# The ultimate irony--Gay bashing attack at the Stonewall Inn **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 5, 2010, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimate-irony-gay-bashing-attack-at-the-stonewall-inn/556112 "2010-10-05T13:27:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimate-irony-gay-bashing-attack-at-the-stonewall-inn/556112/1 "2010-10-05T13:27:30Z")
For all you youngsters, NYC’s [Stonerwall Inn](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots) is the bar where the Gay Liberation movement began. Last night, Stonrwall was the site of a homophobic attack. [News story here](http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/10/05/2010-10-05_i_still_love_new_york_victim_of_brutal_gay_bashing_benjamin_carver_reveals_in_fa.html). You’ve come a long way, baby, but you’ve still got miles to go before you sleep. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimate-irony-gay-bashing-attack-at-the-stonewall-inn/556112/2 "2010-10-05T13:40:28Z")
I see a robbery of a victim who happened to be gay, but where is the evidence that it happened because of the orientation of the victim? Even the victim said “Guys wanted money. Cops got them.” ---
**Author:** ![descamisado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e480ec/32.png) [@descamisado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/descamisado)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimate-irony-gay-bashing-attack-at-the-stonewall-inn/556112/3 "2010-10-05T13:42:33Z")
They were quoted as saying the following leading up to the attack (another local paper said they asked him if he was gay before they attacked him; I’m trying to corroborate that): > [@](#): > > “What kind of bar is this?” > > The victim responded, “This is a gay bar.” > > “Get away from me f----t! I don’t like gay people. Don’t pee next to me,” Besides the fact that I’m wondering how a 17-year-old got into a bar, they had to know that the Stonewall was a gay bar, it being famous and internationally known and all, and on a block in the West Village with several gay bars. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimate-irony-gay-bashing-attack-at-the-stonewall-inn/556112/4 "2010-10-05T13:46:54Z")
But is that language alone strong enough to make it a hate crime? ---
**Author:** ![descamisado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e480ec/32.png) [@descamisado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/descamisado)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimate-irony-gay-bashing-attack-at-the-stonewall-inn/556112/5 "2010-10-05T13:57:44Z")
I’m not talking about simply the language, but what was said during the exchange and the violence that followed it. If they had simply attempted to rob Carver that would be one thing but to just happen to _wander into The Stonewall_, have that exchange and then have it end up in violence is a cumulation of evidence that I think even you can see. It’s interesting that they’re both claiming to have been breaking up a fight the other was involved in, and also interesting that the existence of Francis’ gay sister is being held up as a vouchsafe for him. (I’m thinking now the “Are you gay” angle was extrapolated from the fact that they confirmed it was a gay bar before beginning their assault.) ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimate-irony-gay-bashing-attack-at-the-stonewall-inn/556112/6 "2010-10-05T14:02:36Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > But is that language alone strong enough to make it a hate crime? Yes. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimate-irony-gay-bashing-attack-at-the-stonewall-inn/556112/7 "2010-10-05T14:35:55Z")
Don’t pee… Don’t pee… Don’t pee so close to me… ---
**Author:** ![shy\_guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a6a055/32.png) [@shy\_guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shy_guy)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimate-irony-gay-bashing-attack-at-the-stonewall-inn/556112/8 "2010-10-05T16:49:50Z")
> [@descamisado](#): > > Besides the fact that I’m wondering how a 17-year-old got into a bar, they had to know that the Stonewall was a gay bar, it being famous and internationally known and all, and on a block in the West Village with several gay bars. This. Unless they were completely and utterly blitzed out of their minds, there is no way in Hell they did not know that they just walked into a gay bar. Even if they hadn’t ever heard of Stonewall, that area is littered with (obvious) gay bars, and anybody possessing both eyesight and the ability to hear would realize it’s a gay bar before walking in. I know this because I’ve been to Stonewall and bars in the surrounding area dozens of times. I’m appalled by this. I hope the perpetrators are punished to the fullest extent of the law. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimate-irony-gay-bashing-attack-at-the-stonewall-inn/556112/9 "2010-10-05T17:19:22Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > But is that language alone strong enough to make it a hate crime? > [@tdn](#): > > > [@Morgenstern](#): > > > > But is that language alone strong enough to make it a hate crime? > > Yes. Could you provide a bit more detail on why you’re so sure? