Hate crime that wasn't called one.

Ok, I found another article. From Vang's words alone, I just don't see how this didn't have something to do with hate.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/467/5616664.html

And I'd really like to know why he shot a woman who he admits had no gun. What kind of threat was she?

0 Replies

Baldimo:

The Wisconsin hate crime law is a penalty enhancement law. That is, additional time is assessed if the crime in question is a hate crime.

authors of the Wisconsin hate crime law wrote:

c) If the crime committed under sub. (1) is a felony, the maximum fine prescribed by law for the crime may be increased by not more than $5,000 and the maximum period of imprisonment prescribed by law for the crime may be increased by not more than 5 years.

Source.

The prosecutor went for, and got, a conviction for first degree murder with a penalty of life in prison. No penalty enhancement is relevant. That is why the prosecutor did not even bother. The prosecutor felt the evidence clearly indicated a crime with the ultimate penalty, so he directed his energies toward securing a conviction for that crime.

0 Replies

Kelticwizard,

I can kind of see Baldimo's question though. How often are convicted criminals given outrageous sentences and not the death penalty? Jeffrey Dahmer got what (some ungodly amount of years) because of the crimes. He would spend no more time in jail for one crime than he would for ten. He was never going to get out of jail and neither is Vang. But, just to emphasize the heinousness of the crimes, Dahmer received an incredible amount of time.

I think Baldimo is just questioning why, in this case, all the circumstances were not taken into account if there was evidence of a hate crime. That is the way I understand his question.

0 Replies

1. We still don't know who had the gun. 2. It seems Vang killed because of anger and instinct rather than threat. 3. We're not sure whether racial epithets were used, but still not an excuse to kill. 4. Vang probably didn't understand the culture of property as practiced in Wisconsin. And 5. Vang killed more people than seemed necessary even for self-defense.

0 Replies

I have to disagree with the not understanding the culture of property one. He was arrested for trespassing before so he obviously knew it was wrong. We, we do know Vang had a gun though.

But you are right, he had no excuse to kill and killing that many especially shooting them in the back does tend to render a self-defense defense pretty shaky.

0 Replies

Momma Angel:

Okay, I suppose sending someone to jail for 300 years instead of life in prison might send a message of sorts-or in Dahmer's case, assuage the public's desire for vengeance.

But in this case, the additional penalty is so small compared to the sentence of first degree murder, that such a message will not be sent.

If someone beats someone up, and would normally receive a sentence of 2 years, but gets seven years because it is a hate crime, then a message will be sent.

But a message of life imprisonment versus life in prison plus five years is truly irrelevant.

0 Replies

Oh, I agree with you. Personally, I don't get the five life sentences for five deaths, etc. I man, reality is you are convicted and you can only spend one liftime in jail.

But in many cases, defendants are not charged with every count for many reasons.

0 Replies

I'm wondering why Baldimo hasn't run for District Attorney. Apparently he could do a better job.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

This was a hate crime and it wasn't stated as one.

Upon what basis do you call it a hate crime? That the victims allegedly used racial epithets?

You can't project that onto the criminal in this case. If you want to call it a hate crime then you need to establish the racial motivation on the side of the criminal, the alleged racial epithets by the victims don't count, you know.

Quote:

It should have been.

Show us.

Quote:

My point is that society only thinks that white people kill because of ones race and as we can see in this case it just isn't true.

We do? You haven't shown us anything that establishes that the criminal killed because of race. Sounds more like killing for being insulted, something nobody here is even justifying (despite your complaints about that too).

Baldimo wrote:

I say he was hunting whitey.

Upon what evidence do you say so?

Baldimo, there are a lot of decent cases in which the queer "hate crime" classification can be questioned, but I think you are barking up the wrong tree here.

That this wasn't classified as a hate crime seems to have more to do with it failing to have met any criteria for such a crime than any kind of social injustice you are railing at.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Personally, I don't get the five life sentences for five deaths, etc. I man, reality is you are convicted and you can only spend one liftime in jail.

I think it is because "life sentences" can be commuted. If someone is sentenced to several such sentences it increases the odds of it actually lasting a lifetime.

0 Replies

MA, We know Vang had a gun; but we don't know who else had one. As for trespassing on property, it would depend on how somebody from another country would interpret it. In some cultures, people tend to share what they have with others, and "private property" is a foreign concept. I'm not saying it's an excuse to trespass or kill.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Momma Angel wrote:
Personally, I don't get the five life sentences for five deaths, etc. I man, reality is you are convicted and you can only spend one liftime in jail.

I think it is because "life sentences" can be commuted. If someone is sentenced to several such sentences it increases the odds of it actually lasting a lifetime.

Well, I have to admit that sure makes sense. Thank you for pointing that out to me.

0 Replies

In many Hispanic communities, they say "my house is your house."

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

In many Hispanic communities, they say "my house is your house."

What does that have to do with it? Vang was not hispanic and neither were the ones he killed. The man lived in this country for twenty years! He was in the National Guard. Do you really believe he had no concept of property belonging to someone else? He surely got some clue when he was arrested for trespassing before.

0 Replies

MA, I didn't say Vang was Hispanic. What I was trying to relay was that different cultures interpret "private property" differently than Americans. Many Hispanics live in the US. They share what they have. Just because people come to this country, it doesn't mean they leave behind their cultural upbringing.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

MA, I didn't say Vang was Hispanic. What I was trying to relay was that different cultures interpret "private property" differently than Americans. Many Hispanics live in the US. They share what they have. Just because people come to this country, it doesn't mean they leave behind their cultural upbringing.

I understand that C.I. But, after being in this country for twenty years, virtually growing up here, I don't think this can be considered in this case. Even if he did not understand the boundaries of property, surely he understood the boundaries of killing. I probably wouldn't have such a hard time finding sympathy for Vang if he hadn't shot four of them in the back or an unarmed woman. Sometimes, there just are no excuses good enough to justify certain behaviors.

0 Replies

I don't think his cultural upbringing even played any part, did it?

This seems to be a discussion about several controversial sociological angles that are oddly unrepresented in the very case sparking the discussion...

0 Replies

Well, I certainly don't think it had any part in it. I actually do feel there was some hate on Vang's part. I say this because of the shooting in the back and an unarmed woman. Even if he was afraid, why shoot four people running away from you and a woman who has no gun? From the article Baldimo (I think) posted earlier, it really seems there were some issues that Mr. Vang had that were not addressed.

0 Replies

There may well have been some "hate", but it would have to have been hate based on the object of the hatred being a member of a group (e.g. whites) for legal classification as a "hate crime".

He may well have had "hate" for them, but if it was for insulting him and not because he hates whites it won't count as a hate crime, "just" murder.

In law, it has to be a crime that is motivated by the victim's membership in a group (said groups usually defined in law as well, such as racial groups, or even political groups), not the mere presence of "hate".

0 Replies

Ok, then in a legal sense, you are right. It doesn't appear it could be classified as a hate crime.

But, let me ask a question. The victims in this case were white. Does that qualify as membership in a group? If not, why?

0 Replies

Hate crime that wasn't called one.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know