Brutal Queens Gay Hate Beating Crime Caught On Tape

This is of course a tragic human story, and all our sympathies should go out to the victim, and all our desires for justice to be swift and firm on the 'alleged' perpetrators. (they are caught on video, not sure how alleged that can be)

However, it still does not make me support the concept of hate crimes, not for gays or anyone else. I just do not accept the premise of certain classes of people being more protected than others.

While I know hate crimes go on against [insert any group name here including white males like in Watts LA], the only gay bashing I ever heard of in my life experience was of a friend of the family who we knew was gay only because he repeatedly made advances on the hetero guys in my brother's "gang" back in the day. They were still friends with him in spite of idiologically opposing him on homosexuality. He got a punch in the nose one day though for hitting on [for the umpteenth time] a really cute straight guy in the grade above me in high school. The guy was nice enough to give him a ride somewhere and our gay friend made yet another advance on this guy who had made it clear repeated times he wasn't interested in the same sex. The advance was quite aggressive and so the guy punched him out pretty good and threw him out of the car.

Before and since this is the only "hate crime" against gays I've personally known of. I know there are idiots, probably 98% young males with too much testosterone, who roam the streets looking for geeks, other gangs, gays, and [insert random target here] to rough up. Yet I also have to wonder if aggressive gay attempts to recruit aren't behind some of the issues? I've had some really aggressive lesbians try to rape me once. Literally. There were four of them and their leader threatened to have them pin me down and have their way with me. The only reason they didn't was because I was bigger than them and stronger having been riding and breaking horses for ten years prior. I told them I'd beat the living crap out of them if they tried. So they backed off and no violence ensued. Put a group of men in the same situation and the outcome might not be quite the same.



This happened in the early '80s but if it did today and I was forced to deliver on my promise I can see the headlines now: "Hetero Woman Delivers Brutal Attack On Four Lesbians".

It is always tragic and inexcuseable when this happens, be it Rodney King, Jack Price or a nameless vicitim being assaulted for cash or in some inane squabble in the parking lot outside a bar. Get rid of DADT, give gays full rights, legalize gay marriage. But, "hate" crimes: no thank you.

My gut level reaction is that anyone who commits a violent attack of this nature has given up their own right to be treated as a human being. Frankly I would have no problem with either of these useless pieces of crap being dispatched quickly and efficiently. If that sounds radical, let me say this: I believe in accountability and I also believe there are enough decent people on the planet already - enough that those who are nothing but parasites and predators won't be missed. Now I suppose if I was fortunate enough (or naive enough) to believe that some form of divine justice would be meted out upon their exit from this life, or that either of these scum was capable of remorse, rehabilitation, or might discover a cure for cancer later in life, then I might have a less draconian view. As it is, I have no reason to think their continued existence will ever serve any useful purpose. That is my gut level, heat of the moment reaction, and I believe it has merit. I'll check back and see how I feel later in the day, but I doubt I'll feel any differently.

Am I wrong to read this headline as "Gay Hate Beating by Brutal Queens"? The closeted ones are the biggest gay-bashers.

"Hate crime" activism (complete with handy E-Z sound-bite phrase) is "thought crime" extremism, and is not merited.

"My gut level reaction is that anyone who commits a violent attack of this nature has given up their own right to be treated as a human being."

Gee, when it was a teenager set on fire (but involving a theft, not gay-ness), you said our incarceration rate is implicated, nothing about the malevolence of the act against the teenager, much less about the actor.

It's all about the relevent politics for some, I guess, even though the rest of us view it more ... clearly.

"A major story is breaking on the East Coast in New York City"

So far, not so, Joe, sadly. There's no suspense that can be exploited (and created if need be) to fuel sensationalism. No runaway balloon people can stare at, no aircraft with a malfunctioning nose gear that stupid broadcasters can follow in the air for hours (and even have the passengers watch on their cabin seat in-flight entertainment system screens), no long-overdone car chase scenes, et cetera.