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimate-irony-gay-bashing-attack-at-the-stonewall-inn/556112/10 "2010-10-05T18:31:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@Morgenstern](#): > > > > But is that language alone strong enough to make it a hate crime? > > > [@tdn](#): > > > > Yes. > > Could you provide a bit more detail on why you’re so sure? Just in case you hadn’t noticed, this is an Internet message board, not a court of law. Around here, we form opinions about events in the news on the preponderance of the evidence available, not as sworn jurors with a duty not to convict unless guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. There is a significant difference. Were we to wait for proof of the sort a jury has the right to demand, nobody would ever be entitled to form an opinion about anything. There’s some value in your knee-jerk reaction to any assertion regarding a potential crime, to make us think whether we actually have all the facts – but it does get old. Yes, Francis and Orlando may possibly have been sufficiently clueless and incompetent in their alleged shakedown attempt that it does not rise to the level of a hate crime – but would you bet your investment income on it? I find that I can form an opinion on the basis of known facts, then alter it if necessary as more facts become available – as I did in the Lower Merion laptop spycam case of a few months ago. Do you seriously believe nobody should comment on the news until all the evidence is made public? Or do you just enjoy the “Gotcha!” moments when someone expresses an opinion not completely substantiated to your lawyer’s eagle eye to the level expected in a court of law, and you can jump them on it? ---
**Author:** ![Kolga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e56c9b/32.png) [@Kolga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kolga)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimate-irony-gay-bashing-attack-at-the-stonewall-inn/556112/11 "2010-10-05T18:42:38Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Or do you just enjoy the “Gotcha!” moments when someone expresses an opinion not completely substantiated to your lawyer’s eagle eye to the level expected in a court of law, and you can jump them on it? What, are you new around here? That’s **Bricker’s** raison d’etre. He takes legal nit-picking to a sublime art form. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimate-irony-gay-bashing-attack-at-the-stonewall-inn/556112/12 "2010-10-05T18:59:21Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > Could you provide a bit more detail on why you’re so sure? > > Just in case you hadn’t noticed, this is an Internet message board, not a court of law. Around here, we form opinions about events in the news on the preponderance of the evidence available, not as sworn jurors with a duty not to convict unless guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. There is a significant difference. Were we to wait for proof of the sort a jury has the right to demand, nobody would ever be entitled to form an opinion about anything. There’s some value in your knee-jerk reaction to any assertion regarding a potential crime, to make us think whether we actually have all the facts – but it does get old. Yes, Francis and Orlando may possibly have been sufficiently clueless and incompetent in their alleged shakedown attempt that it does not rise to the level of a hate crime – but would you bet your investment income on it? I find that I can form an opinion on the basis of known facts, then alter it if necessary as more facts become available – as I did in the Lower Merion laptop spycam case of a few months ago. Do you seriously believe nobody should comment on the news until all the evidence is made public? Or do you just enjoy the “Gotcha!” moments when someone expresses an opinion not completely substantiated to your lawyer’s eagle eye to the level expected in a court of law, and you can jump them on it? “Yes” isn’t an opinion, and juries don’t decide which charges to bring against a criminal suspect. That is a matter of law and sometimes prosecutorial discretion. You don’t get to yell “HATE CRIME!!!111” if you don’t know what a hate crime actually entails. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimate-irony-gay-bashing-attack-at-the-stonewall-inn/556112/13 "2010-10-05T19:07:27Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > Could you provide a bit more detail on why you’re so sure? > > Just in case you hadn’t noticed, this is an Internet message board, not a court of law. Around here, we form opinions about events in the news on the preponderance of the evidence available, not as sworn jurors with a duty not to convict unless guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. There is a significant difference. Were we to wait for proof of the sort a jury has the right to demand, nobody would ever be entitled to form an opinion about anything. All true. But when someone asks a question like, “But is that language alone strong enough to make it a hate crime?” then it seems to me we move beyond the general realm of bullshitting on an Internet message board, and begin to trigger this particular board’s supposed motto: “Fighting ignorance.” I took **Morgenstern** ’s question to be both a reasonable one and a factual one: assuming that what was reported in the article is the evidence the jury hears, is that legally sufficient to sustain the hate crime enhancement codified in New York Penal