch to me to say that race is incidental, based on the information available.

Given the fact that they harassed several other trick-or-treaters, including other black children, before the attacking the woman doesn't really mean anything unless you know who they harassed but didn't attack. It doesn't say if the victims were the first women they harassed (which would support a gender argument) or if they were the first white people they harassed (which would support a race argument), or if they were the first white women they harassed (which would support a "both" argument), of if they were not the first white women they harassed (which would suggest there were other factors involved).

As far as the girls being eyewitnesses, I didn't see anything in the OP or the articles to suggest that.
From the article:
"Seven girls, one boy could face imprisonment until age 25 if convicted in Halloween beating."

[Beelzebud]

24. I think hate crime laws are bullshit. A crime is a crime. Charge them for their crimes.

I've always thought the hate crime laws are bullshit.

Any violent crime is a hateful act. Why the distinction?

If you severely beat someone, you should go to jail regardless of what your motivation was.

[Nikki Stone1]

30. Do you think hate crimes charges added on might be a deterrent to racially motivated crime

in general? TO cut down on violence against certain groups?

I don't know. I'm kind of ambivalent about hate crimes legislation.

[Beelzebud]

35. No I honestly don't. People who commit violent crimes aren't deterred by anything.

[Nikki Stone1]

51. Certainly there must be some deterrence

OR we'd all be committing crimes in fits of road rage or anger at family members. :)

[fhqwhgads]

78. there is deterrence...

...let's say there were no hate crime legislation. these men would be prosecuted anyway. i don't think it's as if someone says to themselves "i hate these people, i want to kill them, but i won't because of hate crime legislation." maybe the problem is that the punishment for such crimes (sans hate-crime add-on) isn't severe enough, i don't know.

i'm not sure i'm comfortable with the idea of prosecuting people for what's in their mind, no matter how odious their thoughts may be.

why not just prosecute the crime for what it was...a premeditated violent attack on three people?

[kiahzero]

80. Then you're already uncomfortable with all of criminal law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

[fhqwhgads]

82. i think you know what i meant...

...i'm not talking about intent. we know these guys had intent. but what we're talking about is the notion that one attack is "worse" than another purely because the perpetrator's motivation may have resulted from a racist/homophobic/sexist mindset.

i guess what i'm asking is: why are we prosecuting people for their opinions?

apparently i'm not articulating my point very well today...of course, i'm also having trouble staying awake at work today.

[kiahzero]

88. We're not prosecuting people for their opinions

We're prosecuting people for translating those opinions into action. You can be a flagrant racist all you want; you can even believe that all people of a given race deserve to be beaten or killed. But if you translate that belief into action, you've committed a more grievous crime than if your actions were motivated by other intents, because you've terrorized other people belonging to that group.

[fhqwhgads]

89. i'm not sure i understand...

...i'm not trying to be difficult. but i don't understand why the mindset behind the intent matters. terrorizing someone is terrorizing someone. what difference does it make if you did it because you don't like their skin color or hat size or because they have 46 chromosomes?

seems like prosecuting people for what they believe is the top of a slippery slope.

[kiahzero]

91. Attacking someone because of their race isn't the same as a general mugging

If I get a gang together and beat up a black man just because he's black, we didn't just harm that one man, we harmed every black man in the area. It would be similar if you beat up a person just for wearing a hat, but that's not a common enough occurrence to necessitate such legislation.

[Pithlet]

111. It's not prosecuting them for a belief. It's just not.

No matter how many times that is repeated, it doesn't become true. It is prosecuting them for terrorizing an entire group with an act aimed at a member of that group because they are a member of that group, sending a message to the entire group that they should live in fear because of who they are. That was the intent behind hate crime laws. People who commit these crimes aren't just targeting the individual. They don't commit the crime against that specific person solely because they want to cause harm to that individual, but also to terrorize everyone who is a member of that community. It is a type of terrorism, essentially. I see no problem with treating it as such.

[mondo joe]

93. I'd instead say they are being prosecuted for a crime against a

CLASS of people, by creating a climate of intimidation and fear against them. It's just targeted terrorism.

[Warpy]

145. I'm against hate crime laws

which come perilously close to thought crime laws.

However, hate crimes should be taken into consideration at sentencing.

[Nikki Stone1]

148. How would that work?

If one can't be arrested for a hate crime, what mechanism would bring a hate crime into the calculation of a sentence? (Serious question here. If you can sentence people based on their level of hatred, doesn't that come close to punishing their thoughts?)

[Warpy]

173. It's called a JUDGE

and obviously a jury would also consider why that oaf set fire to a synagogue/mosque.

Haters who commit impersonal crimes, the most dangerous kind in an orderly society (which we keep trying to have). The judge would feel quite secure in tacking on an extra five years or so to his sentence.