This was merely one beating of many, and will probably not count much. So far, nothing today on radio.

I agree that no one should have special rights or greater protection. But hate crime laws don't give certain people "special rights." What these laws say is, it's particularly egregious to attack someone based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. This applies to ALL people. If, for example, you're attacked because you're straight, or white, or Christian, that would be considered a hate crime under the law.

DLS, do me the favor of not fictionalizing my positions and/or beliefs. If you want to compare or contrast my positions that's fine, but direct quotes and context will be necessary, since your own seat of the pants record for accuracy so often falls short... as it has this time.

It might help if you try reading more for comprehension and less to feed your imagination.

"I just do not accept the premise of certain classes of people being more protected than others."

The problem is that certain classes of people ARE more protected than others, by the virtue being straight, or white, or cisgendered, etc. That's already the reality.

"do me the favor of not fictionalizing my positions and/or beliefs ...
your own seat of the pants record for accuracy so often falls short"

Grow up, Spence, and dispense with your fiction:

[15-year-old set afire:]

"No other civilized country is even remotely close to our rate of incarceration. What makes us so different???"

[dusting and washing hands]

* * *

"ARE more protected"

This is the "privilege" myth.

KPM -

But hate crime laws don't give certain people "special rights."

No, it does too. If I beat the hell out of you screaming "I hate redheads" or "I hate reporters" or whatever, it is not a hate crime, but if I scream 'I hate women' it is, and the punishments are different.

Meanwhile, in either circumstance you are severely injured, but in one case you would now be awarded special rights for the courts to use in the punishment phase (assuming a guilty conviction), and even now makes it a Federal crime, which is another set of special rights.

That to me is a ridiculous set of circumstances and outcomes.

"This is the "privilege" myth."

No, dear, it's not a myth. That you choose not to see what is plainly and grotesquely visible doesn't mean it's fiction.

We're probably going to disagree on this one roro80. As one with a strong belief in freedom of thought and speech, yes including hateful thought and speech, I just can't get to the point intellectually of justifying sentence enhancement based on what a person thinks or says.

Whether one is gay/straight, white/black, whatever/whatever, the injuries from the assault are the same. Jack Price would be in the same hospital in the same coma had he been attacked for any other reason. The criminals who did this should be put away for a very long time regardless of who the victim is/was. The ethnic, social status, sexual orientation, cultural identity of the victim should not determine the sentence. That should be determined by the extext of injury. My view.

Give me a moment to steel myself for your reply, then fire away.

Would you be in favor of getting rid of protected classes but making a more general law that crimes done to intimidate others at large get harsher penalties?

DLS, you're still confused. Here's a clue: There is a difference between violent and non-violent crimes, and I've always had a low tolerance (to put it mildly) for the former. Wasting prison space on people busted for smoking pot (for example) is an entirely different matter. Is that enough information to help you figure it out yet?

To add to your point, laws are made in the interests of protecting a society and those that live in it. Attacks on those groups have caused a great deal of social and societal upheaval and incivility therefore the society in question has decided that it is in its best interests to enforce special penalties against these acts that threaten the civility and cohesion of the civilization in general. They could be incorrect in their calculus but that is why it is being done. Of course they would not need to make such laws if we were not living with the consequences of our past history of discriminatory laws and enforcement via lynch mob but to argue that Hate Crimes Laws are near as ugly as either of those I think is unsupportable in the extreme. At best this is one wrong to fix a larger past wrong but I fail to see another good way to resolve the issues, short of charging the assailants instead with Civil Rights violations which I think is actually valid here since they are trying to force people out of the pursuit of their own happiness via fear of violence.

AustinRoth--

Do you really think the man being beaten in this video is "more protected" than other people?

EDITED to add: There was actually a pretty good discussion of hate crimes in the comments here at TMV last weekend.

