How is this NOT a hate crime?

[Esprix]

At the risk of reiterating my One Trick PonyTM status (and, really, if all you're going to do is come in to say so, you can kiss my ass), I am much disturbed by this news story (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=101&ncid=101&e=5&u=/po/20030613/co_po/nohatecrimeinbatbeatingcase).

Two college students in the bathroom. One allegedly is without his glasses and mistakes the other for his roommate and starts talking to him. The other allegedly starts screaming homophobic epithets at him (because he "kept looking at him") and leaves. He then returns with a baseball bat and beats the first guy with it, all while screaming homophobic epithets. He turns himself in and never denies the attack.

At trial, he is found guilty of assault and battery and sentenced to two 10-year terms to be served concurrently; however, he was found not guilty under Georgia's hate crimes law, passed in 2000 (this was the first case to invoke the law). It would have added another 10 years to his sentence.

So how, exactly, is he found not guilty of a hate crime? He screams at the guy because he thinks he's gay, then he comes back and beats him with a baseball bat while screaming that he's gay.

I particularly loved this gem (not faulting the lawyers for putting up the best defense they could, but it makes no sense to me, although it obviously did to the jury on some level):

Prices' attorneys insisted he was doing nothing more than defending himself, and did not specifically target Love for attack based on perceived sexual orientation.

How exactly was he "defending himself?" He left the scene, went to his room, got a fucking baseball bat, returned to the scene and beat the guy with it. Since when is a premeditated attack "defending himself?" And how did he not target him for his perceived sexual orientation? That was the reason he was beating him with a baseball bat!

And you know what? I don't care if the guy offered him a rimjob with a reacharound - this whole fucking "gay panic" defense makes me sick.

I feel for the victim. I feel also for the entire campus, as this man perpetrated an act of terrorism against the safety of every person there, especially those LGBT students. It disgusts me. He should have gotten the extra ten years for robbing that campus of a sense of security.

And the capper (and for anyone who feels the need to chime in with any "special rights" arguments)? By all reports the victim wasn't gay - he was tried because he was perceived to be gay.

The whole thing makes me sick. Sometimes it feels like nothing has been gained, which I know isn't true, but it doesn't make it better for this poor guy and the flaming bigot who attacked him.

Esprix

[Homebrew]

I'd imagine the dumbfucks on the jury thought that since the victim wasn't really gay then it was really a hate crime; despite the motivation of the attacker.

[Homebrew]

"wasn't really a hate crime"

[JonScribe]

Just to play devil's advocate...

Because the victim apparently wasn't gay, should the prosecutor have even leveled the charge of hate crime? Even though the attacker believed he was gay, wouldn't it weaken a hate crime law to try someone under this circumstance?

Shouldn't the hate crime law be reserved for those instances when the victim is a minority of a certain group?

[vanilla]

Why is this happening in 2003?
I'd thought people had learned something.
Prejudice never dies, i guess...
:( :mad:

[irishgirl]

If a very tanned white person was beaten because someone assumed they were Latino, would it be less of a racially motivated assault?

With you on this Esprix, justice was not served.

[iampunha]

Anyone know where we could find the wording of the Georgia Hate Crime legislation? Might be good to know if the wording is something like "if you beat a guy for being gay" rather than "if you beat a guy because you think he's gay" etc.

FWIW, other than from a legal sense I don't think there's a whit of difference.

[Kal]

Shouldn't the hate crime law be reserved for those instances when the victim is a minority of a certain group?

Just IMO, it doesn't matter what the victim is - What matters is what the perp perceives the victim to be and if that perception is a motivating factor in the crime.

But as iampunha suggests, the actual law may think otherwise.

[A Monkey With a Gun]

First, the devil's advocate response: From the article about the incident in the Atlanta Journal and Costitution: (http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/atlanta/0603/14hatecrime.html)"It is a difficult because you are having to produce evidence to show the inner thought of an individual," said Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard, whose office was unsuccessful in getting the hate crime conviction against Price.The prosecution must prove that Aaron Price attacked his victim solely because he hated a specific trait about him. The law doesn't mention sexual orientation, sex, race, religous affiliation or anything specific. It's very vague. His claiming that he really believed he would be sexually assaulted is hard to dispute. We can't know that he didn't think that. We can't know what was going on in that guy's mind. We may believe that he's full of shit, but we don't really know. Additionally, the law was an imperfect compromise to begin with, and tacked on to the end of a budget bill - hence it being vague and uneffective.

However, this may make you feel a little better (or maybe not, because it just illustrates how useless this particular law is). From the same article: Another unusual concession was that even though the hate crime charge can be used to enhance a defendant's punishment, the ultimate sentence that a defendant receives cannot be more than the maximum penalty allowed for the underlying charge.

In the Morehouse beating case, for example, Price could not have been sentenced to more than the 20-year maximum for aggravated assault and aggravated battery, even if he had been convicted of the additional hate crime.

Now, the personal response: I used to argue against hate crime legislation for technical reasons I won't go into. Some of those still hold, but if this isn't a hate crime I don't know what the fuck is. It almost makes me wish we could bring back public floggings.

[Netbrian]

It isn't a hate crime because supporting that minority isn't as popular.

[Boyo Jim]

Here is the relevant legislative language. (http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2003_04/gacode/17-10-17.html)

The law looks kind of designed to be meaningless. Here's a newspaper story (http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/atlanta/0603/14hatecrime.html) about problems with it.

[mouthbreather]

This was pretty big news around here as the trial went along, as the defendant was the first person to be charged with a hate crime in this state.

It was reported that at the trial the defendant claimed that he did not shout any homophobic slurs. Perhaps the jury believed him. Also, extra craptacular were the defendant’s comments that after he beat the tar out of this kid, "he went to his room and prayed."


I have really mixed feelings about this trial, as obviously the kid who did this is a fucking dangerous nutjob and I'm glad he's been taken out of society. I also would have liked for him to get more time. But, because I am opposed to hate-crime legislation, I am happy he was not convicted for that. I guess that if he received the maximum possible sentence for aggravated assault and battery then I am happy with the decision.

[Esprix]

I will also say it sucks that the two sentences will be carried out concurrently. He deserves the full 20 years, IMHO.

Esprix

[Michael Ellis]

Definately a hate crime IMO.

[A Monkey With a Gun]

Yeah, but to be honest, aggravated assault and aggravated battery convictions are almost always penalized concurrently (it's hard to seperate the two as they usually are regarding a single act). What we have is not so much a travesty of justice, but an ill-written hate crime law. The guy is still going to spend 10 years behind bars, which is a bit more than an assault and battery conviction from something like a bar-fight.

[raisinbread]

Hahahahaha "went to his room and prayed". Prayed that he was going to get a ten year supply of soap on a rope.
Prayer is the last resort of the scoundrel - Lisa Simpson

[friedo]

This is one of the reasons why I think "hate crime" laws are useless. Any violent act is a "hate crime" whether or not the victim was a minority person. We already have well-established degrees for crimes like murder and assault that take motivation and circumstances into account, and I don't see any purpose to creating a new category of crime for specific classes of victims.

I agree that the guy should have gotten serial instead of concurrent sentences. What a fucker.

[iampunha]

He probably said the bit about going to his room to pray to get sympathy and "Oh, but he's a God-fearing young man, let's cut him some slack" from the jury. I mean, faggot-beating apart, *clearly* someone who goes away and prays after beating the shit out of someone with a baseball bat while the other person is partially incapacitated has made his peace with God.

