Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 09-18-2019, 03:09 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,384
I think the point in Two Many Cats' post is that there's a double standard: If eighteen white assailants pounce on a black victim and beat him up, there's an immediate knee-jerk reaction that it's a "hate crime, no doubt about it. Racism is alive and well in America."


Whereas if eighteen black assailants pounce on a white guy and beat him up, suddenly it's a calm, measured response, a call for restraint: "We can't jump to conclusions until all the facts are in; it's insufficient data at the moment. Let's wait for all the evidence."

Last edited by Velocity; 09-18-2019 at 03:09 PM.
  #52  
Old 09-18-2019, 04:12 PM
Doyle's Avatar
Doyle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 846
Quote:
Originally Posted by neofishboy View Post
Actually "assumed to be a hate crime" is your invention. It appears nowhere in the question. Go ahead. Read it again. Here I'll quote it to make it easier.



She straight up asks if it's a hate crime, and I (correctly) pointed out that the hypothetical doesn't have enough information to make that determination.

Here, how about this: John is walking down the street with a 100-dollar bill in his wallet. Five minutes later the bill is in David's pocket. Robbery? Remember, you can only answer "yes" or "no".
No, she asked if the tables were turned would this be assumed to be a hate crime. You're purposely obfuscating the proposed scenario. BTW, you're story really isn't analogous because it wasn't recorded on video. Or maybe John owed all 18 money.
  #53  
Old 09-18-2019, 04:13 PM
Two Many Cats is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,954
There's something little discussed today. Yes indeed, there is white privilege in this society, and white people benefit from it. But there is something also called white guilt, that some innocent whites will suffer because of. This situation needs to be addressed.
  #54  
Old 09-18-2019, 04:15 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,966
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I think the point in Two Many Cats' post is that there's a double standard: If eighteen white assailants pounce on a black victim and beat him up, there's an immediate knee-jerk reaction that it's a "hate crime, no doubt about it. Racism is alive and well in America."


Whereas if eighteen black assailants pounce on a white guy and beat him up, suddenly it's a calm, measured response, a call for restraint: "We can't jump to conclusions until all the facts are in; it's insufficient data at the moment. Let's wait for all the evidence."
Not just that. The OP of this thread gets directly insulted. If itís a white kid wearing a hat youíd see 5+ threads of 20+ pages full of righteous fury and indignation with several of the bloodthirsty advocating violence.
  #55  
Old 09-18-2019, 04:41 PM
neofishboy's Avatar
neofishboy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Davis, CA
Posts: 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doyle View Post
No, she asked if the tables were turned would this be assumed to be a hate crime. You're purposely obfuscating the proposed scenario. BTW, you're story really isn't analogous because it wasn't recorded on video. Or maybe John owed all 18 money.
Yeah, at this point I can pretty safely stop giving you the benefit of the doubt. Buh-bye.
  #56  
Old 09-18-2019, 05:13 PM
Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 28,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
That doesn't make it a hate crime.
Well then we differ on opinions of hate. Violence for the sake of violence doesn't come from love and it's not an emotionally neutral event. It's hate in my book.

Last edited by Magiver; 09-18-2019 at 05:14 PM.
  #57  
Old 09-18-2019, 05:22 PM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. •
Posts: 12,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
Well then we differ on opinions of hate. Violence for the sake of violence doesn't come from love and it's not an emotionally neutral event. It's hate in my book.
Hate crime has a specific meaning, that requires more than "hate plus crime."

You can have all kinds of hate with a crime and it wouldn't necessarily be what law enforcement considers a hate crime.
  #58  
Old 09-18-2019, 05:23 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
Well then we differ on opinions of hate. Violence for the sake of violence doesn't come from love and it's not an emotionally neutral event. It's hate in my book.
You and Cheesesteak likely don't differ much on the definition of hate. Where you differ is that Cheesesteak understands the definition of "hate crime," and you do not.

"Hate crime" does not mean, "Any crime where the perpetrator hates the victim." "Hate crime" is a term of art with a specific legal definition, and cannot be understood just by looking at the lay definition of the word "hate." Hate crimes refer to crimes that are motivated by racial, sexual, or religious bias, not just crimes where the perpetrator really, really doesn't like the victim. This goes back to my previous question to you, which you erroneously dismissed as a strawman. It's not a hate crime if I beat up someone for sleeping with my wife, even though I hate the victim. Similarly, it's not a hate crime if a gang of ten people decide they're going to beat the ever-living shit out of the next person they see, and that next person randomly happens to be a different ethnicity than the mob beating him up.