Spence,

"There is a difference between violent and non-violent crimes"

Detective DLS needs no clues that he already knows about. I'm on record as advocating corrections reform (and so much of the Drug War, for that matter).

Mikkel -

That's an interesting idea to which I have a mixed reaction. As a starting point, most states have "intimidation" statutes of some sort, usually set out as separate/unique crimes. Arizona (which I checked at random), for example has five criminal statutes on intimidation, from cross burning, to telephonic intimidation, to using fake explosives to intimidate. Each statute is very specific. This is very different from sentence enhancement for other things that are already crimes in their own right. Calling someone on the phone is not a crime in its own right, nor is burning something, nor is giving someone fake explosives.

As further example, the cross burning statute requires that the cross be burned on the property of another or on public property, but does not prohibit burning a cross on one's own property. Probalby just enough to protect the statute from First Amendment Constitutional attack.

These types of specific statutes, where the generic act is not itself a crime, tend not to bother me. It is the sentence enhancement of existing crimes (like assault, murder, etc.) based on thought or speech that bothers me. If 50 people hold an unlicensed gay rights parade in the street outside a restaurant whose owner is known to oppose gay marriage, those 50 may be committing the crime of disorderly conduct (by disrupting traffic). Should the sentence be enhanced because their intent was to intimidate the owner of the restaurant? Seems to me once you get into generalized intimidation and sentence enhancement, you open all manner of Pandora's boxes.

"No, dear, it's not a myth."

The earth is round, not flat, and it does, too, move (around the sun). You may not like it, but ...

* * *

"Do you really think the man being beaten in this video is 'more protected' than other people?"

The question itself is the wrong one to ask. What matters is intent and nature of the crime as well as the intent, and viciousness is not restricted to or worse when directed at, certain people (but not at others, or not as much, which follows logically). All viciousness is such; selecting some and applying different standards to different instances (on a discriminatory basis -- NOTE) is not merited.

tidbits --

That totally made me laugh. It's ok to disagree with me, I can take it. This is also one of those issues where I can see both sides pretty easily, kind of like the death penalty. But here's a retort nonetheless.

Surely you've heard this part of the argument before: we already distinguish crimes based upon intent. Murder 1, Murder 2, Manslaughter, etc. In all cases, the injuries to the victim are the same -- death. Intent distinguishes between these cases. If it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the perpetrator committed the murder on purpose, that's one punishment, and if it was an accident, that's another, if premeditated and planned, yet another. As a lawyer, you don't likely need me to go into any details.

So we come down to the thought: what is the purpose of the punishment? Are we in this for vindication and pay back, or are we in this for the protection of society and deterrant from future crimes? There's a reason that it is "The People vs. [whomever]" -- there is of course a large element of punishment and payback in sentencing, but in general, The People need to be protected and the criminal needs to be deterred. In this context, it makes a great deal of sense to sentence more harshly for hate crimes than for, say, domestic violence victims. In one case, large swaths of the population are at risk from a particular criminal's violence, in the other, generally exactly one person is in danger. (This is not in any way meant to make light of the seriousness and ugliness of domestic violence, merely to point out the cost to society as a whole for letting go one individual criminal versus another. I want to make sure this is very clear.)

We also cannot ignore the statistics of crimes against certain groups of people. If you see a trans person, it's a good bet that that person has been sexually assauted in their lifetime. The number one cause of death among trans people is murder. Gay people [or merely those presumed to be gay] are much more likely than straight and straight-looking people to be the victims of violent and sexual crimes as well, although the numbers aren't so drastic as those for the trans community. People really do go out looking for queers to beat up, and it's generally in groups. It's a particular crime, done by a particular type of group of generally idiot boys, and it deserves a particular punishment.

While I'm concerned that this may go off-topic, I want to address Sil's comment.

It's inappropriate to make generalizations solely based on one's own experience. Just because Sil has only heard of one gay-bashing in her life, doesn't mean that more haven't occurred. And just because some lesbians decided they had a crush on Sil and attempted to rape her, does not mean there's a massive and targeted recruitment campaign. Oy vey, people!