Law § 485.05. > [@](#): > > Do you seriously believe nobody should comment on the news until all the evidence is made public? Or do you just enjoy the “Gotcha!” moments when someone expresses an opinion not completely substantiated to your lawyer’s eagle eye to the level expected in a court of law, and you can jump them on it? I enjoy accuracy. I have no problem with commenting on the news. But when someone asks a factually based question, and there’s a confident reply, it seems to me that there’s some value in exploring what that confidence is based on. If **tdn** ’s response is, “Hey, beats me; I wuz just bullshitting, like Polycarp said,” that’s fine. And if he said, “Yes, I am confident, because of factual reasons (A), (B), and (C),” then those reasons can be discussed at length. But you cannot credibly argue that I’m in the wrong here, **Polycarp**. There was a specific factual question asked. The questioner is entitled to get a factual answer, and to know on what basis that factual answer rests. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimate-irony-gay-bashing-attack-at-the-stonewall-inn/556112/14 "2010-10-05T19:18:32Z")
Also, **Polycarp** , you’re a coward. I say that because like a herd animal, you seek to cloak your own love of ignorant chatter in the mantle of the majority: > [@Polycarp](#): > > Around here, we form opinions about events in the news … Oh, “we” do, do we? Undoubtedly many of “us,” do, **Polycarp**. I am sure that many of “us” love the echo chamber reinforcement of “our” views without the confusion of any dissenting voices, especially when, as here, the dissenting voice is pointing out an inconvenient fact that might disturb “our” comfortable superiority of the herd alignment of thought. But I like to think that many more of “us” are interested in actual fact, in reason and truth, regardless of where that reason might lead, and many of “us” welcome hearing about contrary fact as an opportunity to either defend “our” positions or abandon them as insufficiently supported by fact. What do “you” think? ---
**Author:** ![Sinaptics](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/278dde/32.png) [@Sinaptics](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaptics)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimate-irony-gay-bashing-attack-at-the-stonewall-inn/556112/15 "2010-10-05T19:59:08Z")
[QUOTE=NY Hate Crimes Statue] A person commits a hate crime when he or she commits a specified offense and either: (a) intentionally selects the person against whom the offense is committed or intended to be committed in whole or in substantial part because of a belief or perception regarding the race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation of a person, regardless of whether the belief or perception is correct, or (b) intentionally commits the act or acts constituting the offense in whole or in substantial part because of a belief or perception regarding the race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation of a person, regardless of whether the belief or perception is correct. 2. Proof of race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation of the defend- ant, the victim or of both the defendant and the victim does not, by itself, constitute legally sufficient evidence satisfying the people’s burden under paragraph (a) or (b) of subdivision one of this section. 3. A “specified offense” is an offense defined by any of the following: [/QUOTE] Afterwards is a gigantic list of possible offices such as assault, rape, etc. [http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/legalservices/ch107\_hate\_crimes\_2000.htm](http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/legalservices/ch107_hate_crimes_2000.htm) From my armchair position, it seems like crimes are rarely prosecuted as hate crimes, even when the the statutes seem to clearly apply. So I have little hope of this actually being prosecuted as such, even supposing it WAS a hate crime. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimate-irony-gay-bashing-attack-at-the-stonewall-inn/556112/16 "2010-10-05T20:05:16Z")
> [@](#): > > Also, Polycarp, you’re a coward. I say that because like a herd animal, you seek to cloak your own love of ignorant chatter in the mantle of the majority: > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by Polycarp > > Around here, we form opinions about events in the news … > > Oh, “we” do, do we? > > Undoubtedly many of “us,” do, Polycarp. I am sure that many of “us” love the echo chamber reinforcement of “our” views without the confusion of any dissenting voices, especially when, as here, the dissenting voice is pointing out an inconvenient fact that might disturb “our” comfortable superiority of the herd alignment of thought. > > But I like to think that many more of “us” are interested in actual fact, in reason and truth, regardless of where that reason might lead, and many of “us” welcome hearing about contrary fact as an opportunity to either defend “our” positions or abandon them as insufficiently supported by fact. > > What do “you” think? “I” think, that, as a “lawyer”, you probably have “better means” to satisfy your “interest” in actual “fact” than pouncing on random statements on an internet message board, but, since this seems to be your “preferred” method, then it’s “probably” because “the “Gotcha!” moments when someone