:rolleyes:

[jkusters]

I would guess they didn't see it as a hate crime because the attack came about in reaction to a percieved situation rather than an intentional attempt to send a message to the gay community as a whole. We don't have the transcripts of what happened in the courtroom so it's only a guess. A lot of it would also probably have to do with the purpose of the particular hate crime law. It's obviously a bias-motivated attack, but was it an attack against the one person or intended to be an attack against all gay people? There is a subtle difference and that may be what the jury percieved.

JOhn.

[Scylla]

Not to be contradictory, but IMO this doesn't qualify as a "hate crime." What he have here is a total fucking lunatic. The homophobia is almost besides the point in the scope of this kind of insanity.

[Shodan]

Scylla has a better point than mine, but the guy didn't exactly attack him because he was gay.

He attacked him because he thought he was being sexually harassed, and he thought the guy's motive for sexually harassing him was that he was gay.

Not that it makes beating someone to death with a baseball bat any better, and certainly the guy richly deserves some prison time, but his motive wasn't hatred of gays - only of people who sexually harassed him.

Yes, it was wrong and horrible. But I think most people, when they hear the term "gay-bashing", think of someone going out to seek out and attack gay men or women, just because they are gay.

As I say, I don't think this really makes any difference in the crime, but it isn't exactly black and white.

[A Monkey With a Gun]

Originally posted by Shodan
Not that it makes beating someone to death ......... Just in the interest of keeping the story from getting too sensationalized, he wasn't beaten to death. This is a case of assault and battery - not murder. The victim is still very much alive.

[Shodan]

Mea culpa.

Regards,
Shodan

[Orbifold]

Shodan, that's preposterous. Gregory Love, it seems, did nothing but look at Andrew and talk to him in the shower. Based on that, Andrew apparently concluded (a) that Gregory was gay (b) that Gregory was coming on to him, and (c) that the correct response was to go find a weapon, come back, and attack Gregory while yelling homophobic epithets. How can that possibly not be motivated by homophobia? Are we expected to believe that if a woman had snuck in to the shower and "sexually harassed" him by talking to him and looking at him, he would have attacked her with a baseball bat as well?

[kanicbird]

Just an aside, since this is the pit and all:

Would it be any better if he returned w/ the bat and beat the living crap out of the guy for no reason in particular? At the very least you can understand the reason (the person is homophobic or more likely IMHO was very insulted and maybe even threatened in what he perceived as a homosexual come on) in htis case while if beaten for no reason it would leave many questions for the victom.

[RexDart]

Originally posted by irishgirl


With you on this Esprix, justice was not served.

How was justice not served? He beat the shit out of a guy with a baseball bat, and now he'll be spending the next decade locked up. While many college students are having what they consider the most fun and enjoyable years of thier life, this guy will be sitting in a cell somewhere for 10 years, 10 years he can never get back, 10 years of a life he only has one chance to lead. He has been deprived now and forever of his younger years. Sounds like a pretty tough punishment to me

He committed assault and battery and was convicted for those acts. If you think assault and battery should merit longer punishment, talk to your state representatives. The mens rea (intent) requirement for these crimes is that the person acted with either the purpose or with the substantial certainty of causing bodily injury to another. Why he had that purpose is of no consequence, unless it is a mitigating factor or a complete defense (i.e. self-defense, defense of a 3rd party, etc.)

I can see how one might argue that people who commit crimes for frivolous reasons might in theory be more dangerous, since they are more likely to attack again, as compared to someone who committed a once-in-a-lifetime crime of passion. If we were in GD, I might ask for some cites to studies or figures to explore that argument, but we're in the Pit so I'll leave it at speculation. But it's my opinion that prison ought to be rehabilitative, and therefore the reasons behind someone having committed the crime ought to be dealt with there.

Either way, 10 years sounds about right to me for this crime.

[Esprix]

Shodan and Scylla, it seems evident that at some point the guy made anti-gay comments to his victim, whether it be before or during the beating. I'd say that makes it a hate crime.

And jkusters, regardless of whether he intended to terrorize the campus, I've no doubt he did. Do you really think the GLBT community on that campus feels safe?

Esprix

[Duke of Rat]

Originally posted by Esprix
[BDo you really think the GLBT community on that campus feels safe?

Esprix [/B]

Maybe not..but I bet they are all wearing their glasses.

[Homebrew]

Originally posted by RexDart
He committed assault and battery and was convicted for those acts. He used a damned baseball bat - a weapon which allowed him to inflict far more damage than he could have with fists alone. He should have been charged with attempted murder. The fact that you can find sympathy that he'll be "deprived now and forever of his younger years" speaks volumes about you.

[Scylla]

Originally posted by Esprix
Shodan and Scylla, it seems evident that at some point the guy made anti-gay comments to his victim, whether it be before or during the beating. I'd say that makes it a hate crime.

I didn't see that in the article, and it looks to me more like the guy is a total psycho rather than just a homphobe. It seems a wildly senseless act and the described motivation almost beside the point. He might as well have whacked him in the head for having a pimple for all the sense it makes.

Deliberately searching out gay people to beat up is a hate crime. Senseless acts of violence are senseless acts of violence regardless of the circumstance.

IMO (and that's all I'm going on here) it's a hate crime if I would be safe in a room alone with the guy and you would not.

I don't think I'd feel any safer than you in a room alone with this particular nutjob.

Does that make sense?

And if we still disagree, do you see where I'm coming from?

[Mandarax]

Originally posted by Esprix
Two college students in the bathroom. One allegedly is without his glasses and mistakes the other for his roommate and starts talking to him. The other allegedly starts screaming homophobic epithets at him (because he "kept looking at him") and leaves. He then returns with a baseball bat and beats the first guy with it, all while screaming homophobic epithets.From an earlier AJC article: (http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:CCnojdAP0d4J:www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/metro/atlanta/1102/22morehouse.html&ie=UTF-8):Love said he looked into Price's stall because he mistakenly thought Price was his roommate. Price, thinking it was a sexual advance, left the shower and retrieved a bat to beat Love.No, no, no, I'm not trying to justify the attack. But "looking into his stall" is more likely to be misunderstood than "talking to him."Originally posted by Homebrew
He used a damned baseball bat - a weapon which allowed him to inflict far more damage than he could have with fists alone.From the original linked article:The 5-foot-2-inch Price never denied attacking the 6-foot-2-inch Love, but alleged he felt threatened by the much larger student.Again, I'm not trying to excuse the attack in any way, but the perpetrator was a whole foot shorter than the victim. He'd've had to be a nutjob indeed to go after Love with his fists.

[Blalron]

Deliberately searching out gay people to beat up is a hate crime.

I beg to differ. I think that if an attack was motivated by hatred of a particular group, regardless of whether the victim was sought out, it is (or at least should be) a hate crime.

To put it another way, If this same man spotted a black man in the shower, went berserk and started beating him with a bat while screaming racial epithets at him, I think that would be a hate crime also.

[RexDart]

Originally posted by Homebrew
The fact that you can find sympathy that he'll be "deprived now and forever of his younger years" speaks volumes about you.

Oh does it now? And what exactly does it say? That I have compassion for criminals? Resounding YES to that, and proud of it! If spending 10 years in prison wasn't bad, we wouldn't put people there for punishment would we? I don't like seeing bad things happen to anybody even if they're bad people themselves. I most definitely have sympathy for criminals, because I believe people commit criminal acts most often because of the way they were raised, and other circumstances mostly out of their control. A deterrent still needs to be present, so our punishment of criminals serves hopefully as one of those factors that makes people less likely to commit some crimes. But I don't believe in revenge, and for many people in today's America, "justice" is just a codephrase for the revenge they seek.

I know people need to punished for deterrence, and hopefully someday our penal system will truly endeavor to rehabilitate people rather than just tuck them away in a hole because they don't like the sight of them.