"it does too"

Of course it does, A.R. Not only is it obviously discriminatory to select or assign weights to crimes based on the classification (the class) of the victim, but the corollary of this "hate crime" (thought crime) concept obviously is to apply the same kind of discriminatory basis toward the perpetrator, and the hypocrisy as well as the intellectual failure of the proponents is exposed to anyone with the ability and willingness to think about this (as though it's not too hard to view the "hate crime" fallaciousness all by itself, already). It would be equally discriminatory if this same thing were done toward the perpetrator, and a double or multiple standard of seriousness used depending on the perpetrator's race, sex, sexual preference, hair or eye color, height, weight (including obesity), etc.. It would be as bad if either discrimination were applied in the inverse manner -- say, favoring straight middle-aged white males either as perpetrators or as victims, or in disfavoring them and favoring others, such as gays, or women, or minority group members (just as if it were to disfavor them). The discrimination and favoring, the deliberate departure from neutrality for favoritism (or the negative, "disfavoritism"), is the core of this "hate crime" (thought crime) concept, and it is the same as, and as as bad as, older forms of discrimination and departure from neutrality. It is wrong, even though it is associated with (and in fact, underlies) political correctness (political discrimination and favoritism, as well as suppressing what is disfavored).

This is one of those issues where both sides are Right and understandable. . .but roro80 is tipping the scale for me. . .Thanks for the discussion. . .

"Should the sentence be enhanced because their intent was to intimidate the owner of the restaurant?"

I think that's a false equivalence if they are just saying that people shouldn't go the restaurant or whatever (as it's a political statement). If they are threatening to beat up or kill anyone that is against gay marriage then that's an intimidation against a group of people on a fundamental level.

There are tons of things -- throwing a brick through a window, slashing tires, etc. -- that are relatively benign in the scheme of things but are done to terrorize and oppress a community. Personally I don't see why the characteristics of the target matters. If a gang is doing it to get a neighborhood to stop reporting them to the police or it's done because of race to get people to move or anything else, I don't see a difference. However I do think that when things are done to threaten groups on a fundamental level that they should be judged more harshly.

Sil, "Before and since this is the only "hate crime" against gays I've personally known of.

Let's see... your story about the gay guy being punched in the nose for making unwanted advances (even after being told to stop) on a straight guy is a very illustrative of what is NOT a hate crime. Gays and lesbians are just like everyone else... Just like there are some straight guys who make unwanted advances on women and are slapped (or punched) there are some gay guys who make unwanted advances on straight guys (and a few gay guys make unwanted advances on other gay guys).

Just because some straight guy defends himself against an unwanted sexual advance from a gay guy does not make his defense a hate crime. Anymore than a woman's defending herself against a straight guy's advances is a hate crime. 'No" means no, regardless of the gender, sexual orientation, etc of the people involved. A hate crime, just to be clear, is a crime committed against another person based solely on the belief (which may not even be a true belief) that the person is (in the case of this posting) gay.

As far as this statement of yours, "Yet I also have to wonder if aggressive gay attempts to recruit aren't behind some of the issues?"

Puhleeze... gays don't "recruit" straights and you seem to inject this false belief in every conversation you have about gays.

And as far as "blaming" the gays (when you say that the gays attempts to recruit are behind some of the issues of gay bashing).... Ha! Oppression takes many forms, one of those forms is "blaming the victim". Just like men who rape women will claim it's the woman's fault because she "asked for it" by wearing sexy clothes, this statement that gays bring the problems onto themselves is false.... This "blaming the victim" attitude is just another sign of people oppressing others.

roro80-

Glad I could make you laugh. And, of course we won't agree on everything; our discussions would get damn dull if we did.