Last edited by Miller; 09-18-2019 at 05:23 PM.
  #59  
Old 09-18-2019, 05:24 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machine Elf View Post
Just one more way to sadistically violate the victim. Really, that's most of what was happening, at least in the first video at the OP's link (I didn't watch the second). When the victim didn't immediately cave in and hand over his phone, they all swarmed together to make him submit. It wasn't about the cell phone, it was an opportunistic beat-down for the sake of entertainment and, one-upmanship driven by peer pressure ("jumping on his head, good one...but watch THIS...").

Yup, that was the impression I got in my case too, that they were all showing off for each other.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 09-18-2019 at 05:25 PM.
  #60  
Old 09-18-2019, 05:34 PM
Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 28,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
You and Cheesesteak likely don't differ much on the definition of hate. Where you differ is that Cheesesteak understands the definition of "hate crime," and you do not.
.
Yes, I think the people doing this hated the victim. He was not known to them and therefore an anonymous target. If you're harming someone for the fun of it then by definition you hate them without a reason. Thus a hate crime.
  #61  
Old 09-18-2019, 05:42 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,966
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
You and Cheesesteak likely don't differ much on the definition of hate. Where you differ is that Cheesesteak understands the definition of "hate crime," and you do not.

"Hate crime" does not mean, "Any crime where the perpetrator hates the victim." "Hate crime" is a term of art with a specific legal definition, and cannot be understood just by looking at the lay definition of the word "hate." Hate crimes refer to crimes that are motivated by racial, sexual, or religious bias, not just crimes where the perpetrator really, really doesn't like the victim. This goes back to my previous question to you, which you erroneously dismissed as a strawman. It's not a hate crime if I beat up someone for sleeping with my wife, even though I hate the victim. Similarly, it's not a hate crime if a gang of ten people decide they're going to beat the ever-living shit out of the next person they see, and that next person randomly happens to be a different ethnicity than the mob beating him up.
It seems like hate crime is so narrowly defined and hard to prove that it might be counterproductive to have it as a thing.
  #62  
Old 09-18-2019, 05:55 PM
IvoryTowerDenizen's Avatar
IvoryTowerDenizen is offline
Retired Straight Dope Staff
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: North Shore of LI
Posts: 19,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
It seems like hate crime is so narrowly defined and hard to prove that it might be counterproductive to have it as a thing.
It should be a crime that is hard to prove, given that it requires making assumptions on someone's thoughts (other categories do that too, and should also be a high bar to meet). However, it’s an important category to have, since what we call hate crimes are often a form of intimidation that has its roots in domestic terrorism.

Targeting someone because they are Jewish makes it scary for a Jew to worship openly. Attacking someone for being black can be used to keep blacks out certain neighborhoods or away from polling places. It has a cumulative ripple effect that goes beyond the individual victim, but impacts the the group from which the victim is a member.

Certainly someone from a majority group can be a victim of a hate crime, but the impetus for the hate crime designation was to get at people who used violence or the threat of violence to keep disenfranchised and minority people down. You can’t separate the category from its history, even if it it has expanded beyond it.

Last edited by IvoryTowerDenizen; 09-18-2019 at 05:56 PM.
  #63  
Old 09-18-2019, 07:06 PM
El_Kabong's Avatar
El_Kabong is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Smack Dab in the Middle
Posts: 15,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
Yes, I think the people doing this hated the victim. He was not known to them and therefore an anonymous target. If you're harming someone for the fun of it then by definition you hate them without a reason. Thus a hate crime.
Great. Now put yourself in a DA's shoes and kindly explain how you will convince a jury to convict on your mind-reading of a suspect's intentions.

Sheesh.
  #64  
Old 09-18-2019, 07:11 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
Yes, I think the people doing this hated the victim. He was not known to them and therefore an anonymous target. If you're harming someone for the fun of it then by definition you hate them without a reason. Thus a hate crime.
What you think is immaterial. "Hate crimes" are specifically defined in statute, and no statute anywhere in the United States defines hate crimes the way you are defining them.
  #65  
Old 09-18-2019, 07:17 PM
UCBearcats is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambivalid View Post
I got everything i needed to make what I guess to be an accurate surmisal of this OP without even clicking on the thread. Title/username combo alone gave me *more* than enough info to know this was a vile, racist, whataboutist piece of predictable garbage.