Personally, I find taking joy in the misery of others, and wishing more misery upon them to be sick and twisted. Criminal punishment is a regrettable necessity, not something we should take pleasure in. I never said he should not have been punished, I in fact said that I felt the sentence was appropriate, but that doesn't stop me from feeling bad about someone's situation even if they did bring it on themselves.

If you happened to be reading into my remarks that I was more sympathetic to the criminal than to the victim, then you were in error. I didn't really think I had to spell out the obligatory remarks of sympathy to the victim which everybody already shares. I simply think that there's some sympathy to be found for anybody's misery, both criminal and victim. Probably a good thing I feel that way, since I'm planning on applying to work with the MO public defenders office after graduating from law school next year.

[hajario]

There seem to be a few questions here which are more complicated than "how is this not a hate crime."

1. Assuming that there should be hate crimes, is this one?

Yes, although I am nearly swayed by Scylla's argument.

2. According to the law as written, should this be a hate crime?

Probably not. It's a poorly written law. One would hope that the legislature learns from its mistake. Sometimes things need to be tested to see if they're going to work. One would also hope that the jury did their job which was seeing if the crime fit the law as written and didn't vote not guilty because they were latently homophobic.

3. Should there be hate crime laws?

This is GD material or maybe appropriate for a different Pit thread.

As others have said, at least the psychopath is out of society for a while.

Haj

[Esprix]

Originally posted by Scylla

I didn't see that in the article...

It was from an earlier article.

... and it looks to me more like the guy is a total psycho rather than just a homphobe.

How about a psychotic homophobe? I mean, seriously - he beats a man with a baseball bat because he talked to him and/or looked at him in a shower. How can that not be homophobic - the very definition of the word!

It seems a wildly senseless act and the described motivation almost beside the point. He might as well have whacked him in the head for having a pimple for all the sense it makes.

But he didn't - he beat him because he perceived him to be gay. What Love did was innocent, at best an invasion of privacy, but Price beat him with a baseball bat because he thought the guy was hitting on him. That's not "self-defense," that's ugly, ugly homophobia, combined, granted, with the fact that the guy seems to be a bit nutso.

Deliberately searching out gay people to beat up is a hate crime. Senseless acts of violence are senseless acts of violence regardless of the circumstance.

I wholeheartedly disagree. What he committed, intentionally or not, was an act of terrorism against that entire campus, and that merits its own punishment, IMHO.

IMO (and that's all I'm going on here) it's a hate crime if I would be safe in a room alone with the guy and you would not.

I don't think I'd feel any safer than you in a room alone with this particular nutjob.

And I say you wouldn't be safe in a room with this guy if he perceived you to be gay. It's not like he randomly snapped on a random passer-by just because he was psycho - he snapped because he thought the guy was gay. Period.

And if we still disagree, do you see where I'm coming from?

I see your point, but as one of the victims of this kind of terrorist action, I wholeheartedly disagree.

Esprix

[Reuben]

This thread brought back a very ugly memory... About ten years ago I was given the beating of a lifetime by six enormous skinheads, three of them with baseball bats, as a result of my being in the wrong place at the wrong time. They were looking for a guy I knew and was friendly with, who they found in a pub just when I was chatting with him, and that was enough for them to haul the both of us out into the street and give us a truly savage beating that could well have killed either of us.

I can't remember now what their problem was with that guy, some jealousy over a girl I think, but what I don't understand is why the brutality inflicted on us should be regarded as somehow worse if the motivation for it had been gay-bashing. In both cases, surely the thugs should end up with the same punishment, hopefully severe, and one that is proportionate to the violence and harm inflicted on the victim, not related to the victim's perceived or actual sexuality / ethnicity / whatever.

I guess what I'm wondering is why is the existing law on assault / ABH / GBH / etc is considered not enough to protect gays and other groups, but good enough for everyone else? Why does the law have to say "If you half-kill someone we'll punish you this much, and if you do it because he's gay (or you thought he was gay) we'll punish you this much more."?

Now don't get me wrong - I'm not really complaining about the bias, although I would like to know why it's there. As far as I'm concerned, the more punishment a violent criminal gets, so much the better. But I do think that if they were repaid in their own coin to start with - if they got the real punishment from the law that they so richly deserve - then there'd be no need to invent notions of hate crime to take up the slack for certain subsets of cases.

God, if I were in charge I'd have six strapping policemen thrash the buttocks off of every bastard who dared to take a goddamned baseball bat to another human being, regardless of whatever motive was in their fucked-up excuses for minds! No special cases.

Btw, calling such depressingly-everyday moronic thuggery "terrorism" does seem a bit of a stretch.

[Shodan]

I suppose I react to this as I would to a woman who beat a man with a baseball bat for peeking into the shower. It would be a gross overreaction, to say the least, but it would not be any worse than if she beat him to steal his wallet, and I would not say that she was necessarily a lesbian who was motivated by hatred of straight males.

Price didn't seek him out to beat him because he was gay. He didn't beat any other gays with a baseball bat, just the one he thought (wrongly) was sexually harassing him. IOW, the motivation for the attack was not sexual orientation, just sexual harassment.

It was wrong, he deserves to be in prison, he is a dangerous felon - all of that. Nothing could excuse or condone what he did. But he was not motivated by a hatred of gays, just a hatred of being peeked at in the shower. He probably has a small dick, and was afraid word would get out.

It is rather similar to a gay guy beating his lover for (wrongly) believing he is cheating on him. It is not homophobia - it is an overreaction to a case of mistaken identity.

And as others have said, I don't see what labelling this a "hate crime" adds. "Hard cases make bad law", as they say.

Would you say that Price was filled with hatred for the visually impaired, because the guy he beat couldn't see without his glasses? Should he serve an extra ten years for that?

Regards,
Shodan

[yojimbo]

While this is a horrible incident and the motherfucker deserves all he gets can we try not to water down the term "terrorism"

There are numerous other ways to describe this other that what it clearly isn't and that's an act of terrorism.

Other than that I have to say I'm with the OP on this.

[Kalhoun]

RexDart said, "He committed assault and battery and was convicted for those acts. If you think assault and battery should merit longer punishment, talk to your state representatives."

The state representatives said that "hate crimes" deserve a longer sentence. This was as blatant a hate crime as I've ever seen, and they didn't punish him accordingly. I think that's the point Esprix is trying to make.

[cowgirl]

Originally posted by Scylla
I don't think I'd feel any safer than you in a room alone with this particular nutjob.

With all due respect, I would feel safer than Esprix would in a room with this nutjob. If he had percieved me to be "sexually harassing" him, his response would have been quite different.

Hate crime.

[cowgirl]

Originally posted by Scylla
I don't think I'd feel any safer than you in a room alone with this particular nutjob.

With all due respect, I would feel safer than Esprix in a room with this nutjob. If he had percieved me to be "sexually harassing" him, his response would have been quite different.

Hate crime.

[Debaser]

I know it's another debate entirely, but it just doesn't make sense that if the victim of this case was gay than the attacker would have gotten double the sentance.

If the victim was in fact gay, even if all of the other facts of the case were the same, then Price would have been charged with a hate crime, IMO. That means 20 years instead of 10.

It's bad to beat someone with a baseball bat. But, it's really, really bad to beat someone who is gay with a baseball bat. :rolleyes:

[Shodan]

I think Scylla's point is that you really have no idea what else might set this guy off. If he is willing to beat a person with a baseball bat for peeking into the shower at him, God knows what a woman might do to trigger violence.

And, with all due respect, how do you know that his response to being "sexually harassed" by a woman would be different? As I said, maybe he has a tiny dick, and he would feel the need to beat you with a bat if you saw it.

This is an unstable and dangerous person. I would not feel safe in assuming that his violence was going to be confined to any one group of people.