The distinction between intent and motive is often muddled. Intent, as you point out is whether a person meant to do something. Motive is the "why" you intended to do it. I have no problem punishing based on levels of intent. I do have a problem punishing based on the "why", especially if the "why" is related to freedom of thought or speech. Very often the "why" can't be known. It is locked in the head of the one who did it. If you had to prove the "why" of crimes, a good many criminals would walk free.

Motive usualy comes into a criminal case only as a defense, not as an element the prosecution must prove. Most prosecutors will include in their opening statement specifically that they do not need to prove motive because so many jurors are inclined to confuse intent and motive...possibly the result of modern media which focuses on motive (interesting) as opposed to intent (boring). An example of using motive as a defense would be "Yes, I punched him in the nose, but he pulled a knife on me." Self defense. Or, "yes, I trespassed on the property, but I was being chased by a dragon." Defense of emergency.

I do understand the problem with gays, trans, but the same could be said for the homeless, regardless of protected class status, and they are probably assaulted more than any other group.

Nice disagreeing with you.

Sparrow -

What a fine perspective. Thank you.

And, the next time you steal my dog, please leave a note.

Mikkel, you said, "I think that's a false equivalence"

No. Beating up one person from a particular class is regarded as intimidating the entire class, right? So, intimidating one business owner who opposes gay marriage would be regarded as intimidating the entire class of business owners who oppose gay marriage, right?

What you propose is that certain crimes (threatening to beat someone up) when done because of an unpopular political belief should have enhanced penalties, but other crimes (like disorderly conduct), should not. What if the gay rights march included spray painting windows? What if those in the parade were openly carrying guns? What if they shot into the air?

It's so hard to draw these lines. That's why I talk about Pandora's box when it comes to this stuff.

GS -

You seem to be purposely misusing terminology.

But even if we accept your false definition (as compared to how I was obviously using it), is it your contention that adding hate crime legislation would have reduced that crime? Would they have beat him up less?

Or are you saying that criminals of that nature, or other natures, would be aware of more severe punishments for attacking gays and other 'protected' classes, and would prey on other people, or perhaps no one at all?

If so, then is it safe to assume you a for the death penalty as well, for its ability to discourage criminals from engaging in the activities that could lead to it being imposed on them?

PS - I was on vacation last weekend, and missed that thread. I guess you can guess what my position is on that topic, though.

roro -

We also cannot ignore the statistics of crimes against certain groups of people.

Actually, the groups, by far, most likely to be involved in a violent crime, either as victim or perpetrator, are the poor and the less educated. Should we add those classes to hate crime legislation therefore?

Tidbits--

I actually favor people being able to protest, so I don't see any problem with the protest. Apparently the restaurant owner has gone out off his way to make his politics known, inviting a--hopefully--peaceful response. I also don't see any problem, however, with requiring a license for a large protest.

Why does the crowd insist on protesting without a license? Is it a spontaneous gathering--or preplanned? How do you know the crowd's intent is to intimidate the restaurant owner? Why are they intimidating him? Do they have some larger goal in mind or are they just ganging up on the owner? Or is the protest really just a parade that coincidentally happens to go past this particular restaurant? What did he do to become such a well-known opponent of gay marriage?

The famous conservative judge Oliver Wendell Holmes said something about my right to swing my fist ending where your nose begins. Absent the violence, I don't see any Pandora's Boxes. All I see--and I know you're just responding to a somewhat vague alternative suggestion to hate crimes--is an exercise of first amendment rights. Unlike assault, I'm not appalled by the underlying crime of parading without a license.

dear StockBoy. . . often times i have tried to peel the layers of hate and how it is justified by the haters. . .it seems to me hate crimes and hate people are fueled by a deep dark depth of disowned shame. . . .to hate with such venom is to shame one's own soul. . . .and so often the hate is expressed with intense shaming towards the "other". . . . and soon becomes so self-perpetuating. . .i can no longer see hate except linked with toxic shame. . . .

expressing one's affection as a gay person is not shameful or shaming of others or one's own soul for it is based in love or loving. . . but hating is a violation to oneself as much as others. . .

we need to go wholehearted to the real disease and find ways to address the toxic shame of the victimizers. . . .