So how'd I do?
Please tell me how you really feel about me.
  #66  
Old 09-18-2019, 07:18 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
It seems like hate crime is so narrowly defined and hard to prove that it might be counterproductive to have it as a thing.
I'm generally a fan of narrowly defined laws, so I don't see that as a drawback. FBI statistics say that around 8000 charges of violating hate crime laws were made in 2017, although I can't find any statistics about conviction rates.

Not sure how being able to put give who spray paints a swastika on a synagogue a longer sentence than somebody who spray paints "Go Bears!" on a synagogue is "counterproductive." What end do you think we would be better able to achieve by giving those two offenses the same punishment?
  #67  
Old 09-18-2019, 07:20 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by UCBearcats View Post
Please tell me how you really feel about me.
It's a trap!
  #68  
Old 09-18-2019, 07:23 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
I'm generally a fan of narrowly defined laws, so I don't see that as a drawback. FBI statistics say that around 8000 charges of violating hate crime laws were made in 2017, although I can't find any statistics about conviction rates.

Not sure how being able to put give who spray paints a swastika on a synagogue a longer sentence than somebody who spray paints "Go Bears!" on a synagogue is "counterproductive." What end do you think we would be better able to achieve by giving those two offenses the same punishment?

How about the same reason we protect freedom of expression as a fundamental constitutional right? If itís perfectly legal to either carry a sign that says ďGo Bears!Ē or one with a swastika, why should the punishment for graffiti vandalism be any worse for one than for the other? The part thatís a crime is that you marked up property thatís not yours with paint.
  #69  
Old 09-18-2019, 07:25 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,381
nm

Last edited by Miller; 09-18-2019 at 07:26 PM.
  #70  
Old 09-18-2019, 07:28 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
How about the same reason we protect freedom of expression as a fundamental constitutional right? If itís perfectly legal to either carry a sign that says ďGo Bears!Ē or one with a swastika, why should the punishment for graffiti vandalism be any worse for one than for the other? The part thatís a crime is that you marked up property thatís not yours with paint.
Defacing someone's property isn't covered by freedom of expression. Neither is threatening someone. I don't have a problem treating an act that both defaces someone's property and threatens them differently from an act that merely defaces someone's property.
  #71  
Old 09-18-2019, 07:32 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,647
So you believe it would be illegal to walk on the sidewalk outside a synagogue carrying a sign with a swastika on it? There’s no question that this is intended to be intimidating, but it is also their constitutional right to be intimidating in that way.
  #72  
Old 09-18-2019, 07:36 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
So you believe it would be illegal to walk on the sidewalk outside a synagogue carrying a sign with a swastika on it?
Did I say that? No? Then it's a safe bet I don't support it, either.
  #73  
Old 09-18-2019, 07:39 PM
IvoryTowerDenizen's Avatar
IvoryTowerDenizen is offline
Retired Straight Dope Staff
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: North Shore of LI
Posts: 19,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
How about the same reason we protect freedom of expression as a fundamental constitutional right? If itís perfectly legal to either carry a sign that says ďGo Bears!Ē or one with a swastika, why should the punishment for graffiti vandalism be any worse for one than for the other? The part thatís a crime is that you marked up property thatís not yours with paint.
Post #62 tried to explain the why of it.
  #74  
Old 09-18-2019, 07:42 PM
pool is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Inside
Posts: 4,567
There are tons of videos of stuff like this online

Here is video of an attack with multiple assailants outside a Washington DC hotel:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dupsgOsdeI4

It has to be a terrifying scenario, you can't even blame someone that isn't a cop for not stepping in because it's completely chaotic and overwhelming and they will likely end up a victim as well. Completely at the "mercy" of the mob.
__________________
"You can do anything you set your mind to...But money helps"
  #75  
Old 09-18-2019, 07:49 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
Did I say that? No? Then it's a safe bet I don't support it, either.

Then itís only defacing property and not also an illegal threat like you claimed. You canít have it both ways.
  #76  
Old 09-18-2019, 07:53 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Then it’s only defacing property and not also an illegal threat like you claimed. You can’t have it both ways.
Not only can I have it both ways, I actively do. Carrying a swastika on a sign in front a synagogue is not a hate crime. Painting one on its front door is.

Last edited by Miller; 09-18-2019 at 07:54 PM.
  #77  
Old 09-18-2019, 08:00 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
You don't see a difference between carrying a sign and painting it on someone else's property?

Obviously I do, just as I have said repeatedly. One is a perfectly legal act, and the other one involves defacing someone’s property, presumably making it some kind of misdemeanor. But that’s the only difference I see, unless there is trespassing involved. But there should definitely not be a different punishment for spray painting the swastika versus spray painting “Go Bears!”