[Nikki Stone1]

179. This would leave it in the hands of a few individuals rather than

having a statutory difference, like murder vs manslaughter. I don't know if I would be comfortable leaving that up to a judge.

The jury, of course, still has the option of deciding against the hate crime charges in court.

[kiahzero]

180. You're describing a less formal way of doing the same exact thing. (n/t)

[mondo joe]

153. Untrue. There is NO penalty for bigotry or hate.

Only for CRIMINAL ACTIONS taken as a result.

No thought crime there.

[Nikki Stone1]

161. My assumption has always been that hate crime really speaks to intent in the same way

that charges of murder and manslaughter do. The former carries a stiffer penalty because the intent to kill was there whereas with the latter there may not have been intent or a case cannot be made for intent. Hate crime was just another kind of intent.

[Warpy]

172. Making it a separate crime seems like it to me

but yes, it's only prosecuted when the hater acts out violently.

I still think it should be taken into account at sentencing, not as a separate crime.

[kiahzero]

174. It's not a thought crime.

If it were a thought crime, there'd be no actus reus. There is an actus reus, so by definition it cannot be a thought crime. It's the EXACT SAME logic behind distinguishing between mens rea standards for murder.

[Nikki Stone1]

178. If you have a hate crime statute, where there were extra penalties for intent

one might assume MORE deterrence. I don't know if that's taking place in actual fact.

[kiahzero]

32. Manslaughter isn't murder.

The only difference is intent.

[mondo joe]

33. For this reason:

Assaulting someone because you want his wallet is a crime but it's not based in bias.

Doing so because of his race is also a crime, and is based in bias.

Hate crimes are not only a crime against the person they victimize but against a CLASS of people - in effect creating a climate of intimidation based only on race, orientation, etc. That is a crime of its own and so is met with an additional penalty.

[nini]

54. the distinction is because the victim was chosen because of race..

sexual preference etc... THAT hold special circumstances at to intent.



I do agree every crime is hateful, but when the intent is purely to hurt someone based on race etc.. it's different.

[Cronus Protagonist]

62. I'm with you on this one 100%

Do the crime, do the time. If an attack is worth N years, that's what it's worth. To add years on because of what was said during the crime is downright Stalinesque.

[readmoreoften]

128. This argument is such bunk. Why distinguish between 1st degree murder and manslaughter?

Both result in the same thing: the death of an individual. So people who sneeze through a stop light and hit and kill another motorist should be treated the same as a person who stalks and kidnaps an ex-lover, ties her to a board, puts that board in the middle of the road and drives a pick-up truck over her head. Why treat the 1st degree murder more harshly? The end result is the same. How do we know that what the motive of the "sneezer" really was? Maybe they just wanted to run a stop light and kill someone that day? You never can tell...

When you go out and "beat up some ______s" you intend to terrorize an entire community of people. It is a different act from a drunken idiot mistaking someone for your ex-girlfriend's new boyfriend in a drunken rage. There is a load of difference between getting punched in the face repeatedly by a drunk who says "you think you're a big man, huh? me and my boys are gonna kick your ass" and getting repeatedly punched in the face by someone who says "you nigger faggot, I'm sick of your kind. I should fuck you up the ass and hang you from a tree."

It's pretty standard to factor intent into sentencing.

[Cleita]

26. Anytime you hurt someone, I think qualifies as a hate crime.

However, I lived in the Los Angeles County area of Southern California most of my life. Long Beach had a history and reputation of racism among the white people living there against African Americans and Mexican Americans back then. The Long Beach police were notorious for it. I don't think that much has changed since I left more than a decade ago.

It's no surprise that there is bad blood between AA's and whites there. I'm not making excuses for the African Americans involved here. They were very wrong and do display a racial hatred with their actions. What I'm saying is that there is a history there to explain their actions. I saw the same thing in Kansas City, where you went into a black neighborhood at your own risk. A friend of mine from Detroit said the same thing happened there. The same goes for East L. A.. Non-hispanics enter at their own peril.

There are decades of racial hatred on all sides that need to be studied so that a solution to the problem can be formulated and put into action.

[earth mom]

119. Just because the Long Beach police are notorious for racism

does NOT mean that the white people of that area are racist-that is a TOTAL crock. I know that area very well as I grew up around there and as you yourself has said MANY times on this forum, Southern California is a melting pot and that area most certainly is! The people who live there have NO control over what the cops do-I know that because the local cops were none to kind to my own family once upon a time and our family is white. The cops there are bastards to be sure-maybe even corrupt IMO-, but there is an overwhelming majority of good people-of all races-in the Long Beach area.

This is a really sad occurrence that most certainly is a hate crime but also I think, the result of a class war as the more affluent and yes mostly white Bixby Knolls & Long Beach Country Club area abuts not only a poorer racially mixed section of Long Beach but also the city of Bellflower which is a poorer racially mixed area as well. Bixby Knolls is also next to the more middle class mostly white neighborhood of Lakewood.