Regards,
Shodan

[Dunderman]

Originally posted by Homebrew
The fact that you can find sympathy that he'll be "deprived now and forever of his younger years" speaks volumes about you.
Yes, it shows that he's not a mad howling wolf with thick red mist obscuring his eyesight. I hate the perpetrator of this crime too, but to flatly deny that he's going to suffer is just stupid.

[Zebra]

The perpetrator is 19. So he was probably a freshman. First time away from home. Maybe the first time he has to shower with strangers. He is going to an all male school, for whatever reasons, but I'm sure some of his HS friends teased him about going there and told him that an all male school would 'be full of fags and they'll probably jump you in the shower'. I know if I told my friends my senior year in HS that I was going to an all male school that is what they would have said to me.

So here is this KID and he's a small kid so he has probably been picked on quite a bit in his life and when he feels the most vulnerable someone a foot taller pokes his head into his shower stall and he freaks out and commits a felony. He is now going to jail where a 5 foot 2 inch tall 19-year-old will probably have a pretty rough time of things.


It seems that the actual law is flawed. So that might be the reason the jury didn’t convict. Then again this is the first case so the public (the jury) may not be ready to convict on this type of crime.

Is this justice? I don’t know. I don’t know how badly the victim was beaten. One of the articles says he suffered from a fractured skull but we don’t know if he is permanently disabled or is he going to be physically fine. That would be a factor in the length of his prison stay.

[Orbifold]

Originally posted by Shodan
Price didn't seek him out to beat him because he was gay.

Yes he did. If Price hadn't thought Love was gay, he wouldn't have attacked him. But he did believe Love was gay, and based on that conclusion he attacked Love. In other words, Price beat Love because he thought Love was gay. Moreover, it wasn't a spontaneous assault; he left the room, sought out a weapon, and returned. He sought Love out to beat him up.

The fact that this twit Price thought he was being "harassed" doesn't change the fact that Love's perceived homosexuality was a motive for the assault. And the fact that Price hasn't beaten up more people doesn't imply that this wasn't a hate crime.


It is rather similar to a gay guy beating his lover for (wrongly) believing he is cheating on him. It is not homophobia - it is an overreaction to a case of mistaken identity.

[...]

Would you say that Price was filled with hatred for the visually impaired, because the guy he beat couldn't see without his glasses? Should he serve an extra ten years for that?

Bad analogies, both of them. In your hypothetical domestic assault, there's no reason to assume that the victim's sexual orientation wasn't a motive. Likewise, there's no reason to assume that Love's poor vision was a motive for the assault that actually happened. But there's ample reason to believe that Price's belief that Love was gay was a motive for Price's assault.

And, with all due respect, how do you know that his response to being "sexually harassed" by a woman would be different? As I said, maybe he has a tiny dick, and he would feel the need to beat you with a bat if you saw it.

I don't know any more than you know his response would be the same. But your assertion -- that Price was motivated solely by a fear of harassment -- assumes that his response would be the same. My assertion -- that Price was motivated by his perception of Love's sexual orientation -- is, on the other hand, supported by the facts. One more time: Price wouldn't have assaulted Love if he hadn't thought Love was gay. Price's own stated motives support this conclusion.

[Orbifold]

Originally posted by Zebra
So here is this KID and he's a small kid so he has probably been picked on quite a bit in his life and when he feels the most vulnerable someone a foot taller pokes his head into his shower stall and he freaks out and commits a felony. He is now going to jail where a 5 foot 2 inch tall 19-year-old will probably have a pretty rough time of things.

He went to his room, found a weapon, came back, and assaulted somebody. I have very little sympathy for this turd Price. He could have "freaked out" just as easily by going to his room and staying there, or maybe calling his mother and whining about about all the big bad people who are looking at him! But he chose to beat up a guy with a fucking baseball bat. Prison is exactly what he deserves.

[Indygrrl]

Originally posted by Reuben

Btw, calling such depressingly-everyday moronic thuggery "terrorism" does seem a bit of a stretch.

[Dunderman]

Originally posted by Zebra
So here is this KID and he's a small kid so he has probably been picked on quite a bit in his life and when he feels the most vulnerable someone a foot taller pokes his head into his shower stall and he freaks out and commits a felony.
I don't know about you, but all my freaking out is done on the spur of the moment. This guy left the shower room, went to his room, got a baseball bat, returned, and beat the shit out of the other guy with it. That's not a freakout, that's a premeditated crime.

[gobear]

Well, I know this puts me out of step with my gay brethren, but it seems to me that reason for the assault is irrelevant. Price assaulted Love because Price thought that Love was gay, so what? The point is the assault, not the reasoning behind it.

I have a philosophical problem with the concept that some crimes are more heinous than others because of the sexual orientation or race of the victims. That veers into the "special rights" that homophobes claim we want.

IMO, an assault on a gay victim should be prosecuted every bit as thoroughly as an assault on a hetero victim, but not more so. Ofd course, assaults on gay people tend to be treated as misdemeanors more often than not., but I want parity in the legal system for gay people, not a mirror image of the superiority hetero people presently enjoy.

[ENugent]

I think that the correct analogy is if I were standing around on the street corner, and a black man walked up to me to ask a question and I beat the crap out of him because I thought that all blacks were muggers and was frightened. Yes, it's motivated by prejudice and clearly reprehensible, but it's not quite the same thing as going out looking for blacks/gays to beat up. The latter is usually what the legislature is thinking of when they write hate crime laws. Whether they would have intended to include the former is a question for the courts. In this case, that question was answered in the negative. The way the system is supposed to work, if the legislature cares about this type of case, they will now go back and amend the law to make it clearer for the next time the issue arises. I have my doubts about whether this will actually happen, but maybe there's been enough publicity for the legislature to think about the issue (which probably didn't occur to them when they passed the law).

[Esprix]

Obviously the Georgia state legislature agreed and passed the hate crimes law. It's equally obvious it's ineffective, as many have stated.

And I will stand by my declaration of terrorism. Did his actions put the entire campus in fear? I'm sure it did. Did his actions put the GLBT community in fear? I'd say double, as the attack was clearly a gay-bashing (if not from a legal standpoint, from an emotional standpoint). Let the punishment fit the crime.

Esprix

[Zebra]

orbifold
I never said the guy did not deserve prison. I think he does. The exact ammount of prison time, wether he deserves more or less is something I do not know.

Priceguy How long does it take for someone to go to their room and get a bat? I bet less than 2 minutes. Now I wish he had calmed down in that time and made a different choice but this is not a premeditated crime. No way, no how, no sir.

[Mockingbird]

Originally posted by Zebra
orbifold
I never said the guy did not deserve prison. I think he does. The exact ammount of prison time, wether he deserves more or less is something I do not know.

Priceguy How long does it take for someone to go to their room and get a bat? I bet less than 2 minutes. Now I wish he had calmed down in that time and made a different choice but this is not a premeditated crime. No way, no how, no sir.

Oh? And how does that thought pop into your head?

You have no idea how far his room was from the bathroom.

The fact that he reacted to his bizarre belief he was being hit on by grabbing a baseball bat and beating them to death is heinous and psychotic.

Premeditation doesn't require days of planning and a computer simulation.

[Mockingbird]

Originally posted by Esprix
Obviously the Georgia state legislature agreed and passed the hate crimes law. It's equally obvious it's ineffective, as many have stated.

And I will stand by my declaration of terrorism. Did his actions put the entire campus in fear? I'm sure it did. Did his actions put the GLBT community in fear? I'd say double, as the attack was clearly a gay-bashing (if not from a legal standpoint, from an emotional standpoint). Let the punishment fit the crime.