Last edited by SlackerInc; 09-18-2019 at 08:01 PM.
  #78  
Old 09-18-2019, 08:01 PM
IvoryTowerDenizen's Avatar
IvoryTowerDenizen is offline
Retired Straight Dope Staff
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: North Shore of LI
Posts: 19,427
It has to be a crime first.
  #79  
Old 09-18-2019, 08:05 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Obviously I do, just as I have said repeatedly. One is a perfectly legal act, and the other one involves defacing someone’s property, presumably making it some kind of misdemeanor. But that’s the only difference I see, unless there is trespassing involved. But there should definitely not be a different punishment for spray painting the swastika versus spray painting “Go Bears!”
The difference is that the swastika is the implication of a direct threat: "We want to Holocaust you" (or something to that effect.) Whereas "Go Bears!" is a mere nuisance and no threat. Yes, the sign holding it is also a threat, so it's somewhat murkier, but the swastika and Bear-cheering aren't the same.

Last edited by Velocity; 09-18-2019 at 08:06 PM.
  #80  
Old 09-18-2019, 08:24 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,574
Carrying "Go Bears!" sign = "I am a fan of a sports team, and I follow the law."
Carrying a Swastika sign = "I am a dumbshit who supports racist genocide, but I'm following the law (for now at least)."
Spraypainting "Go Bears!" on a synagogue="I am a fan of a sports team, and I'm willing to break the law in support of the team."
Spraypainting a swastika on a synagogue="I am a dumbshit who supports racist violence, and I'm clearly willing to break the law as part of that support of racist violence."

The fourth item on the list is way, way worse than the combination of its parts. When someone combines a message of hate and a demonstrated willingness to break the law, that's way worse than either element individually.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 09-18-2019 at 08:24 PM.
  #81  
Old 09-18-2019, 08:26 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
The difference is that the swastika is the implication of a direct threat: "We want to Holocaust you" (or something to that effect.) Whereas "Go Bears!" is a mere nuisance and no threat. Yes, the sign holding it is also a threat, so it's somewhat murkier, but the swastika and Bear-cheering aren't the same.

Of course they are not the same. But as you acknowledged, neither are the two signs. They differ in precisely the same way. So logically, if the difference between the signs does not change the act of carrying it from a legal to an illegal one, then putting the same messages in graffiti should not make a misdemeanor a felony.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 09-18-2019 at 08:27 PM.
  #82  
Old 09-18-2019, 08:33 PM
IvoryTowerDenizen's Avatar
IvoryTowerDenizen is offline
Retired Straight Dope Staff
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: North Shore of LI
Posts: 19,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Of course they are not the same. But as you acknowledged, neither are the two signs. They differ in precisely the same way. So logically, if the difference between the signs does not change the act of carrying it from a legal to an illegal one, then putting the same messages in graffiti should not make a misdemeanor a felony.
Again, there needs to be a crime first, and then a determination if itís a hate crime.

Just like petty theft is a misdemeanor but grand larceny is a felony. Both a thefts, but the qualifier changes the degree.
  #83  
Old 09-18-2019, 08:35 PM
Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 28,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Kabong View Post
Great. Now put yourself in a DA's shoes and kindly explain how you will convince a jury to convict on your mind-reading of a suspect's intentions.

Sheesh.
That actually made me laugh out loud. Do you think those convicted of it confessed their soul in court to Perry Mason? The jury only needs to believe hate was involved. Not hard to do with a brutal mob attack on video.
  #84  
Old 09-18-2019, 08:51 PM
HeweyLogan's Avatar
HeweyLogan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 609
This whole debate right here is why I wish they'd get rid of the 'hate crime' designation and leave the severity of the punishment up to the judge or jury instead of these add-ons that do nothing but inflame either side. We already have designations that include harsher sentences, which in this case the charge of rioting seems appropriate (some of those charged face up to twenty years in prison, if not more). In other words enforce the laws that are already on the books. Leave the 'hate' part out of it and any other crimes.

