White man charged with 'knockout game' hate crime. Racial hypocrisy?

[bhsup]

Jolly, I am not going to play "1000 scenarios." I don't think people should be tried twice for the same act. If you do, then you are fine with double jeopardy. And hey, that's fine, you're entitled to your opinion. I happen to disagree and think it is important to retain that. Hate crime legislation is an end run around it. (as are a lot of laws. The states do it themselves, this isn't just a state vs federal thing)

Anyway, this is really veering away from the OP, so if you want to talk about double jeopardy more, probably start a thread on it of its own. I just mentioned it because that's one of the reasons I am opposed to hate crime legislation.

 

[JollyRoger]

Even ignoring the fact that a hate crime requires the proof an an additional element, "an act denounced as a crime by both national and state sovereignties is an offense against the peace and dignity of both and may be punished by each." United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377 (1922).

 

[Synobun]

I was joking when I said we should ignore the fact that this guy specifically targeted a black man due to race and made that information public, guys.

 

[Borachio]

Isn't it appalling that the victim was 89 years old?

Would it have been OK if it had been a 5 year old?

 

[bugwar]

What confuses me is that if the roles were reversed, and gangs of white youths were going around knocking out random blacks, would there be such a delayed response from the main stream media and DOJ as we have now?

 

[useless]

Hate crime legislation itself is stupid and shouldn't exist. That said, if stupid laws are going to exist, they should apply them.

Isn't it strange that it's usually white, straight males who spout this line?

Anyway, the "knock out game" is just the drummed up fear of black people as per usual

 

[bhsup]

About as strange as the typical people making those typical asinine comments.

 

[useless]

It's not really asinine but then again you wouldn't be the victim of most if any hate crimes (barring the unlikely event that the NOI decides to take to slaughtering every white person).

But yeah, just wave away the issue because you know, it's easier to do that then to acknowledge that perhaps hate crime laws are something that should exist because people do kill others based upon their sexuality, race, religion, creed etc. Over in Britain people have been attacked because of those characteristics and i have no doubt whatsoever in my mind it's the same in America.

 

[bhsup]

And what makes someone being killed because of "X" any worse than someone being killed because of not "X" because as far as I can figure out, they are still dead.

I've said this before. Just make all murder punishable by the death penalty. How's that for fair treatment?

 

[useless]

It's not proclaiming the crime as being worse, it's acknowledging that it DOES happen. I'm not versed in law, so i won't claim i am, but there are many cases in which people are treated differently for various crimes, such as theft, assault, murder etc. And hate crime doesn't just encompass murder, it includes incitement for violence, offensive speech, acts etc.

 

[JollyRoger]

What confuses me is that if the roles were reversed, and gangs of white youths were going around knocking out random blacks, would there be such a delayed response from the main stream media and DOJ as we have now?

We did have that and it took almost 200 years for the Feds to take it seriously.

 

[JollyRoger]

And what makes someone being killed because of "X" any worse than someone being killed because of not "X" because as far as I can figure out, they are still dead.

So someone who kills in self defense should be punished the same as any other killer?

 

[de Maistre]

And what makes someone being killed because of "X" any worse than someone being killed because of not "X" because as far as I can figure out, they are still dead.

Hate crimes don't exist because one motive is worse than another, they exist because when someone is attacked for belonging to a particular group every member of that group is intimidated. A good example might be the sexual assaults at the University of British Columbia.. the fear on that campus is immense, no woman feels safe at night.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Well, this new "game" seems to be getting very out of hand (with a number of fatalities by now).

You mean a "new game" which has apparently existed since at least 1944?

The show used news clips, which included CNN’s Don Lemon saying there is evidence such attacks have been taking place since 1994 and a quote from the New York Times saying the game amounted to a little more than an urban myth.

Stewart asked the question “Could the news media be over-hyping a danger?” He then quickly turned to stories on ‘flash mob robberies’ once reported as being a growing trend. He moved on to car surfing as a hyped story and then on to kids biting each other “For real!” the report exclaimed. There was even a clip of a news anchor’s ‘top story’ asking, “Innocent fun or sexual harassment, young students slapping the backsides of others?”

All of these stories at one time were sensational ‘top stories’ in news cycles across America, which after time were proven not to be national trends but a bunch of irresponsible young people behaving badly.

Stewart’s very comical take on ‘the knockout game’ took a dark turn when it was reported that a New York state assemblyman introduced a bill that would mandate that anyone 14 years and older could be sentenced to a maximum of 25 years in prison for any involvement in “knockout” even if they did not participate but stood by and watched.

To this, Stewart asked, “So the thing, that may not be a thing, needs more onerous penalties than what already exists for aggravated assault?”

Instead he chose to make it more of a race issue. Well done :/

It appears to be you who is choosing "to make it more of a race issue".

 

[Evie]

de Maistre summed it up right. Hate crimes are a crime in their own right because hate crime is both a murder, etc, and it's also a threat to people who belong to the same group as the murdered person. The same act, but two distinct crimes, because that act serves two different purposes (1)Killing the victim and 2)Sending the message)).

It's not like our society allow you to go around telling people "I'm going ot k ill you". And, when you start killing people simply on the basis of race...well, then, you're effectively telling everyone of that race, "If I get the chance I'm going to kill you."

 

[Archbob]

This is a game? Wait until Chuck Norris gets a whiff of this.

Now what if that guy was Evander Holyfield diguised as a 79 year old black man and he decided to play counter knock-out?

 

[El_Machinae]

I've carried out numerous trials on this.

So far results have been disappointing. I've managed to provoke one or two migraine attacks, though.

Would it be a compliment if I told you that your posts regularly gave me headaches?

Yeah, it's a way for the feds to basically nullify double jeopardy and try someone a 2nd time for the same act.

Yeah, that'd irritate me. While I don't mind hate crime legislation (since hate crimes can be a subset of 'terrorist intentions' (which then require the State to prove mens rea), I'd be irked if it allowed two shots at trying the underlying crime. You'd not want to see a 'failure' to prove the hate crime aspect result in an acquittal, obviously, so 2 separate cases should prove two different things.

Spoiler :

J/K Bor!

 

[Formaldehyde]

This provision actually allows for an extremely few number of cases to be prosecuted on that basis. If there wasn't the possibility of a trial afterwards, the number of hate crime cases would jump enormously.

I see nothing whatsoever wrong with them reviewing highly controversial cases, such as the one which occurred in Pennsylvania where two hate crime murderers were acquitted largely on the basis of being friends and relatives of the police.

Fortunately, those sorts of cases are finally an oddity. This is at least partly due to this safety net.

 

[KmDubya]

The guy who did the assault should be charged with assault and battery in state court not federal. Hate crimes should not be extra special, you should not punish someone for what they think, only for what they do.

As far as the Obama administration choosing to go this route why is there any shock? This is the most racist government we have had in a long time. Everything is about race from voter intimidation by the New Black Panthers to Cambridge to Trayvon, all that matters is the color of your skin. Look at the racist church he went to for twenty years.

 

[JollyRoger]

The soft-on-crime crowd on this one is kind of surprising.