Whites victims of hate crimes?

With the proposed “hate crime” legislation, can male whites be considered the victims of hate crimes?
One argument for: Many whites are assaulted by those of other races or ethnicities - some of whom expressed animosity or hate.
One argument against: White males are the dominant group, so only other races, gays or women need protection.
What do you think and why.

I thought everyone was covered. This is not just an issue about minorities, this is an issue about Hate (Duh). I was my undersatnding that if I as a Hispanic male were to attack a white male because we was white, then my assault could be prosecuted as a hate crime.

It’s really common sense. If a crime is commited on ANYONE because of race, disabilities, sexual preference, etc. then the perpetrator should be held as someone who commited a hate crime, regardless of what race they are.

Can anyone point out any flaws in this to me?
Keep in mind that someone has to be investigated into thier background and motives before the attack can be labeled a hate crime.
So, now with that out of the way. Is there anyone wrong with this?

(Sniffs loudly}

There is no such thing as a “white”, that’s just a derogatory term for a melanyne deficient individual.

You really ought to know better than this.

I agree with you Mercutio. I have been trying to dig up a credible link to the Long Island/Colin Ferguson shootings, but apparently he claimed that; a.)it was caused by “black rage”, which I am hoping someone will be able to explain WHY this is different than a hate crime and then, b.)it wasn’t him, he slept while a white man stole his gun, shot and killed six people and injured 19 others (yes, he just slept and slept, while the guy reloaded his gun and all) As far as I can tell this was never treated as a hate crime but for the life of me I cannot understand why. I also think a crime is a crime, whatever the motivation behind it.

For cites, if anyone is unfamilar with this case




Did the state of New York have a “hate” crime on the books when Ferguson went on his rampage? If it did, then he committed a hate crime.

I am not a fan of hate crime legisation, but there is certainly no reason to say that black-on-white crime would not be covered if you had such a law.

I should think that the 14th Amendment, which protects equal protection under the law, would require that hate crime legislation to apply to all racially motivated crimes, including black-on-white.

No debate here.

according to:
the FBI even waaaay back in 1995, they recorded hate crime stats, including those identified as hate crimes against whites.

Please note that every crime against an individual is not classified as a hate crime, so that the guy who robs the 7-11 and the clerk is Asian/white/black/hispanic/gay/whatever will likely not be classified as a hate crime.

I would imagine that, since we are not allowed to discriminate based on race, gender and (in many cases) sexual orientation, you would HAVE TO prosecte a case of black-on-white hate crimes, or even hetero bashing done to Fred Phelps as he is bashed whilest picketing a Gay Pride parade…

Yes, these are silly things to contemplate and not in the spirit of Hate Crime measures.

Another reason these laws bite, good intentions or not.

Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 US 476 (1993).

You know I thought he was punished under hate crimes statutes. His sentence was like 240 years. It came up here on the new for some reason. BTW, didn’t he represent himself?

Anyhow, “Black Rage” was susposed to be some kind of “mental insanity” type defense. Some knuckleheaded physcologist advanced it in the late eighties (Im looking for a cite) as a feeling of rage at injustices experienced by blacks due to left over racism. I thought it was largely discredited. I think I’ve seen it used as a plot device on a Lawyer shoe, but don’t know if it was ever used successfully in a real trial.

As I recall it, Colin Ferguson initially was defended by radical activist attorney Ron Kuby, who concocted (or at least promoted) the “black rage” insanity defense. (I know I’ve heard Kuby take credit for it on his radio show). Subsequently Fergusen, objecting to the idea that he might be nuts, took over his own defense, and represented himself (claiming that a white guy stole his gun etc.) in a bizarre and surreal trial.

I don’t think “black rage” has been successfully used in a trial (or even unsuccessfully - I don’t think Kuby lasted long enough to actually enter the plea).

Thanks IzzyRthat’s how I more or less remember it too.

[hijack] I seem to remember an exchange that went something like this:

Ferguson (addressing witness/victim): Can you tell me what happened on the day in question

Victim/Witness: Yes, I saw you shoot me

That’s the first thing that came to mind when it came up on the news the other day. Just wondering


PS: I don’t know what happened with my coding on that last post. and of course “shoe” should be “show”

Thanks Izzy and stuffin…everything I could find that I felt was credible didn’t state if he was tried for a hate crime or not.(I didn’t think the DavidDuke website was particularly credible) Sorry for the hijack.

The fact that everyone falls into a “protected class”, to use workplace discrimination terminology, is yet another reason why this is bad legislation.

The primary reason, though is that it’s criminalization of thought. (The following is probably not original, but I like it)–if I beat you up because you danced with my girlfriend, I get x years for battery. If I beat you up because you’re a racial/religious/preference minority and get x + 10 years, that means I get an extra 10 years in jail for what I think. And that ain’t right.

Black people do get prosecuted 1.5 times more than white people for hatecrimes.

The Libertarian Party recently had a press release about “hate-crime” legislation and how it is often applied to blacks who commit racially-motivated crimes against whites.


Personally, I happen to disagree with the LP’s premise. I think that if someone commits a crime simply because of the other person’s race, then they should be sentenced more harshly. That blacks are apparently committing such crimes more often than whites, even though the newspapers would make one think otherwise due to their sensationalist reporting of white-against-black hate crimes, is not a reason to tone down the laws.

I suppose they could have a point if juries are allowed to consider motivation in sentencing, but judges are the ones who actually create sentences, and so many judges are morons that I think we need laws specifying sentencing ranges to prevent them from dumping violent criminals back onto the streets with only a few months of probation.

So, in the end, yes, I think such laws are necessary. And I don’t see why they shouldn’t apply to anyone, of any race/religion/creed, if they commit a crime against someone else strictly because of the other person’s race/religion/creed.