Re: Hate crime that wasn't called one.
Baldimo wrote:Why is it that only white people can be tried for hate crimes?
my response is a bit tardy, but i was without internet for about 3 days. anyway, the answer is, non-white people are tried & convicted for hate crimes. for example, in 1993, the US Supreme Court upheld the sentencing of a black male under a Wisconsin hate-crime law. here's an excerpt from the Court's decision:
Quote:On the evening of October 7, 1989, a group of young black men and boys, including Mitchell, gathered at an apartment [508 U.S. 476, 480] complex in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Several members of the group discussed a scene from the motion picture "Mississippi Burning" in which a white man beat a young black boy who was praying. The group moved outside and Mitchell asked them: "`Do you all feel hyped up to move on some white people?'" Brief for Petitioner 4. Shortly thereafter, a young white boy approached the group on the opposite side of the street where they were standing. As the boy walked by, Mitchell said: "`You all want to **** somebody up? There goes a white boy; go get him.'" Id. at 4-5. Mitchell counted to three and pointed in the boy's direction. The group ran toward the boy, beat him severely, and stole his tennis shoes. The boy was rendered unconscious and remained in a coma for four days.
After a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Kenosha County, Mitchell was convicted of aggravated battery. Wis.Stat. 939.05 and 940.19(1m) (1989-1990). That offense ordinarily carries a maximum sentence of two years' imprisonment. 940.19(1m) and 939.50(3)(e). But because the jury found that Mitchell had intentionally selected his victim because of the boy's race, the maximum sentence for Mitchell's offense was increased to seven years under 939.645. That provision enhances the maximum penalty for an offense whenever the defendant "ntentionally selects the person against whom the crime . . . is committed . . . because of the race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry of that person. . . ." [508 U.S. 476, 481] 939.645(1)(b). 1 The Circuit Court sentenced Mitchell to four years' imprisonment for the aggravated battery.
Source
Momma Angel wrote:
But, let me ask a question. The victims in this case were white. Does that qualify as membership in a group? If not, why?
Yes,
everyone is a member of a group, which is why the crime has to be
based on said membership for the different legal distinction.
lest anyone think that the Mitchell case is the exception that proves the rule, there is the case of Ronald Taylor, a black male who killed 3 white men and wounded 2 others:
Quote:Hate Crime Charges In Pa. Shooting
WILKINSBURG, Pennsylvania, March 2000
(CBS) Ronald Taylor, 39, the black man accused of a shooting rampage that killed three white men and left two others critically wounded, has been charged with a hate crime. He also admitted to a history of mental illness.
A charge of ethnic intimidation, Pennsylvania's legal term for a hate crime, was added Thursday to a string of charges, including criminal homicide, that were filed against the suspect just after the shootings. Court documents said he shot the men with malicious intent "toward white males."
Webpage Title
If I understand this correctly, then for Vang to be guilty of a hate crime, he would have to come across a group of white people in the woods and say to himself, "Oh good, white people. I think I'll shoot them".
Whereas what happened is that he entered the woods for the purpose of hunting, and when the white owner of the property and his companions saw Vang trespassing, they told him to get off the property and very possibly threw in some racial insults, which enraged Vang and led to his shooting them. Which is a different thing altogether, and would seem not to qualify as a hate crime.
The Pennsylavania hate crime law under which the black man was charged in Yitwail's post specifically lays out the extra penalty for hate crime in homicides, which is 20 years extra. While less than the penalty given for simple first degree murder, it still is a substantial amount of time and might serve to send a message.
The Wisconsin law, Vang's state, carries a maximum penalty of five years additional for a hate crime.
Even if Vang were guilty of hate crime, which he appears not to be, I could easily see the prosecutor forgoing the charge if has Vang dead to rights on the murder of five unarmed people, several of which were running away from him.
Baldimo wrote:A fear crime? That is complete BS. There was one rifle between 8 people and he was afraid? I say he was hunting whitey.
Hunting whitey? Oh please...
kelticwizard wrote:If I understand this correctly, then for Vang to be guilty of a hate crime, he would have to come across a group of white people in the woods and say to himself, "Oh good, white people. I think I'll shoot them".
That's exactly what this thread is about, kelticwizard. Baldimo here believes that Vang was 'hunting whitey' and when he found some he thought, "Oh good, white people. I think I'll shoot them".
In response to the discussion about the punishment given to Jeffrey Dahlmer.. The State of Wisconsin gave him the maximum sentence allowable under the law, the inmate population took it from there. Who says WI doesn't have a death penalty?
in case anyone wants more examples of minority defendants charged with hate crimes, in the recent 2nd degree murder verdicts in the killing of transgender teen Gwen Araujo, one of the two convicted defendants, Jose Merel, has a hispanic name and an African-American appearance; i haven't been able to find his ethnicity, but it might be Puerto Rican. anyway, he was charged with a hate crime, along with a white defendant, but neither were convicted on that charge.