Also not mentioned here on this thread is the HUGE gang problems in Southern California. Gang violence has risen to the point that it is just not that safe in many neighborhoods that border known gang territory. Bixby Knolls is right next to the thick of it for that area.

[Cleita]

137. Hmm, well I don't think all white people in any part of Los Angeles

are non-racist and that includes Long Beach. If that were true, there wouldn't be all white neighborhoods. You won't really know if you are white how bigoted your neighbors are because most don't wear it on their sleeves in LA, but when you are a minority you do know.

As for the gangs they are a minority in ethnic communities of people who work hard and just want to raise their kids to do better than them. Unfortunately poor policing and institutionalized racism in those neighborhoods allow the gangs to run rampant and to own them.

When I was a bartender an off duty LA cop once bragged to me that they really didn't police in So. Central. They just contained the problem so it didn't spill out into other areas (white ones) and that's back when we had an African American mayor, who evidently didn't want to be bothered with those neighborhoods either.

[Nikki Stone1]

162. Do you think these teens might have been part of a gang?

As a long time SoCal resident, I have watched the gangs literally take over neighborhoods. There was no indication in the articles that these teens were gang members or even affiliated with gangs. But I suppose a gang mentality could have its effect, even on non-members.

[leftofthedial]

29. sounds like a hate crime to me

[bluestateguy]

31. Yes, a crime based on racial prejudice is a hate crime, period.

Granted, these laws were created with the intent of cracking down on hate crimes against minorities, but they should be applicable to all. The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment mandates it.

[slackmaster]

36. Clearly a hate crime

:nuke:

[Minnesota_Lib]

37. I may be wrong, but It seems to me as if the attack was predicated on rejection of sexual advances.

The racial aspect seems to be a rationalization by the perpetrators as to why their advances where rejected. For instance, if the perps were working class white kids, or even a racially mixed group of working class kids, they conceivably would have used a perceived social distinction as their excuse to why they were rejected (“Oh, the rich college chicks think they are too good for us poor, uneducated working guys.”).

I think this was not as much a racial assault as it was an out-and-out sexual assault. According to one article, they were harassing other blacks kids as well. The racial remarks didn’t start until after the women rejected the sexual advances, if my reading of this is correct. The 2-3 male perps didn’t get what they wanted, control through sex, so they got control through violence using the girls’ perceived racism toward them as justification and then their friends jumped in.

This is a tough call and the fact that the perps were witnessed harassing other blacks before the attack on the women will make it even tougher for the prosecutor to claim this was a racially motivated crime. It might be easier to prove gender-based hate.

These were thugs just out looking to bully anyone (wilding?) and they lost it when their little egos were hurt by rejection from three girls. The race of the girls was probably less a factor than the embarrassment the perps suffered in front of their peers from rejection. If the women had been black, the same result probably would have occurred, just with a different justification from the perps. I may be off-base here, but that is how I read it.

[Nikki Stone1]

41. That certainly is a legitimate reading from the information we have

I think that is why only one male was charged with a hate crime (more were arrested).. It may be that some in the crowd were motivated by race, but the initial teenaged males (and some were as old as 17) may have reacted exactly for the reason you lay out so well. So this thing may actually be a combination of sexually motivated violence (for some) and racially motivated violence (for others). It's hard to sort out all of it and this may be why they took so long to file the hate crimes charges that they did file. Notice that most of those charged with hate crimes were female.

[Minnesota_Lib]

47. Good points. Actually, now that I think more about it...

..even if the original intent of the males who started the assault was ego motivated and not racially motivated, they still brought race into the mix which may have incited the others to jump in and beat on the women.

In that case, then yes, it probably could be called a racially motivated hate crime (with me being guilty of 'over-thinking' LOL). Whatever the case, I hope all involved in the beatings will have plenty of solitary time to think over what they did. Lots of time.

[Nikki Stone1]

49. Me, too.

As the attackers are most if not all minors, I think there will be some leeway given.

[Totallybushed]

45. Would you use such

reasoning if it were a bunch of white guys and black girls in the exact same circumstances? I doubt it seriously. And I know for a fact that prosecutors would laugh at that rationale.

Why is it so hard to admit that blacks can be as racist as anyone else?

[Nikki Stone1]

48. Do you think that prosecutors would automatically jump to a racial conclusion

if the situation were reversed?

[Totallybushed]

63. Yes, I do.

The evidence is overwhelming. Say the "n" word and get 10 years added to your sentence.

[Nikki Stone1]

66. Do you have an example of a case where that happened?

?

[Totallybushed]

71. A specific example?

What a concept! No, I don't, although I don't think it would be hard to find. However, facts and logic lead us to the conclusion that it can happen. Google is your friend, but why come up with an example when all you are going to do is point to some other item of the article and say, "See, this shows it wasn't for that reason"?

