Apparent "hate crime" in Seminole County, Florida

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

So without a tape recording, there is no hate crime?

No. When there are indications of possible racial motive, it's investigated. It's not that difficult. The federal qualifications for meeting "hate crime" is pretty easy.

Incidentally, I don't think "hate crimes" should be punished any differently.

I do. Killing someone because they are gay, or black, or white, or female needs to be punished far differently than murder committed out of passion, or crime.

Originally Posted by Riot

I do. Killing someone because they are gay, or black, or white, or female needs to be punished far differently than murder committed out of passion, or crime.

Slippery slope time, Riot. Aren't we getting into "thought crime" here, and
1st amendment issues?

Take a crime less serious than murder. A graffiti artist gets arrested for defacing a storekeeper's window with his innocuous artwork. Another graffiti artist gets arrested for defacing a like storekeeper's window with the slogan "I HATE QUEERS." The damage is the same, yet you're saying we need to punish the second perp more than the first?


Ocala Mike

[Rupert Pupkin]

This case looks like a definite hate crime. This happened a few days ago in Palmdale, which is about 40 miles from Los Angeles. You have 7 black teens arrested for attacking a 15 year old Hispanic boy while he was walking home. The attack was caught on video and the perpetrators were using racial slurs during the attack.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...amS_story.html

[Danzig]

seems to me, and i know i've read this before, that all crime has a level of hate involved-that pretty much all crime is a hate crime. i doubt very many rob or murder out of love. regardless of motive, the punishment should fit the crime or crimes. more heinous, more time-but how does one judge the level of hate? is it fact or opinion to decide if something is a hate crime? and does investigating something as a hate crime engender racial or other stereotypes? should we attempt to stop categorizing the 'why'? does it give unsavory elements press for others looking for a place? in the end, does 'why' matter anyway? do we punish for act or motive? seems to me the former is really what matters. and quite often, there is no real reason why.
the shooter in oakland killed seven last i heard-has anyone suggested a hate crime? if not, why not? it obviously is one. but since it had random victims without a pattern, there's no effort. i think the only type of crime that it would be important to seek a pattern is when you have a serial killer on the loose, since they sometimes only seek women of a certain hair color or some such detail.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

seems to me, and i know i've read this before, that all crime has a level of hate involved-that pretty much all crime is a hate crime. i doubt very many rob or murder out of love. regardless of motive, the punishment should fit the crime or crimes. more heinous, more time-but how does one judge the level of hate? is it fact or opinion to decide if something is a hate crime? and does investigating something as a hate crime engender racial or other stereotypes? should we attempt to stop categorizing the 'why'? does it give unsavory elements press for others looking for a place? in the end, does 'why' matter anyway? do we punish for act or motive? seems to me the former is really what matters. and quite often, there is no real reason why.
the shooter in oakland killed seven last i heard-has anyone suggested a hate crime? if not, why not? it obviously is one. but since it had random victims without a pattern, there's no effort. i think the only type of crime that it would be important to seek a pattern is when you have a serial killer on the loose, since they sometimes only seek women of a certain hair color or some such detail.

Right. The aspect of "hatred" being added to the crime means nothing - except it was the motive.

What's an "honor killing" as seen in a Muslim father killing his daughter because of disgrace - is that a "love crime"?

Besides the obvious fact that no one can truly know the inner thoughts of another - just what he or she chooses to express - the concept of hate crime prosecution is an absurdity as far as legal proceedings go.

[GenuineRisk]

Neither of these cases are a parallel to the Trayvon Martin situation because in both of the cases cited in this thread, the alleged perpetrators have been arrested. What started the furor over Trayvon Martin wasn't the shooting itself, it was the alleged non-handling of the shooting by the Sanford police.

The US has a pretty well-documented history of violence against blacks by other races being disregarded, or willfully covered up by authorities, especially in, but certainly not limited to, the South. That's what this furor is about, no matter what the media chooses to focus on. The protests are not about whether Zimmerman would have viewed a non-black or black stranger equally; they're about whether we can trust our local, state, and federal government to treat a non-black or black offender equally.

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

The protests are not about whether Zimmerman would have viewed a non-black or black stranger equally; they're about whether we can trust our local, state, and federal government to treat a non-black or black offender equally.

I agree that the protests should be about that, and that is what bothers me most about this case. I am also bothered, however, by those that see this case as STRICTLY about race.

Ocala Mike

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Neither of these cases are a parallel to the Trayvon Martin situation because in both of the cases cited in this thread, the alleged perpetrators have been arrested. What started the furor over Trayvon Martin wasn't the shooting itself, it was the alleged non-handling of the shooting by the Sanford police. The US has a pretty well-documented history of violence against blacks by other races being disregarded, or willfully covered up by authorities, especially in, but certainly not limited to, the South. That's what this furor is about, no matter what the media chooses to focus on. The protests are not about whether Zimmerman would have viewed a non-black or black stranger equally; they're about whether we can trust our local, state, and federal government to treat a non-black or black offender equally.

but is race brought into that particular discussion to say that the arrest hasn't happened due to the race of the victim, when in fact the arrest hasn't happened because of the way a law is written? this is the first time i've seen anyone say that race is why there was no arrest. i thought race was mentioned as why zimmerman reacted as he did? in no way have i seen that the martin case is evidence of poor police work-instead, everything i've seen is a result of the police feeling they couldn't make an arrest because of the stand your ground law. and as i've said before, i don't know that if they did arrest there would be a conviction. i'd suggest that they compile all the evidence and put it in front of a grand jury to decide if there should be a move forward...and i'd also think that the law might need to be tinkered with for in future.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Ocala Mike

Slippery slope time, Riot. Aren't we getting into "thought crime" here, and
1st amendment issues?

We've been there for some time. I'm talking about supporting our existing legal system. Not changing anything. There have been different punishments and definitions for various types of murder and crime, including "hate", for some time.