VAng was an anti-Huntite, a raging anti-huntite
This thread was designed to make a point, which is that anyone from one group killing people from another group must be guilty of a hate crime.
Seems to me, the perpetrator has to do more for it to be a hate crime, like shout an racial or ethnic slur or burn a cross. But the creator of this thread has an agenda, which appears to be: "White people can also be victims of hate crimes."
Not sure this case is a good example, but sure, if that's what you want to hear, white folks are sometimes hated, too...
Baldimo? agenda?. Why no, not that Ive ever noticed
Vang shot 6 white people.
The Jury that convicted Vang contained no members of any minority race.
We could assume that Vang was out to kill whitey
OR
We could assume that Wisconsin legal system is prejudiced against minorities.
Of course it could mean that 99% of people living in that part of Wisconsin are white.
parados wrote:Vang shot 6 white people.
The Jury that convicted Vang contained no members of any minority race.
We could assume that Vang was out to kill whitey
OR
We could assume that Wisconsin legal system is prejudiced against minorities.
Of course it could mean that 99% of people living in that part of Wisconsin are white.
Maybe the jury reached a just conclusion based upon the evidence.
Is that at all possible?
woijo prolly reached the correct assessment; the jury reached a just conclusion based on the evidence.
woiyo wrote:parados wrote:Vang shot 6 white people.
The Jury that convicted Vang contained no members of any minority race.
We could assume that Vang was out to kill whitey
OR
We could assume that Wisconsin legal system is prejudiced against minorities.
Of course it could mean that 99% of people living in that part of Wisconsin are white.
Maybe the jury reached a just conclusion based upon the evidence.
Is that at all possible?
Duh........... Funny how you didn't commented on Baldimo's assumption but leapt all over the 2nd one without thinking about my final conclusion.
:wink:
Craven de Kere wrote: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".
How do we not know he had issues with white people? I wonder if there was any investigation done into his history or if they searched his home for racist material as has been done and is done when racism is suspected? In cases such as Mathew Shepard or James Byrd the first things the cops did was investigate the killers to see if there was a reason to push for hate crimes. The same thing did not take place in this case. Not even the papers went looking at this angel. The assumption it seems to me is that only white people can commit hate crimes. Do some of you think this is true?
Baldimo,
I personally believe that anyone can commit hate crimes. I do have to agree that more often than not the emphasis is put on whites committing the hate crimes. But, how much of that has to do with the press? I don't think we will ever know in this particular case whether Mr. Vang committed a hate crime or not. I am just grateful the justice system prevailed in this case.
Baldimo wrote: I wonder if there was any investigation done into his history or if they searched his home for racist material as has been done and is done when racism is suspected? In cases such as Mathew Shepard or James Byrd the first things the cops did was investigate the killers to see if there was a reason to push for hate crimes. The same thing did not take place in this case. Not even the papers went looking at this angel.
Now wait a minute, Baldimo. In the first sentence of your quote you say you
wonder if they searched Vang's home for racist material. A mere two sentences later you flatly state that they did NOT search Vang's home.
Now which one is it?
Unless you know for a fact that they did not search Vang's home, then your entire post is a waste of space.
The police in Pennsylavania searched the home of Ronald Taylor, the black man who went on a rampage against white men, for racist material. They found it, too.
CBS News wrote:Authorities also said "anti-white" writings were found in his apartment after Wednesday's attacks.
Source.
Taylor was indeed subsequently charged with a hate crime.
kelticwizard wrote:Baldimo wrote: I wonder if there was any investigation done into his history or if they searched his home for racist material as has been done and is done when racism is suspected? In cases such as Mathew Shepard or James Byrd the first things the cops did was investigate the killers to see if there was a reason to push for hate crimes. The same thing did not take place in this case. Not even the papers went looking at this angel.
Now wait a minute, Baldimo. In the first sentence of your quote you say you
wonder if they searched Vang's home for racist material. A mere two sentences later you flatly state that they did NOT search Vang's home.
Now which one is it?
Unless you know for a fact that they did not search Vang's home, then your entire post is a waste of space.
No waste of time at all. I don't know for sure but in all the different news stories I have found they have said nothing about a search but instead said the people who he killed called him racial names.
kelticwizard wrote:The police in Pennsylavania searched the home of Ronald Taylor, the black man who went on a rampage against white men, for racist material. They found it, too.
CBS News wrote:Authorities also said "anti-white" writings were found in his apartment after Wednesday's attacks.
Source.
Taylor was indeed subsequently charged with a hate crime.
Mark a positive mark in the equal treatment column for the police and the press.