Esprix

To amplify: Not only was it a gay bashing, but the victim was straight and was killed for the perception that he was gay.

IMHO, he not only terrorized the gays on campus, but every guy on campus.

[Zebra]

Mockingbird

THE VICTIM DID NOT DIE.

I've been in a few dorms in my life, though never at this particular school, and the showers are never that far away.

[Dunderman]

Originally posted by Zebra
Priceguy How long does it take for someone to go to their room and get a bat? I bet less than 2 minutes. Now I wish he had calmed down in that time and made a different choice but this is not a premeditated crime. No way, no how, no sir.
Come on! The guy leaves the victim alone, goes to get a weapon in order to beat the victim up, returns with the weapon and does just that. If he doesn't calm down during that process, he's got mental issues beyond hating gays (and the latter he does if the article can be trusted; he allegedly said "I hate these Morehouse faggots", that's about as clear as it comes).

[Zebra]

Originally posted by Priceguy
Come on! The guy leaves the victim alone, goes to get a weapon in order to beat the victim up, returns with the weapon and does just that. If he doesn't calm down during that process, he's got mental issues beyond hating gays (and the latter he does if the article can be trusted; he allegedly said "I hate these Morehouse faggots", that's about as clear as it comes).

If this were my college dorm it would take me 20 seconds to go from the shower to my room and return. Remember this guy is enraged. Enraged enough to want to bash in someones head. He is not walking. He is probably running. Do you calm down in 20 seconds? Do you calm down in 1 minute?

I'm not saying that this guy does not have mental problems. Someone pokes thier head in the shower does not mean go get a bat in any persons book. I do think he deserves prison time.

But

This is not premeditated.

Is this a hate crime? Well you have to look at the definition of the crime, (the Georgia Law in this case) and then look at the evidence provided. Now apparently the law is vague. This was the first case for that law so the DA have no expierence in what it takes to get a conviction for that law. But it is pretty cut and dried that if one person is hitting another person with a baseball bat, that the first person hates the second person.

[CRorex]

My opinion, he probably wasn't convicted of a hate crime because he turned himself in and never denied the attack.


Then again... if your a violent homophobe scared of being in a shower room with big guys.... explain to me exactly why you are living in dorm at an all male university?

Brain... cannot compute...

[Zebra]

Tell me what he is going to doing prison.

[Mockingbird]

Originally posted by Zebra
Mockingbird

THE VICTIM DID NOT DIE.

I've been in a few dorms in my life, though never at this particular school, and the showers are never that far away.

Whoopie fuck.

I made an error.

Attempted manslaughter isn't much better.

It doesn't minimize what he did or why.

[Zebra]

Originally posted by Mockingbird
Whoopie fuck.

I made an error.

Attempted manslaughter isn't much better.

It doesn't minimize what he did or why.


Well in a legal sense, it does make a big difference if the victim dies or not in dertiming how much prison time a person gets.

Oh and the DA only charged the guy with assault and battery, not 'attempted manslaughter'. (is there such a charge?)

Ok this 19-year-old has been sentenced to prison till he turns 29. Some people think that is too little. So how many years do you want him to serve?


Oh and from this site (http://www.planetout.com/pno/news/search.html?related=1&search=news_articles.2003/06/12/2) come the descrition of the attack from the victim.

According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Love testified that Price got enraged when he talked to him in the shower right before the Sunday morning attack. "I started to speak when he turned around enraged, screaming," Love said on June 9, the first day of the trial.

"I stood there in shock," Love testified. "He said, 'What the [expletive] you looking at, faggot?'" Love, who was not wearing his glasses, testified that he mistakenly confused Price for his roommate. He also testified that Price continued screaming as he left the shower, despite the fact that Love told Price he was not gay and didn't know him.

Love then said that a few moments later Price hit him in the back of the head with a hard object, causing Love to fall down in the shower stall.

"He continued to bash my head, and he's yelling, and, you know, I'm in a panic," Love testified.

After the attack, Love went to the campus health facility, then to the Atlanta Medical Center, where he received surgery for a blood clot in his brain caused by the beating. The attack and surgery left Love with a scar across his head.



A few moments. That is all the time it took for Price to leave the showers and get the bat and return.

Apparently Love was able to walk to the student health center for treatment. Hardly being beaten to within an inch of his life.

Price turned himself in and admited to the beating. Now I don't know if Price had some sort of criminal record. If not, then 10 years for a first offense is pretty steep in my book.

[Shodan]

One more time: Price wouldn't have assaulted Love if he hadn't thought Love was gay. Well, no - he assaulted Love because Love peeked at him in the shower. He did not assume that Love was gay until after the triggering incident had occurred, which was the peeking.

In other words, Love (accidentally) looked in on him in the shower, which was enough for Price to

a) attack him with a baseball bat, and
b) assume he was gay.

He also testified that Price continued screaming as he left the shower, despite the fact that Love told Price he was not gay and didn't know him.
Bolding added.

It seems that any crime against a person who is known or suspected to be gay is a hate crime. I disagree.

It was wrong, it was evil, it was a gross over-reaction to a trivial incident, and it shows that Price was a dangerous and violent criminal. But it wasn't a hate crime.

Regards,
Shodan

[ENugent]

Originally posted by Zebra
Oh and the DA only charged the guy with assault and battery, not 'attempted manslaughter'. (is there such a charge?)

No, there is no such thing as "attempted manslaughter". This is a classic question, actually. You can only attempt specific intent crimes, since attempt is having the intent to do the crime, acting in some way to try to carry out that intent, but failing to succeed. Manslaughter is a general intent crime that cannot be attempted.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally posted by Esprix
...And I will stand by my declaration of terrorism. Did his actions put the entire campus in fear? I'm sure it did. Did his actions put the GLBT community in fear? I'd say double, as the attack was clearly a gay-bashing (if not from a legal standpoint, from an emotional standpoint). Let the punishment fit the crime.

Esprix

I disagree. Terrorists intend to spread terror through a population through their violence. In fact, widespread terror is the goal of the violence. The victims are incidental, their identities relatively unimportant in the larger scheme of terrorism.

I think it would be really stretching to infer that Price intended to terrify the campus. Remember the serial killer who killed several women on a Florida campus, and basically shut down the whole campus? Scum as he was, I don't think anyone characterized him as a terrorist.

[Orbifold]

Originally posted by Shodan
Well, no - he assaulted Love because Love peeked at him in the shower. He did not assume that Love was gay until after the triggering incident had occurred, which was the peeking.


But he did think that Love was gay. He felt threatened because he thought Love was gay. He didn't attack Love because he thought someone had peeked on him, he attacked Love because he thought a gay man had peeked on him. Price's perception of Love's sexual orientation was a motivating factor in the assault.


He also testified that Price continued screaming as he left the shower, despite the fact that Love told Price he was not gay and didn't know him.
Bolding added.

(From Zebra's link) "Price left the shower area, went back to his dorm room for the bat and then returned, beating Love and allegedly yelling anti-gay epithets." Bolding added. It would seem Price didn't get the message.


It seems that any crime against a person who is known or suspected to be gay is a hate crime. I disagree.

I disagree too. Of course, I never said that, ever. What I said was:
Originally posted by Orbifold
[...]
Price beat Love because he thought Love was gay.
[...]
...Love's perceived homosexuality was a motive for the assault.
[...]
But there's ample reason to believe that Price's belief that Love was gay was a motive for Price's assault.
[...]
My assertion -- that Price was motivated by his perception of Love's sexual orientation -- is, on the other hand, supported by the facts.
[...]


Note how the theme of MOTIVE runs through all of those quotes? An astute reader might reach the conclusion that I think Price's assault was MOTIVATED by his perception of Love's sexual orientation, and that maybe, just maybe, I think Price's MOTIVES are relevant to whether or not this is a hate crime.