Stock Boy just my nickle worth. . . so agree that choosing one's own intimate expression is not shameful. . . the emphasis needs to be directed on the cancerous disease of hatred. . .and hatred is about great disharmony in one's soul and not about who ever they have created as "other". . .

this kind of hatred is sickness of mind, heart, and soul. . . .it is not about homosexuality.

The dog was missing you. . .said he was homesick and loyal. . .like the Presidents have said, "in this town if you want a friend get a dog. . . .some days on TMV you need your dog Tidbits. . .

You are obviously a white male. The rest of us know what it feels like to be in the minority and need protection from your group.

Kristen you are so right. Hate hurts everyone, and is a crime against everyone. I personally think that it's a shame that we need such laws to protect those who, from time to time, find themselves in danger of being hurt by others. We should have evolved more than this by now. We should treat all people like human beings. But unless and until we can do that we must create and uphold laws that protect us all.

"Beating up one person from a particular class is regarded as intimidating the entire class, right? "

It shouldn't be unless the point of beating them up is to intimidate others.

I had started to address your hypotheticals but then thought better of it. In real life, there are many instances where it is clear that actions are part of an overall campaign of intimidation and oppression with threats of overt violence. Again I said that I think it shouldn't matter what the characteristics of the victims or perps are, just that there are literally thousands of cases where you can point to people being pushed around because they know the law isn't powerful enough to stop it. At that point, law and order break down. The don't snitch intimidation is a perfect example of this.

You may argue that this is hard to codify, and I agree. But I'd also point out that Petraeus recognized that dynamic and part of the surge was to separate people that were causing trouble based on this exact subject. That provided a safer environment for the local populace to step forward and report others.

All too often people focus on the incorrect targets when talking about this sort of hate crime stuff. It's not really to dissuade criminals as much as it's to provide an environment where the oppressed feel that the authorities and justice are on their side. While this has been applied to characteristics that historically have been targets, I do agree that it should be more general. However, I also think that the aims are worthy.

Racist

Let me restate my last comment, so it is not deemed a personal attack (not like yours was not, because it was).

That was a bigoted, racist AND sexist comment you made (you hit the trifecta), and seems to show that you have deep-seated issues requiring resolution.

Very good points. I think that we are prisoner to our laws by virtue of our continued bad behavior as a society. If we could behave in a more civil and compassionate manner we would need far fewer laws.

Actually AR I think the term you were looking for is Bigot and I agree. I cant agree with the racist thing since I do not think it is very true from the comment but the comment screams of bigotry. I still back hate crimes though I would prefer them to be prosecuted as civil rights violations but a bigoted statement does not help that cause in anyway.

Austin Roth--

Here's a link to a dictionary definition of the word "protection". I think I used it properly, but I am not a lawyer. If there is some technical legal meaning I don't know, please feel free to inform me what it is.

Earlier in this thread, you used an example of a man beating a woman while screaming "I hate women". If hatred of women is the only reason for that guy to be beating that woman, then I do think that is a hate crime. Equally, if a woman were to beat up some randomly passing man just because she hates men, that is also a hate crime. Without the hate, there is no assault. The hate is the reason for the assault.

Here's a link to my fuller explanation from last weekend. Since I'm sure you'll enjoy reading even more of what I have to say, you're welcome. ; )

I think that Sil should hear about Matthew Shepard and how brutally and viciously he was murdered. Murdered just because he was gay. Then she would know what a hate crime really is. Every time this topic comes up I think about Matthew's mother and how she felt when they told her what those animals did to the son she loved. No one should be hurt or killed for being different. Disliking someone for their beliefs or actions does not give someone the right to hurt or kill them. As long as people feel empowered by hate we must keep and uphold laws which protect the powerless.