expresses an opinion not completely substantiated to your lawyer’s eagle eye to the level expected in a court of law, and you can jump them on it” is your “actual” goal. Since you asked, and all. Anyway, for more information on NYC hate crimes, here’s a list of the operative laws: [http://www.partnersagainsthate.org/laws/list-of-hate-crime-laws.html?state=ny](http://www.partnersagainsthate.org/laws/list-of-hate-crime-laws.html?state=ny) That lists four items: > [@](#): > > Hate Crime Laws: > NY > > NY CLS Penal § 485.05 > Defines hate crimes as specified offenses committed against persons intentionally selected “because of a belief or perception regarding the race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation” of those persons. \>\> More information > NY > > NY CLS Penal § 240.31 > Enhances penalty for aggravated harassment. \>\> More information > NY > > NY CLS Penal § 240.30 > Covers aggravated harassment against a person “because of a belief or perception regarding such person’s race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation, regardless or whether the belief or perception is correct.” \>\> More information > NY > > NY CLS Civ R § 40-c > Prohibits discrimination or harassment based on race, creed, color, national origin, sex, marital status or disability. \>\> More information I can’t figure out how to work the more info links. Maybe someone here can sort it out. However, Googling laws at the NY State Assembly webpage turned up this: > **[Bill Search and Legislative Information | New York State Assembly](https://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A08590)** > > News and Information from the New York State Assembly > [@](#): > > A08590 Summary: > > BILL NO A08590 > > SAME AS No same as > > SPONSOR Hooper > > COSPNSR > > MLTSPNSR > > Amd S485.05, Pen L > > States that verbally using commonly known profane slurs or biased language > during the commission of specified offenses shall be presumptive evidence of a > hate crime. Oh! hang, on I found the actual hate crime law: [link to text of the following law](http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&QUERYDATA=$$PEN485.05$$@TXPEN0485.05+&LIST=SEA10+&BROWSER=BROWSER+&TOKEN=45998944+&TARGET=VIEW) > [@](#): > > § 485.05 Hate crimes. > 1. A person commits a hate crime when he or she commits a specified > offense and either: > (a) intentionally selects the person against whom the offense is > committed or intended to be committed in whole or in substantial part > because of a belief or perception regarding the race, color, national > origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability > or sexual orientation of a person, regardless of whether the belief or > perception is correct, or > (b) intentionally commits the act or acts constituting the offense in > whole or in substantial part because of a belief or perception regarding > the race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious > practice, age, disability or sexual orientation of a person, regardless > of whether the belief or perception is correct. > 2. Proof of race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, > religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation of the > defendant, the victim or of both the defendant and the victim does not, > by itself, constitute legally sufficient evidence satisfying the > people’s burden under paragraph (a) or (b) of subdivision one of this > section. > \* 3. A “specified offense” is an offense defined by any of the > following provisions of this chapter: section 120.00 (assault in the > third degree); section 120.05 (assault in the second degree); section > 120.10 (assault in the first degree); section 120.12 (aggravated assault > upon a person less than eleven years old); section 120.13 (menacing in > the first degree); section 120.14 (menacing in the second degree); > section 120.15 (menacing in the third degree); section 120.20 (reckless > endangerment in the second degree); section 120.25 (reckless > endangerment in the first degree); subdivision one of section 125.15 > (manslaughter in the second degree); subdivision one, two or four of > section 125.20 (manslaughter in the first degree); section 125.25 > (murder in the second degree); section 120.45 (stalking in the fourth > degree); section 120.50 (stalking in the third degree); section 120.55 > (stalking in the second degree); section 120.60 (stalking in the first > degree); subdivision one of section 130.35 (rape in the first degree); > subdivision one of section 130.50 (criminal sexual act in the first > degree); subdivision one of section 130.65 (sexual abuse in the first > degree); paragraph (a) of subdivision one of section 130.67 (aggravated > sexual abuse in the second degree); paragraph (a) of subdivision one of > section 130.70 (aggravated sexual abuse in the first degree); section > 135.05 (unlawful imprisonment in the second degree); section 135.10 > (unlawful imprisonment in the first degree); section 135.20 (kidnapping > in the second degree); section 135.25 (kidnapping in the first degree); > section 135.60 (coercion in the second degree); section 135.65 (coercion > in the first degree); section 140.10 (criminal trespass in the third > degree); section 140.15 (criminal trespass in the second degree); > section 140.17 (criminal trespass in the first degree); section 140.20 > (burglary in the third