(Is anyone in this thread claiming that "any crime against a person who is known or suspected to be gay is a hate crime"? Or is that just a gigantic fucking strawman?)

[Blalron]

It's bad to beat someone with a baseball bat. But, it's really, really bad to beat someone who is gay with a baseball bat.

Hate crime laws are a way for society to express the particular offensiveness of attacking somebody because of their race, religion, nationality or sexual orientation. The fear that it instills within these vulnerable groups is especially reprehensible, so it warrants a greater punishment.

[Blalron]

Bigotry is punished by the law in other ways as well, which are much less disputed than these "hate crime" laws. For example, laws that prohibit discimination in employment because of race or sex.

For example, an employer randomly firing an employee is not treated the same as an employer whose motivation for firing an employee was bigotry against the employee for being black.

[Phoenix Dragon]

Originally posted by Debaser
I know it's another debate entirely, but it just doesn't make sense that if the victim of this case was gay than the attacker would have gotten double the sentance.

Of course it doesn't make sense. That's because you seem to have a pretty mistaken impression as to what a hate crime is. It's not a hate crime to beat a gay person, it's a hate crime to beat a person because they are, or you percieve them to be, gay (Or whatever group). And while most wouldn't think of it, you don't have to be a minority, or percieved to be a minority, for it to apply. If you go out and kill a white man for being white, you can get charged with a hate crime. And it has happened.

Gobear, you should note that, too. It isn't a case of an assault on a gay victim being prosecuted more than one on a straight victim. It's not more protection for gays than for straights. The hate crime laws go for both sides. If a gay guy assaults someone because he doesn't like straight people, and thinks that person is, then he could get charged, too. Hate crimes laws don't give "special protection" to any group, it applies to all groups. It's a fact that many seem to forget.

And what Blalron said, too.

[Debaser]

Originally posted by Phoenix Dragon
Of course it doesn't make sense. That's because you seem to have a pretty mistaken impression as to what a hate crime is. It's not a hate crime to beat a gay person, it's a hate crime to beat a person because they are, or you percieve them to be, gay (Or whatever group). And while most wouldn't think of it, you don't have to be a minority, or percieved to be a minority, for it to apply. If you go out and kill a white man for being white, you can get charged with a hate crime. And it has happened.


You are talking about how the laws are intended. I was more referring to the way they are actually applied.

It's just MHO, but if every other fact in this case were the same and the victim were in fact gay, I think this would have been prosecuted as a hate crime.

Has there ever been a case of a hate crime successfully prosecuted for gay bashing when the victim was in fact not gay? I would imagine not, or at the very least it's rare.

Going forward with that assumption, the same guy for the same crime gets 20 years instead of 10. That's wrong.

[Shodan]

Originally posted by Orbifold
But he did think that Love was gay. He felt threatened because he thought Love was gay. He didn't attack Love because he thought someone had peeked on him, he attacked Love because he thought a gay man had peeked on him. Price's perception of Love's sexual orientation was a motivating factor in the assault.No, Price's perception of Love's sexual orientation was a consequence of the motivating factor for the assault, which was Price being peeked on. There is no prior evidence (AFAIK) that Price hated gays before the incident occured. In other words, being peeked on in the shower was sufficient in and of itself to trigger the assault. Price's homophobia did not manifest itself until after the triggering incident occured.

As far as I can tell, Price formed the intent to commit the crime at the same time that he formed the opinion that Love was gay. It did not precede the formulation of intent, and therefore could not have been its motivating factor. The triggering event for both the assault and the homophobia was the peeking.

Originally posted by Orbifold

(From Zebra's link) "Price left the shower area, went back to his dorm room for the bat and then returned, beating Love and allegedly yelling anti-gay epithets." Bolding added. It would seem Price didn't get the message.
True. But notice that even after Price knew, or should have known, that Love was straight, he continued with the assault.

It looks to me as if Price was going to attack anyone, gay or straight, who peeked at him in the shower. This peeking caused Price to do two things -

- Form the criminal intent to commit assault with a baseball bat

- Form an opinion - a wrong opinion, in this case - as to the sexual orientation of the one who peeked at him

But again, the wrong opinion did not precede, and could not have been a motivator, in forming the criminal intent.

To repeat, I think someone who would attack another person on so flimsy a pretext ("He peeked at me in the shower!") has committed a dangerous crime, regardless of the sexual orientation of his victim. I think he is dangerous because he over-reacted, to a much greater degree than he would be if motivated by homophobia.

You are correct in stating that no one has come right out and said that this is a hate crime because the victim was perceived as gay. But that seems to me to be the trend of the discussion. This is why I posted the example of the gay man who beats his lover for wrongly thinking he is cheating on him. This would also be an example of a gay man being beaten, under circumstances that would not occur if the victim were not gay, but where sexual orientation is not the primary motivation for the attack.

Unless the argument is really that hate crime occurs anytime a gay person is attacked. In which case it would be a hate crime to steal a gay man's wallet just to get his money, even if you had no idea that he was gay.

Which is why I find it hard to see what hate crime legislation adds to the fight against crime. Anyone who would attack another over a trivial incident like this is a dangerous person, gay or straight. In the same way, people who would beat up a stranger are dangerous criminals, no matter if they are gay-bashing or just livening up a dull Saturday night. And I would argue that any punishment that should be applied to hate criminals should be applied to anyone else who would commit crimes with similar circumstances.

IANAL. YMMV. Good thing Price is in prison. And so on.

Regards,
Shodan

[Homebrew]

Originally posted by Shodan
IANAL. Maybe you should try it. You can obfuscate with the best of them.

[Shodan]

As the guy who cleaned up after the elephants in the circus said when offered a job at Walmarts -

"What? And give up show business?"

Regards,
Shodan

[Orbifold]

Originally posted by Shodan
You are correct in stating that no one has come right out and said that this is a hate crime because the victim was perceived as gay. But that seems to me to be the trend of the discussion. This is why I posted the example of the gay man who beats his lover for wrongly thinking he is cheating on him. This would also be an example of a gay man being beaten, under circumstances that would not occur if the victim were not gay, but where sexual orientation is not the primary motivation for the attack.

Unless the argument is really that hate crime occurs anytime a gay person is attacked. In which case it would be a hate crime to steal a gay man's wallet just to get his money, even if you had no idea that he was gay.

"No one's actually made this argument, but I think that's the way the discussion will go (i.e. I expect people to make this argument in the future) so I'm going to point out how ridiculous it is now."

In other words, it's a gigantic fucking strawman. Thank you for confirming that.

[mouthbreather]

In related news, a Gainsville, GA man is convicted of a hate crime for assaulting a Hispanic girl and her grandmother at a funeral:

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0603/20henhate.html

[Shodan]

Originally posted by Orbifold
"No one's actually made this argument, but I think that's the way the discussion will go (i.e. I expect people to make this argument in the future) so I'm going to point out how ridiculous it is now."

In other words, it's a gigantic fucking strawman. Thank you for confirming that. Actually, it is because this is how I think the discussion is trending, which is what I said.

As far as I can tell, a hate crime is one that is motivated by hatred of gays (in this instance). Price did not display any evidence of such hatred before he committed the crime, and continued with the crime after he knew or should have known that his victim was not gay. Therefore it seems to me that homophobia was not a major motivator in the crime.

Price did not seek out Love because he thought Love was gay. He sought him out because Love peeked at him in the shower.

So

a) I don't think this was a hate crime, and

b) I don't think it matters if this was a hate crime or not. The guy belongs in prison, and the sentence for beating someone with a baseball bat should be the same whether you thought your victim was gay or because he called your mama names.