Read this link.

http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/legalservices/ch107_hate_crimes_2000.htm

And this one

http://www.gothamist.com/archives/2006/05/18/whats_in_a_word.php

Now, if the white guy said the "n" word, or a number of other words, depending on the specific minority group the victim belonged to, this would be used in evidence against him. If I were Michael Richards, I would arrange never to get mugged, or in a fight, with black guys. Same for Jews, if I were Mel Gibson.

C'mon, put the facts together.

[Nikki Stone1]

72. Thanks for the links.

The link to NY hate crimes statute is ok, but should I be looking for something specific there?

I'm reading the second one now.

[Nikki Stone1]

73. The article is interesting

Especially in regard to the generational rap thing. My friend has a 13 year old mixed race grandson who downloads hip hop and I couldn't believe the language usage.

I thought this comment was interesting:

"cgee. Yes the words are meaningful, so let me explain why I said it didn't matter. After reading the article a while back, my conclusion was that he (the guy from Howard Beach) called the guy "nigga,: not "nigger." It carries a different meaning when used by a person that lives the "gangsta" culture. I used to live in Sunset Park Brooklyn, and the young Hispanics used the word liberally, young girls and guys. I only referr to them because that is the neighborhood I was in at the time. I am sure that the word is, also, used by other naiotnalities in the culture of Hip Hop. Also among blacks in general. It is used the same way by young and adult white guys who hang out with blacks they are good friends with. I have heard them."

http://www.gothamist.com/archives/2006/05/18/whats_in_a_word.php

What ever happened with this case?

[Totallybushed]

83. Yep, and

respectable Southern whites used the word "Nigra" rather than the other, too. But nobody cut them any slack for it, cultural milieu or not.

[Quantess]

182. absolutely. (no text)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

50. You mean like the Duke lacrosse team incident?

[Totallybushed]

65. I'm not sure of your point.

Care to be more explicit?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

84. It's an example...

Of a gang of white boys alledgedly assaulting a black girl and hurling racial epithets.

[Totallybushed]

85. Ah, yes.

A woman who has zero credibility, a long history of false accusations of rape against white men, a changing story, no corroborative evidence that has been made public.

Yes, I think it's a hate crime, alright. But I don't see her being prosecuted for it. She's not even been charged with filing a false police report.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

87. That's my point.

Not a big rush to call it a hate crime.

[Totallybushed]

90. That's because it's

worse when whites do it. Or so I suppose.

[Minnesota_Lib]

55. Non Sequitur. We are talking this particular case.

If someone sets out to victimize someone else due solely to race then, yes, it is a clear-cut hate crime. And I don't have a hard time admitting to that as your flawed logic suggests. I just don't jump to the conclusion that whenever the crime involves one race on another that it is racially motivated (even if in the heat of anger racial epitaphs are used). If a white guy robs a black man, I think it is a crime of greed even if the robber uses any racial words to intimidate the victim. The next person he robs just as likely could be white.

This Halloween incident is not a clear-cut case. It looks like these thugs were out to beat up anyone. Remember, they were harassing other blacks as well so they were not looking only for white people in particular to victimize. The race issue only came up after sexual advances were rejected. I have little doubt that the outcome would have been any different had the victims been black (just the names they called them would have been different).

However, the others that jumped in may have done so just because of racial hatred and the original perps may have incited that by using racial epitaphs, making them guilty of a hate crime. It’s a complex case involving lots of perpetrators with varying motives (unlike you, I can't read minds). There are no easy answers no matter how hard some here try to pretend there are.

But you need not worry. A judge and jury will hear all the evidence and sort it out without your 'expert' help.

[Totallybushed]

69. So,

If a white guy robs a black man, I think it is a crime of greed even if the robber uses any racial words to intimidate the victim.

I agree. However, the white guy would be charged with a hate crime. Further, can't a crime have more than one motivation? Additionally, we are not talking about just this one crime. Whatever made you think that we were? I'm not allowed to give counter-examples?

I can't read minds, thanks for the feeble attempt at sarcasm, but I can observe facts, and more importantly, draw the correct conclusions from them. A somewhat neglected art in recent years.

Perhaps the best thing to do would be to repeal all "hate" crime laws and just punish the crime as what it is,: murder, rape, assault, etc.? Can you give me one good reason why not?

[HCE SuiGeneris]

70. If these thugs were out to beat up anyone...

then why didn't the beatings happen to the blacks harassed earlier? The definition of the hate crime states "a criminal act committed, in whole or in part"... This is true to the extent that it was both females and white's upon which the crime was committed. Just a point I thought worth mentioning.

[Minnesota_Lib]

79. So if a black guy robs me, a white guy, that is a hate crime? OK.

Whatever rocks your boat.