degree); section 140.25 (burglary in the second > degree); section 140.30 (burglary in the first degree); section 145.00 > (criminal mischief in the fourth degree); section 145.05 (criminal > mischief in the third degree); section 145.10 (criminal mischief in the > second degree); section 145.12 (criminal mischief in the first degree); > section 150.05 (arson in the fourth degree); section 150.10 (arson in > the third degree); section 150.15 (arson in the second degree); section > 150.20 (arson in the first degree); section 155.25 (petit larceny); > section 155.30 (grand larceny in the fourth degree); section 155.35 > (grand larceny in the third degree); section 155.40 (grand larceny in > the second degree); section 155.42 (grand larceny in the first degree); > > section 160.05 (robbery in the third degree); section 160.10 (robbery in > the second degree); section 160.15 (robbery in the first degree); > section 240.25 (harassment in the first degree); subdivision one, two or > four of section 240.30 (aggravated harassment in the second degree); or > any attempt or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing offenses. > \* NB Effective until November 11, 2010 > \* 3. A “specified offense” is an offense defined by any of the > following provisions of this chapter: section 120.00 (assault in the > third degree); section 120.05 (assault in the second degree); section > 120.10 (assault in the first degree); section 120.12 (aggravated assault > upon a person less than eleven years old); section 120.13 (menacing in > the first degree); section 120.14 (menacing in the second degree); > section 120.15 (menacing in the third degree); section 120.20 (reckless > endangerment in the second degree); section 120.25 (reckless > endangerment in the first degree); section 121.12 (strangulation in the > second degree); section 121.13 (strangulation in the first degree); > subdivision one of section 125.15 (manslaughter in the second degree); > subdivision one, two or four of section 125.20 (manslaughter in the > first degree); section 125.25 (murder in the second degree); section > 120.45 (stalking in the fourth degree); section 120.50 (stalking in the > third degree); section 120.55 (stalking in the second degree); section > 120.60 (stalking in the first degree); subdivision one of section 130.35 > (rape in the first degree); subdivision one of section 130.50 (criminal > sexual act in the first degree); subdivision one of section 130.65 > (sexual abuse in the first degree); paragraph (a) of subdivision one of > section 130.67 (aggravated sexual abuse in the second degree); paragraph > (a) of subdivision one of section 130.70 (aggravated sexual abuse in the > first degree); section 135.05 (unlawful imprisonment in the second > degree); section 135.10 (unlawful imprisonment in the first degree); > section 135.20 (kidnapping in the second degree); section 135.25 > (kidnapping in the first degree); section 135.60 (coercion in the second > degree); section 135.65 (coercion in the first degree); section 140.10 > (criminal trespass in the third degree); section 140.15 (criminal > trespass in the second degree); section 140.17 (criminal trespass in the > first degree); section 140.20 (burglary in the third degree); section > 140.25 (burglary in the second degree); section 140.30 (burglary in the > first degree); section 145.00 (criminal mischief in the fourth degree); > section 145.05 (criminal mischief in the third degree); section 145.10 > (criminal mischief in the second degree); section 145.12 (criminal > mischief in the first degree); section 150.05 (arson in the fourth > degree); section 150.10 (arson in the third degree); section 150.15 > (arson in the second degree); section 150.20 (arson in the first > degree); section 155.25 (petit larceny); section 155.30 (grand larceny > in the fourth degree); section 155.35 (grand larceny in the third > degree); section 155.40 (grand larceny in the second degree); section > 155.42 (grand larceny in the first degree); section 160.05 (robbery in > the third degree); section 160.10 (robbery in the second degree); > section 160.15 (robbery in the first degree); section 240.25 (harassment > in the first degree); subdivision one, two or four of section 240.30 > (aggravated harassment in the second degree); or any attempt or > conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing offenses. > \* NB Effective November 11, 2010 > 4. For purposes of this section: > (a) the term “age” means sixty years old or more; > (b) the term “disability” means a physical or mental impairment that > substantially limits a major life activity. So the specified offense is assault & robbery, and it was committed immediately following the use of commonly known profane slurs, which NY law says is presumptive evidence of a hate crime. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimate-irony-gay-bashing-attack-at-the-stonewall-inn/556112/17 "2010-10-05T20:22:53Z")
Merneith, the section you quoted when you said; _So the specified offense is assault & robbery, and it was committed immediately following the use of commonly known profane slurs, which NY law says is presumptive evidence of a hate crime._ appears to be a pending legislative bill - A08590 Summary: BILL NO A08590. You’re not quoting that as NY law are you? ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimate-irony-gay-bashing-attack-at-the-stonewall-inn/556112/18 "2010-10-05T20:32:58Z")
