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 come the descrition of the attack from the victim.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
(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.
I disagree too. Of course, I never said that, ever. What I said was:
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?)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Maybe you should try it. You can obfuscate with the best of them.
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
“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.
In related news, a Gainsville, GA man is convicted of a hate crime for assaulting a Hispanic girl and her grandmother at a funeral:
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
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
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
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.
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