As to why they didn't attack anyone they had previously harassed, your guess is as good as mine. The fact that they were harassing other blacks does speak volumes though. My guess would be that like most thugs, they were trying to show off how tough they are to their friends by intimating others. The earlier potential victims may have timidly backed off while the girls showed them up by ignoring them. Most punks like these operate like that. They feel like big men when they can intimate others. They react violently when their targets don't respond correctly (like talking trash right back at them) and won't be intimidated. I invite you to walk around my neighborhood late at night if you want to learn this first hand.

But whatever you and I think based a few news articles and our personal prejudices (like automatically assuming any black on white crime is racially motivated) doesn't really matter in the end. Like I said, a judge and jury will hear all the evidence and decide. Then you can blow your top at them if their informed decision doesn't match your uninformed one. As for me, I will trust their judgment and consider myself to be finished with this nonsensical exercise.

G'day.

[Nikki Stone1]

81. Is ignoring someone "showing them up"?

I was taught to ignore people who bullied me when I was a kid. It was considered to be a way of avoiding violence and trouble. Fighting back, on the other hand, either verbally or physically, would have been considered more hostile and I would have been at least partially to blame for any fight that ensued. I am surprised to find that ignoring someone trying to instigate a fight would have been considered a hostile act, ie, "showing up" someone. Am I missing something here?

[HCE SuiGeneris]

95. My God... why the venom directed at me?

I point out an instance that gives rise to concern on motive, and you attack me. The reference was made to point out the characteristics of the injured party. Black, white, male, female, gay -- it matters not to me. I was not being racially biased, I was drawing attention to why the motive can be construed as a hate crime.

[Nikki Stone1]

98. Whoa Nelly! No venom, just a question. Really. :) (See I put a smiley here.:) )

I think it is really easy misinterpret things on the net, especially tone. My intent was not to attack you, and I'm sorry you interpreted it that way. I really wanted to know if ignoring someone is considered provocation. I was taught the exact opposite, so I was trying to find out from you what your understanding was.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

112. Yes apparently so...

My response was to Minn Liberal... not to you Nikki. There was a lot of anger expressed at the bottom of his post.

Cheers to you Nikki for exploring this subject in your OP!:dem: :hi:

[Nikki Stone1]

115. Oops! Thanks for clearing that up

I'm glad to hear it. :)

[Minnesota_Lib]

120. Sorry man...I'm usually mellow but there has been so much sniping around...

...here lately I guess I'm just getting jumpy. I'm just saying I cannot make a judgment on what I read in those articles. Personal experience tells me that thugs like these don't discriminate on who they victimize. They'll use any invective that comes to mind on their victims as they beat them.

Sure, this could have been a hate crime. Actually, any crime this vicious is a hate crime no matter what color the victim is.

The sad part is that hate crime or no, these punks are juveniles and so any extra time tacked on will probably not be served.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

123. No worries... keep on keeping on.

Thanks for the reply.:thumbsup: :dem:

[noamnety]

100. "I will trust their judgment"

"a judge and jury will hear all the evidence and decide. ... As for me, I will trust their judgment ... "

In a case so heavily wrapped up in gender and race issues, when you make a statement like that, it's not really necessary to state that you are a white male.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

118. For someone that says they are not judgemental...

you sure are judge mental Minnesota_Lib. In this post, and in the "I may be wrong, but It seems to me as if the attack was predicated on rejection of sexual advances." post as well. :shrug:

[RethugAssKicker]

53. Not one Flame from any Responder !!!.... What were you

afraid of?.... Of course it was a hate crime!!...

I'm curious though, why does this particular story, with no deaths involved..etc..etc.. so worrisome to you, when there are much more serious hate crimes committed throughout American so frequently?

[WildEyedLiberal]

57. This is a serious crime.

I have never understood the logic that one should never talk about any crime or tragedy because there are "much more serious" crimes committed and that therefore to speak of a particular incident is somehow "disrespecting" the victims of these other "more serious" incidents. Where does that logic stop? You can't find a single murder "worrisome" because inevitably somewhere, someone has committed a triple murder. And so on and so on... why does there need to be a minimum level of suffering before we are allowed to "worry" about any vicious crime?

I find it sad that the OP and some of the first few respondents had to qualify that they cared about hate crimes being committed against blacks, gays, Hispanics, etc too. I find it sad that one can't express outrage/concern/sympathy over a terrible crime without having one's sociological motives questioned.

[Nikki Stone1]

60. Because it happened close to home and because it was quite brutal

The injuries were quite substantial according to the paper:


"Lauren suffered 12 fractures in her face that may require multiple surgeries to repair. It's not yet known if the damage to her eyesight will be permanent or if she will lose some or all of her teeth.

Michelle's face is also bruised and swollen as is the lining that surrounds her lungs.

And Laura, like Lauren, suffered a concussion as well as multiple contusions on her back and the back of her head."