As I have said, I don't see what labelling this a "hate crime" adds. Is this worse because all the GLBTs on campus are forced to live in an atmosphere of fear? I don't see why they would be any more or less afraid than of any other violent, unstable nutcase. I would say that everyone, gay or straight, should be afraid of a freak like this. Look at the triviality it takes to set him off!

Regards,
Shodan

[Esprix]

Originally posted by Shodan

You are correct in stating that no one has come right out and said that this is a hate crime because the victim was perceived as gay.

I'll state it - this is a hate crime because the victim was perceived as gay.

I disagree with your logic regarding whether or not it actually was.

Esprix

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

If I was that afraid of being sexually assaulted by a man in the shower, I think I'd try to avoid committing crimes that landed me in prison with other violent felons. I'm just sayin'.

Daniel

[Knowed Out]

I'm thinking the jury was instructed to sentence according to how the law defines hate crimes. The law's definition and your definition may differ. The law tends to split hairs more.

The batter's assault was not a premeditated attack. He didn't plan the assault. He did it in a fit of rage. That's how the law differentiates first and second degree murder.

Prior to this, the batter didn't have a history of criminal hatred for gays. He wasn't a member of an anti-gay organization.

Furthermore, what if his motivations were different...what if he had atttacked the guy because he said something about his mother for example, or did or said something not of a sexual or sexually preferential nature? Does that make the nature of the crime any better or worse? How can making it a hate crime make it worse than the despicable act it already was? A battered heterosexual feels just as much pain as a battered homosexual.

He got 10 years for assault. Manslaughter sentences are typically shorter. I would think he got the maximum sentence for assault.

[Shodan]

Originally posted by Esprix
I'll state it - this is a hate crime because the victim was perceived as gay.

I disagree with your logic regarding whether or not it actually was.

Esprix Fair enough. Would you agree that any crime in which the victim is gay (or perceived to be so) is a hate crime?

I mentioned the earlier theoretical about the gay person beating up his lover because he suspected him of being unfaithful. This would be a case where the victim was gay, the circumstances that led to the crime would not have taken place unless the victim was gay, but the crime was not motivated by homophobia.

Or we can just agree to disagree. As I have said, I don't see how it would, or should, have made a difference in this case. Price is in prison, where he richly deserves to be. Nobody, gay or straight, deserves to be beaten with a baseball bat for mistakenly peeking into an occupied shower, and the weekend is almost here.

Have a great one.

Regards,
Shodan

[Priam]

I'm running short on time, so apologies if this post is redundant to another person's. Regardless of the legitimacy of hate crime legislation (something I'm not sure I support myself), this to me definitely describes one.

According to the article, this guy is taking a shower. The victim thinks its his roomate, so decides to play a joke by entering (or at least peeking into) the shower. The perpetrator then leaves the bathroom, walks down to his room, gets a baseball bat, returns, and begins assaulting the victim with it. All because he supposedly felt sexually harassed? Ok I could buy that argument if he had attacked the victim before exiting the bathroom. It would've been irrational assault based on perceived danger. But... the guy left the bathroom, exiting the perceived danger zone. He then, rationally if not logically, got his baseball bat with the intent to go back and beat the living shit out of the "fag".

Its not like he was going to play baseball, ran into the poor fellow again by sheer coincidence, and freaked out once more.

[Esprix]

Priam, read the bloody thread first. Gads, I hate that.

Originally posted by Shodan

Would you agree that any crime in which the victim is gay (or perceived to be so) is a hate crime?

No, I would not, and I loathe the day when I see "hate crime" bandied about unwarrantedly just because the victim was gay, black, a woman, Jewish, what have you - another version of "pulling the race card" (however, I do not think that was the case in this particular incident, which I still maintain is a hate crime - obviously you, and the law, disagree).

Esprix

[Polycarp]

Originally posted by Shodan
Fair enough. Would you agree that any crime in which the victim is gay (or perceived to be so) is a hate crime?

I mentioned the earlier theoretical about the gay person beating up his lover because he suspected him of being unfaithful. This would be a case where the victim was gay, the circumstances that led to the crime would not have taken place unless the victim was gay, but the crime was not motivated by homophobia.

Or we can just agree to disagree. As I have said, I don't see how it would, or should, have made a difference in this case. Price is in prison, where he richly deserves to be. Nobody, gay or straight, deserves to be beaten with a baseball bat for mistakenly peeking into an occupied shower, and the weekend is almost here.

Have a great one.

Regards,
Shodan

Hi, Shodan. The definition of "hate crime" most often quoted on this board -- and I presume from that that it's the common one in hate crime laws as well, though of course turned into lawyerese -- is when a criminal action is precipitated on the basis of a real or perceived characteristic of the victim that falls in a given protected category. That awkward sentence is to say that if the law indicates that it is a hate crime to assault someone on the basis of his race, evidence indicating that a given assault was precipitated by the person's racial identity, or what the perpetrators thought was the person's racial identity, will serve to prove that it was not merely an unprovoked assault, but a hate crime assault. That the perpetrator(s) was/were in error in their identification is immaterial; there was a case cited where a Sikh man was assaulted by a group of yahoos shortly after 9/11 on the basis that anyone wearing a turban must be a Moslem. And, of course, it does not merely protect blacks, or gays, or whatever -- a white man beaten up by a black street gang for being a white man in a black area (and hence presumbly up to no good) would be equally the victim of a hate crime, since he was assaulted on the basis of his race.

There are some grey areas. Take the infamous incident in which Jerry Falwell claimed to have been attacked by a group of gays when he spoke in California. If it had happened, would that have been a hate crime under this definition?

The justification behind them is that it puts the force of the law behind a proposition that I think we can all agree to: no person should be victimized on the basis of his race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identification, etc.

Does that help in any way to clarify the question? Or am I merely rehashing stuff that does not assist in examining the question for you?

[Phoenix Dragon]

Originally posted by Debaser
It's just MHO, but if every other fact in this case were the same and the victim were in fact gay, I think this would have been prosecuted as a hate crime.

Quite possibly. While legally, it should make no difference, I can certainly see a jury being swayed by their perception of the law. The common perception is that hate crimes only protect minorities, and I can see a jury denying hate crimes charges because the victim wasn't actually that minority.

[lite]

ok, I'm a straight white male. If a black man beats me with a baseball bat for whatever reason, no chance of hate crime charges. If I beat him, I'm screwed.

Here's my question.

Why are blacks sold softer bats than whites?

I'm outraged!

[Phoenix Dragon]

Well, this is a good example of how many people mis-understand hate crime laws:

Originally posted by lite
ok, I'm a straight white male. If a black man beats me with a baseball bat for whatever reason, no chance of hate crime charges. If I beat him, I'm screwed.

Completely false. You would only get a hate crime if you beat him because of his race. Similarly, if he beat you because of your race, he would get charged with a hate crime. As I said before, it's happened.

[matt_mcl]

Originally posted by iampunha
He probably said the bit about going to his room to pray to get sympathy and "Oh, but he's a God-fearing young man, let's cut him some slack" from the jury.

Feh. Reminds me of the police officers at the trial I testified at, who grabbed the Bible, rolled their eyes towards heaven, and loudly swore by God and the saints that the defendents did things they didn't do, and that they themselves didn't do things they did.

The defendents were found not guilty.

[Mockingbird]

Originally posted by matt_mcl
Feh. Reminds me of the police officers at the trial I testified at, who grabbed the Bible, rolled their eyes towards heaven, and loudly swore by God and the saints that the defendents did things they didn't do, and that they themselves didn't do things they did.

The defendents were found not guilty.

Damn. That is repulsive.