The sooner we do that the sooner we move on to the important issue of why this is happening in the first place, which as a worker in Minneapolis I wish would have more urgency and attention then what's been happening up to this point in my city.
  #85  
Old 09-18-2019, 08:54 PM
El_Kabong's Avatar
El_Kabong is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Smack Dab in the Middle
Posts: 15,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
That actually made me laugh out loud. Do you think those convicted of it confessed their soul in court to Perry Mason? The jury only needs to believe hate was involved. Not hard to do with a brutal mob attack on video.
I see. So if this is so easy, why has the Minneapolis DA declined to pursue hate crime charges for any of the many defendants? Take all the time you need.
  #86  
Old 09-18-2019, 11:16 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,966
Quote:
Originally Posted by IvoryTowerDenizen View Post
It should be a crime that is hard to prove, given that it requires making assumptions on someone's thoughts (other categories do that too, and should also be a high bar to meet). However, itís an important category to have, since what we call hate crimes are often a form of intimidation that has its roots in domestic terrorism.

Targeting someone because they are Jewish makes it scary for a Jew to worship openly. Attacking someone for being black can be used to keep blacks out certain neighborhoods or away from polling places. It has a cumulative ripple effect that goes beyond the individual victim, but impacts the the group from which the victim is a member.

Certainly someone from a majority group can be a victim of a hate crime, but the impetus for the hate crime designation was to get at people who used violence or the threat of violence to keep disenfranchised and minority people down. You canít separate the category from its history, even if it it has expanded beyond it.
It is something to think about. Perhaps the designation also allows higher authorities such as the federal government to intervene when states and municipalities donít.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
I'm generally a fan of narrowly defined laws, so I don't see that as a drawback. FBI statistics say that around 8000 charges of violating hate crime laws were made in 2017, although I can't find any statistics about conviction rates.

Not sure how being able to put give who spray paints a swastika on a synagogue a longer sentence than somebody who spray paints "Go Bears!" on a synagogue is "counterproductive." What end do you think we would be better able to achieve by giving those two offenses the same punishment?
Counterproductive because of politics when something is or isnít a hate crime due to either the victims or criminals being part of group that is or isnít convenient to have the act so labeled.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HeweyLogan View Post
This whole debate right here is why I wish they'd get rid of the 'hate crime' designation and leave the severity of the punishment up to the judge or jury instead of these add-ons that do nothing but inflame either side. We already have designations that include harsher sentences, which in this case the charge of rioting seems appropriate (some of those charged face up to twenty years in prison, if not more). In other words enforce the laws that are already on the books. Leave the 'hate' part out of it and any other crimes.

The sooner we do that the sooner we move on to the important issue of why this is happening in the first place, which as a worker in Minneapolis I wish would have more urgency and attention then what's been happening up to this point in my city.
Exactly. Murder or hate murder is still murder.

Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Kabong View Post
I see. So if this is so easy, why has the Minneapolis DA declined to pursue hate crime charges for any of the many defendants? Take all the time you need.
Probably politics.
  #87  
Old 09-19-2019, 02:36 AM
El_Kabong's Avatar
El_Kabong is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Smack Dab in the Middle
Posts: 15,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Probably politics.
Just as probably, as outlined in post #23.
  #88  
Old 09-19-2019, 02:53 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,647
Let’s turn this around and look at it a different way. Whatever punishment you would envision for this as a “hate crime”, why do you think it’s too severe for this just as an “ordinary” crime of recreational violence?
  #89  
Old 09-19-2019, 04:49 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Letís turn this around and look at it a different way. Whatever punishment you would envision for this as a ďhate crimeĒ, why do you think itís too severe for this just as an ďordinaryĒ crime of recreational violence?
Hate crimes are essentially terrorism. Let's go with the following hypothetical. If gay men are targeted and beaten for being sighted at a gay bar, it makes gay men afraid to walk openly in the street. All gay men, all the time, because there are people targeting them, specifically, for beatings. The hate crime impacts all gay men in a direct way.

If a gang of thugs beats someone up during a robbery, everyone shares the concern equally. Nobody is afraid to be who they are, to be openly what they are, to be free to walk the streets just like everyone else. That attack is part of society as a whole, and can be treated as simply an act of violence, that we all deal with equally.
  #90  
Old 09-19-2019, 06:36 AM
Machine Elf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Challenger Deep
Posts: 12,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
The jury only needs to believe hate was involved. Not hard to do with a brutal mob attack on video.
The jury needs to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime was motivated by hate that is based on protected class.

At present, the US list of protected classes includes:
  • Race
  • Color
  • Religion or creed
  • National origin or ancestry
  • Sex
  • Age
  • Physical or mental disability
  • Veteran status
  • Genetic information
  • Citizenship

"You're not from around here" is not a protected class, so hatred based on "you're not from around here" does not meet the legal standard for defining this as a hate crime.