[noamnety]

59. Violence against women

I don't know why that, in and of itself, isn't considered a hate crime.

Hate crimes are a criminal class, I think, because they serve as a form of terrorism. It's not an individual act. It's a statement to ALL members of the targeted group that they should live in fear.

Women do, to a large degree, live with that fear, and you can see that in their decisions about where to walk, and what hours they can go out, whether they can go out alone, if they feel more secure having someone walk them to the parking lot. Women ARE successfully terrorized.

Race PLUS gender gets complicated. Courts in the past have refused to recognize corporate actions that hurt black women as a class. So if the corporation promotes women, and they promote black men, the court will refuse to deal with problems where the corporation won't promote black women.

[Nikki Stone1]

67. The first two paragraphs of your post are spot on

Though I'll bet some folks would take issue with that.

[Der Blaue Engel]

76. "Women do, to a large degree, live with that fear"

Absolutely. I've always lived with it, but even more so after being beaten in the street a few years ago by a man I didn't know. (Luckily, not as badly as these three women.) I won't walk anywhere at night alone anymore, except to my local grocery store on a brightly lit, busy street. I have to modify when I leave work and how I get home after daylight savings ends. It sucks.

[Nikki Stone1]

77. It IS like being the victim of terror

or torture.

[Shakespeare]

75. Yes. n/t

[Pavulon]

99. Very Serious Crime (who cares about race)

BTW, AN attack like that justifies the use of deadly force. The teenagers should be charged with attempt murder.

The same if it were reversed.

[RB TexLa]

102. I didn't know whites were a protected group under most hate crime

laws.

[kiahzero]

106. What?

They all protect on the basis of "race."

[cigsandcoffee]

107. They'd better be.

I couldn't imagine having a disparity in our laws that would give these attackers less time than they would have gotten if the races had been reversed.

[Quantess]

187. Do courts ever see

whites as being victims of a hate crime? I really doubt the courts ever see it that way.

[Nikki Stone1]

113. Hate crime legislation doesn't delineate specific races, but racially motivated crimes in general

All races would be covered under this.

[RB TexLa]

121. Most all of them have protected classes

[mondo joe]

122. California Penal Code

As defined in California Penal Code section 422.55, hate crime means “a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of one or more of the following actual or perceived characteristics of the victim: (1) Disability, (2) Gender, (3) Nationality, (4) Race or ethnicity, (5) Religion, (6) Sexual orientation, (7) Association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics.”

[RB TexLa]

124. "most all" would indicate that some don't

[Xithras]

125. Examples of some that do?

I can't see laws that apply to a single race (or even a limited number of races) passing Constitutional challenge. The California model cited there, where attacking someone on the basis of race is a hate crime, seems to be the only legal way to do it.

[RB TexLa]

127. If you have access to the internet you can search

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=hate+crimes+protected+class&btn=Search&tab=Web&ei=UTF-8&fr=my-vert-web-top

[mondo joe]

131. Protected class refers to categories - not specifics within.

From the very first find in the search link you posted:

In California, you can be a victim of a hate crime
if you have been targeted because of your “real”
or “perceived” race, ethnicity, national origin,
religion, gender, sexual orientation, or physical
or mental disability. These groups are referred
to as “protected classes.” All people are mem-
bers of a protected class.

So. BLACK is not a protected class - RACE is.

[RB TexLa]

133. Well it's all pointless in regards to me, as I can never be the victim of

one based on race. My race is "unknown"

[mondo joe]

134. No, it's not. "Perceived race" is included. Not to mention gender, which I

presume you do know.

[RB TexLa]

135. I would not perjure myself, I would let the fact be known

If I were subpoenaed to testify.

[mondo joe]

136. What perjury are you talking about?

If an attack is based on what THEY perceive to be your race it's a hate crime.

Whether the attacker is accurate or not is immaterial.

[RB TexLa]

138. It's material to me, and is not something I want to accept

Doesn't matter, I found out years ago if you are the victim and tell them you are not going to testify if you are not subpoenaed they don't subpoena you.

[mondo joe]

139. Um, do you know what a hate crime is? Are you opposed to hate crime

legislation?

[RB TexLa]

140. I said it would not be something I would accept for myself

Not saying what others should or shouldn't want to accept, I in no way would ever want to accept "extra" justice just because of what reason someone had to commit a crime against me. To be honest I couldn't care what reason they had.

[Dorian Gray]

154. So you wouldn't testify and you'd let them walk free

after attacking you? If that would be relegated to you, and solely you, great. But whatever asshole attacks you will most likely attack another based on perceived race issues, so you really aren't doing the world favors with your refusal to testify.

[RB TexLa]

160. If you are subpoenaed, you have to give up a weekday morning for it

you have to answer to a subpoena but if they don't subpoena you then you don't have to give up your time for it.