Lying under oath, hiding behind false piety, benefitting the ones who committed the crime.

It's *defendant*.

[Jaade]

From this site
Georgia’s hate crimes law allows judges to add additional criminal penalties — including up to five years of jail time for felonies — when it is determined that a defendant selected his or her victim out of bias or prejudice, according to Friedly.

Related /hijack to help out here:

I had my first opportunity to serve on a jury earlier this year. It was a worker's comp case. This guy, about 50 years old, had worked in the water well business his entire adult life. He'd had back problems for the past several years, well documented by his chiro. One day, he fell off the back of a truck, while moving pipes alone. (His partner had called in sick) He was trying to get the state to pay for his surgeries and other medical expenses based on this injury. He saw his chiro that day, but for whatever reason, she didn't write down the notes about his accident. He didn't file charges until a few months later, when his boss suggested it. His boss later claimed that he didn't remember the circumstances.

(Sorry, that was long I know, but I had to give background.)

The judge told the jury we had to answer a question:
Was Mr. HardworkingGuy's back injury caused on ___ day because he fell off a truck?

We ended up answering no. He'd been injured before, he'd been injured that day, but had nothing to back it up. We were all quite disheartened.

You don't know what the jury had to answer. If they have a specific question, and these questions are worded by the judge, they have to answer that question. They have to decide that a "preponderence of the evidence" leads them to answer the judge's question in the affirmative. If it doesn't, they HAVE to say NO, even if they don't like it.


From a quick Google search, it appears this is NOT the first time this law has been invoked, but the first time it's been invoked in a felony.


Price deserves to go to jail. He used a baseball bat against another human being as a weapon. But none of us were in that bathroom, and none of us were in that courtroom. There are extenuating circumstances that we don't know about.

There are always three sides to a story. Mine, yours and the truth.

~J

[Jaade]

Gah, sorry about the coding.

[mouthbreather]

Originally posted by lite
ok, I'm a straight white male. If a black man beats me with a baseball bat for whatever reason, no chance of hate crime charges. If I beat him, I'm screwed.

Here's my question.

Why are blacks sold softer bats than whites?

I'm outraged!

Outraged, and wrong.




http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/03/02/wilkinsburg.shooting.03/

Taylor, an African-American, already was charged with two counts of criminal homicide in the first two deaths from the shooting spree.

He was arraigned late Thursday on one count of ethnic intimidation -- a state hate crimes charge -- for maliciously targeting white men, five counts of aggravated assault, arson and possession of an unlicensed firearm.

"There were obviously racial overtones," said Wilkinsburg Police Chief Gerald Brewer. "Witnesses were telling us he was going to kill white people. He obviously shot five white victims."

[The Flying Dutchman]

[quote]gobear
Well, I know this puts me out of step with my gay brethren, but it seems to me that reason for the assault is irrelevant. Price assaulted Love because Price thought that Love was gay, so what? The point is the assault, not the reasoning behind it.

I have a philosophical problem with the concept that some crimes are more heinous than others because of the sexual orientation or race of the victims. That veers into the "special rights" that homophobes claim we want.

IMO, an assault on a gay victim should be prosecuted every bit as thoroughly as an assault on a hetero victim, but not more so. Ofd course, assaults on gay people tend to be treated as misdemeanors more often than not., but I want parity in the legal system for gay people, not a mirror image of the superiority hetero people presently enjoy.[/i]

It pains me to agree.

I mean this is a guy using a bat to take on a guy who is a foot taller. This is a fight, of which I've seen so many in my youth that if they all got ten years would indicate that the prison system would have to expand tenfold. Isn't ten years enough? Ive read recent reports of a young person getting 2 years for stomping on a guys head to death or a guy who slit a cabbie's throat getting 3 years.

And one last thought. If the tall guy made a pass or sexually harrassed the small guy would that not be a mitigating factor?

This from a guy who was constantly being confronted and attacked for being different, in his earlier school years.

[Esprix]

grienspace, at least one reason I am in favor of hate crime laws is that when you specifically single out a person because of the group they belong to, your intimidate everyone in that group. Those actions affect far more than just that person, but the entirety of the community to which that person belongs. This is why I've used the term "terrorism" in the past. Yes, everyone will feel unsafe with a murderer running around town, but if that murderer is only targeting Jews, it's the Jewish community (and anyone who might be perceived to be part of that community) that are terrorized.

Esprix

[The Flying Dutchman]

That is a good point Esprix, which I hadn't previously considered. I concede. Now please answer my followup question. What if the smaller guy was sexually harrassed? Isn't it a guy thing (an immature guy thing) to respond to offense with violence? Most women obviously need the courts etc. to deal with sexual harrassment, but young guys are expected to take matters in their own hands.

[Blalron]

Fair enough. Would you agree that any crime in which the victim is gay (or perceived to be so) is a hate crime?

No. But I would say that any criminal whose primary motivation in assaulting a victim was due to bigotry is guilty of a hate crime.

[Shodan]

Greetings to all -

I don't want to post and run, but FWIW, I think I have presented all of what I have to add to this thread.

I am not ignoring you, but if I start repeating myself, I am afraid this will turn into a train wreck like the Arajuo murder thread.

Thanks to all for your thoughts.

Regards,
Shodan

[Nightime]

I have to agree with Shodan on this issue. The guy went crazy because he was taking a shower and a much bigger guy looked in on him. That makes him a psycho, but not guilty of a hate crime.

It is perfectly plausible that Price didn't even think the guy looking at him was gay, especially since Love denied being gay. Calling him gay could just as well have been his attempt at an insult. Obviously he felt threatened, but that does not mean he thought the person threatening him was gay.

If this type of thing happened in a prison, would you assume that he thought the person looking at him was gay? Of course, an all boys school is far from a prison... but then, Price is far from sane.

Since it is very likely that Price attacked Love because Love looked in on him in the shower, and because Love was so much bigger and seemed threatening to Price, Price should not be convicted of a hate crime. Is it possible that Price thought "this guy is looking at me in the shower.... he must be gay... I hate gays and I'm going to bash his head in!"? Yes. But from the evidence that is not proven nor is it even the most likely scenario.

[furlibusea]

I dont understand how "I thought he was hitting on me" is ever an acceptable defence. I am pretty sure any woman that tried it would spend forever in jail, yet it seems men get to use it to get away with all sorts of abuse. I have no sites, but I would almost be willing to bet the police would not prosecute a rape case of any woman who said she felt threatened by some man, was able to leave the area, then went back with a weapon. The only suprising thing here is that he actually is being punished, so often it seems, that this type of bull gets bought by jurys.

[Esprix]

Originally posted by Nightime

It is perfectly plausible that Price didn't even think the guy looking at him was gay, especially since Love denied being gay. Calling him gay could just as well have been his attempt at an insult. Obviously he felt threatened, but that does not mean he thought the person threatening him was gay.

Did you read the linked articles? Did you hear about the slew of anti-gay epithets he was spewing while he was hitting him?

Esprix

[Esprix]

Originally posted by grienspace

What if the smaller guy was sexually harrassed? Isn't it a guy thing (an immature guy thing) to respond to offense with violence? Most women obviously need the courts etc. to deal with sexual harrassment, but young guys are expected to take matters in their own hands.

That's insane. Vigilante justice just because a guy hit on him? The "gay panic" defense is an abomination of justice.

Esprix

[Nightime]

Esprix:

Did you read the linked articles? Did you hear about the slew of anti-gay epithets he was spewing while he was hitting him?

I had not read the specific epithet that I believe you are referring to. I just did, and I now believe that it was most likely a hate crime.

However, the article also says that he only allegedly said it, and while I think he probably did, the jury may not have wanted to convict him based on something that only allegedly was said but was never proved.