The mere fact, by itself, of black assailants attacking a white victim (or vice versa) is not enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the attack was racially motivated. There needs to be something else, e.g. the use of racial epithets by the assailants during the attack, or a pattern of attacking only people of a certain race despite having opportunities to attack people of other races, to serve as evidence of racial hatred.
  #91  
Old 09-19-2019, 09:35 AM
Tired and Cranky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,566
I don't know how often I agree with foodstuffs but Cheesesteak is right.

I used to oppose hate crimes legislation because it seemed like it was punishing the expressive conduct. Courts have rightfully rejected this view because crimes aren't protected speech. Hate crimes legislation is small way of protecting people's ability to participate in public, without regard to their race, color, religion, etc. It's a fundamental civil rights issue.
  #92  
Old 09-19-2019, 09:49 AM
madsircool is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,652
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post

If a gang of thugs beats someone up during a robbery, everyone shares the concern equally. Nobody is afraid to be who they are, to be openly what they are, to be free to walk the streets just like everyone else. That attack is part of society as a whole, and can be treated as simply an act of violence, that we all deal with equally.
This is complete nonsense. Random acts of group violence terrorize the weakest and most helpless portions of society. For elderly people who need to go to the doctor or shop, their stress levels would be through the roof.

If a group is targeting all others for violent attack except their own group then that should be enough to prove a hate crime.
  #93  
Old 09-19-2019, 10:07 AM
Machine Elf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Challenger Deep
Posts: 12,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by madsircool View Post
If a group is targeting all others for violent attack except their own group then that should be enough to prove a hate crime.
Not as the law is currently written.
  #94  
Old 09-19-2019, 10:31 AM
IvoryTowerDenizen's Avatar
IvoryTowerDenizen is offline
Retired Straight Dope Staff
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: North Shore of LI
Posts: 19,427
It’s like at work- certain policy violations come under title IX, if the person is in a protected class. Similar acts not against a protected class can be sanctioned by the employer, but not under title IX rules.

You cannot erase the history of systemic disenfranchisement that these laws are trying address, no matter how much you’d like to.
  #95  
Old 09-19-2019, 10:36 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by madsircool View Post
If a group is targeting all others for violent attack
This is going to sound like etymological nitpicking, but it isn't.

You can't "target" all others, because to target something means to select a specific object for your attack. "Everybody but me and my friends" isn't a specific target it's just random violent crime.

Random violent crime is subject to punishment, but not special punishment because it isn't special. You don't need to create a new punishment for it, just make the normal punishment appropriate.

Targeted violent crime is special because the act of targeting serves to increase the impact of that crime on the targeted group. A group who, already, has to deal with all the same fears of regular violent crime that everyone else does.
  #96  
Old 09-19-2019, 11:39 AM
engineer_comp_geek's Avatar
engineer_comp_geek is offline
Robot Mod in Beta Testing
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 25,005
Moderator Note

Quote:
Originally Posted by HeweyLogan View Post
If it were you maybe.
Don't wish harm on another poster.
  #97  
Old 09-19-2019, 11:42 AM
engineer_comp_geek's Avatar
engineer_comp_geek is offline
Robot Mod in Beta Testing
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 25,005
Moderator Warning

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambivalid View Post
I got everything i needed to make what I guess to be an accurate surmisal of this OP without even clicking on the thread. Title/username combo alone gave me *more* than enough info to know this was a vile, racist, whataboutist piece of predictable garbage.

So how'd I do?
This is IMHO, not the Pit. The "Title/username combo" clearly indicates that you are attacking/insulting the user and not attacking the post, so this is an official warning for personal insults.
  #98  
Old 09-19-2019, 11:46 AM
engineer_comp_geek's Avatar
engineer_comp_geek is offline
Robot Mod in Beta Testing
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 25,005
Moderator Action

This thread has turned into more of a debate than just a call for opinions, so let's move this over to Great Debates (from IMHO).
  #99  
Old 09-19-2019, 12:43 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,966
Quote:
Originally Posted by IvoryTowerDenizen View Post
Itís like at work- certain policy violations come under title IX, if the person is in a protected class. Similar acts not against a protected class can be sanctioned by the employer, but not under title IX rules.

You cannot erase the history of systemic disenfranchisement that these laws are trying address, no matter how much youíd like to.
Every human is in at least 8 of the classes Machine Elf listed.
  #100  
Old 09-19-2019, 12:47 PM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Just outside of Titletown
Posts: 22,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Every human is in at least 8 of the classes Machine Elf listed.
And when you can demonstrate that the attack was because of a specific value of one of those classes then you have a hate crime.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:11 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017