[ieoeja]

175. So if someone hospitalizes you.

You are not then going to testify against your attackers because you would see that as a waste of your time?

[RB TexLa]

186. I'm not faulting people who are

But I'm not egotistical enough to think someone "has to pay" for something they have done to me. If I were subpoenaed I would comply with the law.

[mondo joe]

201. I still don't know where you got the idea that you'd have to perjure yourself.

[RB TexLa]

202. Perhaps I wouldn't regarding the hate crime laws

But no one has to testify without being subpoenaed, yes even the victim has the right to not give up a day in the middle of the week if they don't force them to do so. Sorry my ego doesn't demand I get my justice.

[mondo joe]

208. Apparently your sense of justice doesn't demand justice either.

I'd suggest that stopping a dangerous person serves more than the one person they attacked.

But so be it.

[Dorian Gray]

210. So... let me get this straight....

if you were attacked, beaten up, arms broken, eyes blackened, ribs cracked, and hospitalized, you would not press charges against your attackers and testify against them unless you were forced to by the law? What purpose would that serve?

[RB TexLa]

211. Life is not a little TV show

People have things to do other than sitting in a courthouse waiting to testify. As far as I know prosecuting attorneys file criminal charges against people on behalf of the state.

[Dorian Gray]

212. Okay....

Glad to see that if YOU were attacked, you would allow the district attorney to prosecute the crime without your testimony or help. Your decision, but a questionable one.

[Dorian Gray]

209. Of course not...

but if you were visciously attacked, as these girls were, I'd hope that you'd want to testify to put their asses in jail. If not, I suppose that's really your business. But, it would be your case against the attackers. Without you, there'd be no case. So, subpoena not necessary, unless you didn't want to bring charges in the first place.... Which, many people who are attacked choose not to do. I find that very sad.

[cigsandcoffee]

104. Hate crime or not, they should do 20 years in jail.

Seven girls, one boy could face imprisonment until age 25 if convicted in Halloween beating.

At least. Violent and hateful thugs who would brutalize defenseless teenage girls in this manner have no business being loose on the streets by age 25. This was not some kind of "youthful indiscretion."

[MrSlayer]

108. By definition yes. These punks should be jailed for 25 years.

What is more cowardly than a bunch of guys beating up severely outnumbered women? This is a sick, disgusting crime.

[Warren DeMontague]

117. I would say yes, absolutely.

And what a horrific story. :mad: :( :mad:

[earth mom]

126. It's a hate crime, but I think it may also be about the class war.

Between the haves and the have nots, since Bixby Knolls borders two poorer racially mixed areas. That it may also be related to the huge gang problem in Southern California is another factor.

See my post #119 upthread.

[Catherine Vincent]

141. Freeper comments:

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
1 posted on 11/27/2006 7:24:11 PM PST by BnBlFlag

He urged the judge to allow the girl out of Juvenile Hall so she could take the SATs. She's already been admitted to USC on a full scholarship. Why not just admit that the SAT's are a front? Just let somebody take them for her.
2 posted on 11/27/2006 7:30:08 PM PST by Tax-chick (My remark was stupid, and I'm a slave of the patriarchy. So?)

...allow the girl out of Juvenile Hall so she could take the SATs.
Yeh, yuwl bee thu smardust crimunul in Juvinhul holl!
3 posted on 11/27/2006 7:30:11 PM PST by K4Harty (If a pug barks and no one is around to hear it... they hold a grudge for a long time!)

Yoo-hoo, Jesse Jackson. Over here.
4 posted on 11/27/2006 7:31:29 PM PST by LdSentinal

keep these savages locked up for as long as possible.
5 posted on 11/27/2006 7:32:37 PM PST by bobby.223

Are there large crowds shouting "no justice, no peace"? I didn't think so.
6 posted on 11/27/2006 7:33:31 PM PST by JustaDumbBlonde

Oh, wow! hector must have gotten straight A's at the Columbia School of Broadcasting. What possibly could these "white" women have done to enrage these upstanding "black teenagers" to hurl "small pumpkins" at them and "beat them up"? What a load of crap!
7 posted on 11/27/2006 7:33:42 PM PST by Eagles6 (Dig deeper, more ammo.)

<"What could have possibly gone through their mind to make them think this kind of behavior was OK?" asked Police Officer Jackie Bezart.>
Perhaps the decades of race baiting opportunists constantly blaming 'whitey' for all the ills of black America have something to do with it. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, among others, share a portion of the responsibility for this shameful behavior.
8 posted on 11/27/2006 7:35:08 PM PST by spinestein (There is no pile of pennies so large that I won't throw two more on top.)

"What could have possibly gone through their mind to make them think this kind of behavior was OK?" asked Police Officer Jackie Bezart
Maybe it was 40 years of 'blame whitey'? Maybe it was 30 years of Calypso Louie BS? Maybe it was 15 years of Hip Hop and Gangsta Rap condoning violence against everyone?