Does this mean that Judy Garland will rise from where she’s been sleeping for 41 years and come back? ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimate-irony-gay-bashing-attack-at-the-stonewall-inn/556112/19 "2010-10-05T20:47:45Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Merneith, the section you quoted when you said; _So the specified offense is assault & robbery, and it was committed immediately following the use of commonly known profane slurs, which NY law says is presumptive evidence of a hate crime._ appears to be a pending legislative bill - A08590 Summary: BILL NO A08590. You’re not quoting that as NY law are you? Hmm. On rereading I think you’re correct. This looks like it’s set to amend the part of the law 485.05 that I quoted afterwards. In which case I guess that it’s a question for a jury to decide if the act (assault & burglary … or larceny, maybe, not burglar?) was committed and/or the victim selected because of the defendant’s beliefs about homosexuality and/or homosexuality. I would think that the defendant’s using the slurs indicated something about the defendant’s beliefs. But what do I know? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimate-irony-gay-bashing-attack-at-the-stonewall-inn/556112/20 "2010-10-05T20:50:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Also, **Polycarp** , you’re a coward. I say that because like a herd animal, you seek to cloak your own love of ignorant chatter in the mantle of the majority: > > > [@Polycarp](#): > > > > Around here, we form opinions about events in the news … > > Oh, “we” do, do we? > > Undoubtedly many of “us,” do, **Polycarp**. I am sure that many of “us” love the echo chamber reinforcement of “our” views without the confusion of any dissenting voices, especially when, as here, the dissenting voice is pointing out an inconvenient fact that might disturb “our” comfortable superiority of the herd alignment of thought. > > But I like to think that many more of “us” are interested in actual fact, in reason and truth, regardless of where that reason might lead, and many of “us” welcome hearing about contrary fact as an opportunity to either defend “our” positions or abandon them as insufficiently supported by fact. > > What do “you” think? I know what I mean by “hate crime” – an act that, in addition to being a crime when committed for any (or any non-permissible) motive (e.g., murder, assault, harassment), can also be demonstrated to have been motivated by reason of the victim’s membership in a protected non-chosen or chosen-as-morally-imperative class, such as being of a particular race, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, religion, etc. In point of fact, however, a hate crime resembles a baseball pitch – it ain’t anything until it’s called that by the person having the right to judge. While the law, as **Merneith** demonstrates, defines what constitutes a hate crime, whether act X is in fact a hate crime is up to the jury or to the judge in a bench trial, or to prosecutorial discretion as to whether to charge a hate crime, etc. I believe that “we” – meaning Dopers – have a right to form an opinion as to whether something constitutes a hate crime, hopefully with reference to the law in a given jurisdiction – but remember that in some states, gay-bashing is not a hate crime because sexual orientation is not there a protected class. IMO it still “is” a hate crime on the basis that even though the prevailing statute does not include it, the prevailing attitude among this Internet community is that it should be so included. I would also like, having answered you fairly and I think substantively, to see your response to this comment of **Merneith** ’s, with which I tend to agree: > [@Merneith](#): > > “I” think, that, as a “lawyer”, you probably have “better means” to satisfy your “interest” in actual “fact” than pouncing on random statements on an internet message board, but, since this seems to be your “preferred” method, then it’s “probably” because “the “Gotcha!” moments when someone expresses an opinion not completely substantiated to your lawyer’s eagle eye to the level expected in a court of law, and you can jump them on it” is your “actual” goal. Since you asked, and all. Remember, if you will, that I did say there was some value in your challenging A rush to judgment on the basis of only the facts available – I just find it tiresome, whenever there is a topic involving allegation of criminal misbehavior, your instant move to play Gotcha! on the basis of whether we as yet have all the facts. Done a bit less snarkily, with a concession that it seems that way now but may not prove out when all the facts are in, it could be a valuable part of a discussion. At present, it means that anyone expressing an opinion about a news story involving alleged criminal behavior can expect to be held by you to the criminal-trial standard immediately on the story breaking. (It is also fascinating that when the alleged miscreancy is political chicanery, you are Johnny-on-the-spot with the Gotcha! comment when the alleged perpetrator is a Republican, and nowhere near as willing to do the same when it is a Democrat. Since you asked, and all that. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimate-irony-gay-bashing-attack-at-the-stonewall-inn/556112.md?page=2)