Or maybe they're just trash....
9 posted on 11/27/2006 7:35:24 PM PST by Lurker (Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.)

[Nikki Stone1]

149. Did these quotes come from FR? If so, this gives more support to my contention in the OP

that we cannot afford NOT to talk about this case as liberals. If we ignore cases like this, we leave the only commentary to right wing nutjobs and racists.

[Dorian Gray]

152. Yes!

If you physically attack someone while yelling racial epithets at them, it's a hate crime. If you attack them because of their color... it's a hate crime.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

155. i find this to be more about gender than race.

[Nikki Stone1]

164. In what way?

I've heard this a lot on this thread, so it may be unfair of me to single you out, but I really am curious. How is it strictly about gender? And if it is, how should that play out in the punishment?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

167. it started with a sexual comment and crotch grabbing...thats why

it seems like an attack perpretated by boys on girls. based more on dominance/power than race...

[Nikki Stone1]

168. But it didn't remain there.

Racial epithets started being shouted, and at that point, the color of the girls became an issue and an incitement to violence. That is why at least some of the perps were charged with hate crimes. Two of the young guys involved were not charged with hate crimes, so it may be that these guys did not yell racial comments.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

169. i think crimes commited with gender/sex as a basis qualify for hate crime too

and are no less heinous

[Nikki Stone1]

170. Had it been a sexual crime without a racial component,

the teens would not have been charged with a hate crime. Maybe that's a flaw in the system?

[Shakespeare]

190. But several girls were the attackers. n/t

[Nikki Stone1]

195. Seven, actually, were charged with hate crimes.

See OP

[BoneDaddy]

156. ONe of the

most pathetic arguments I have ever heard. "you can't be a racist if you are not a member of the dominant culture". It is a empty, irrational mantra I hear echoed by alot of people. Pathetic.

[Nikki Stone1]

163. If you're talking about institutionalized racism, it makes sense

Racism combined with control of societal and governmental institutions overwhelms any personal feeling someone might have against the race of the dominant group. If you're dealing with white cops, for example, how you feel about whites is not terribly significant (since they hold the power in that situation) but how they feel about your group IS.

However, in this situation, there was no state apparatus or institution. This is where personal racism, whatever its origin, comes into play. The power was definitely on the side of the large crowd of teens wielding skateboards as weapons and willing to use violence against people who had not done anything to them. These situations, unmediated by state institutions, support the idea that one can be a racist and wield that racism in a personal arena regardless of the power structure.

[BoneDaddy]

165. I agree to a point

I acknowledge the institutional racism that exists in America and the world, I am tired of watching anyone in a "minority" group deny their own racism, sexism, prejudice, and who often use their "victim" status to justify their own isms...

[Nikki Stone1]

166. Ok, I see where you are

Actually, I think the goal should be to eradicate personal racism, because it is this personal feeling that finds its way into institutional actions. I include all groups in this because at some point, different groups will be in power in different areas. It's not the specific group but underlying racism each group has combined with their access to power. Someone on this board commenting on affirmative action said that whites were going to be very happy 50 years from now if affirmative action was still on the books because they would be the minority and need the program. I think that different groups will hold sway at different times. It is the principles that are important, regardless of who's in charge.

[BoneDaddy]

171. I agree

and this is never so apparant once you step outside of the western world. If we look at non-white dominated cultures, they are guilty of institutional racism as well.

We agree.

[Nikki Stone1]

177. The issue seems to be human psychology

and how to circumvent it.

My guess is that it really involves learning to identify others who are different (in some way) as NOT different, as part of your group. This happens in a personal way with intermarriage or with accepting a gay child. Suddenly, it's not just a case of Us and Them anymore. Your world has widened and your idea of who is Us has widened. That I think is one of the only ways humans can actually learn tolerance and acceptance, because our internal systems are geared toward identifying the safe and the unsafe, the friend and foe. We have to widen the circle of
"friends."

[BoneDaddy]

189. I agree

and you will find, especially in the US, that in the more cosmopolitan areas (cities)in general there tends to be an easier assimilation of cultures (not perfect obviously), whereas in the more homogeneous parts of the country and rural areas, there tends to be more tribalism.

[Nikki Stone1]

193. It would be really interesting to see stats on that

But I don't doubt it. There's safety in familiarity, and fault lines can occur anywhere there is perceived unfamiliarity.

[cynatnite]

213. I really have trouble with this...

Maybe I'm not understanding it. What happened to these poor women was horrible and those who did it should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Having said that, does the fact that these animals said racist remarks mean they should be punished more than if they hadn't or if their motive had been something else?

It's not something I understand very well because it seemed like it's punishing someone more because of the motive behind what they do. The same act could have been perpetrated, but it shouldn't be less deserving of harsh punishment because the motive isn't hate.

This is one of those things that do confuse me.