Your expressed hate for the group white and the group male right here on this thread means you missed the point.

Wake up.

When I hear about cases in which people harass, beat, or kill a person for no other reason than because the victim was gay, it infuriates me the way it would enfuriate me if people harassed, beat, or killed a person for no other reason than because the victim was Black, Asian, Jewish, Muslim, Seik, or mentally or physically disabled. Things like this infuriate me because I find not only the attack to be senseless but also the bigotry that motivated it.

However, in a truly free society, it should be the attack that is punished and not the motivation. Bigotry, just like any other motivation, should be used to establish motive, and not as a reason to add extra punishment. Equality under the law demands that people who commit similar crimes be treated similarly when it comes time to punish them.

The concept of hate crimes laws is something that I discussed in great length here at TMV (comments have since been deleted) and at my own blog back in May 2007.

I think the entire hate crimes debate is an unnecessary diversion. Gays already have equality under the law when it comes to violence committed against them. Gay rights supporters ought to be focusing more on issues in which gays do not have equality under the law, such as adoption, marriage, and serving in the military.

Bigotry will always be with us. No law can force individuals to stop being bigots. But we can enact reforms that prevent the government from using bigotry as the basis for state and national policy (i.e. laws preventing gays from adopting, laws preventing gays from marrying, laws preventing gays from serving in the military). That is where our efforts should be focused.

You are obviously a white male. The rest of us know what it feels like to be in the minority and need protection from your group.

I don't see why we have to go there. I'm also a white male. But I'm also Mexican. Maybe I need protection from myself???

ordinarysparrow.... sorry- I don't see how your comments directed to me have anything to do with my reply to Sil. Unless you wanted to add onto my reply to Sil. What am I missing?

Hi tidbits -- I see what you're saying about the difference between intent and motive. I'll have to think about it more.

"I do understand the problem with gays, trans, but the same could be said for the homeless, regardless of protected class status, and they are probably assaulted more than any other group."

Surely the fact that one group needs more protection can't mean that another group needs less?

"The earth is round, not flat, and it does, too, move (around the sun). You may not like it, but ..."

It's been a long time since someone gave me an astronomy lesson, at least since graduate physics; thanks so much! Now, this must have something to do with your inability to see the obvious social structures around you, but I cannot for the life of me figure out what that might be.

GS - um, you seem to be making my point. If I shout "I hate redheads' it is NOT a hate crime, but if I shout "I hate women" it is. It does not make the crime of beating up the woman better or worse in either case in my mind, and the punishments should not depend on what was being yelled, but on the act of beating her up, and taking in to account whatever level of savagery.

And that point, that one type of 'hate' being the reason for the beating over another makes the crime more serious, is the exact type of unequal 'protection' I was referencing. You tried to use the term 'protection' to imply that hate crime laws themselves would have somehow prevented that beating. I simply do not agree wit that assessment, and that is indeed where you twisted the obvious meaning of my use of the word protection.

roro80 -

We may agree on your last sentence, "Surely the fact that one group needs more protection can't mean that another group needs less?" But, our understanding of its meaning may be different. I read that sentence and think, "that's what I've been trying to say," that no group or individual should have any more...and certainly not any less...protection than any other. The homeless should be protected the same as gays, the same as Italians, the same as latinos, the same as whites, the same as, the same as.

One last thought, then I'm off to rail on the death penalty on another thread. All criminal acts of violent assault are, at some level, acts of hatred and inhumanity, and the sentencing should reflect that.

sorry was going the same direction as you StockBoy concerning the comments from Sil. . .but by speaking to you i was avoiding giving energy to Sil's ongoing prejudice concerning this issue. . .

i was trying to keep out of the race to the bottom and was using you as a shield to make a comment about focusing on those that do this kind of hate and what might be under it. . .. . .i was not flying straight, but more sideways. . .Sorry StockBoy. . .

tidbits -

"Surely the fact that one group needs more protection can't mean that another group needs less?"

You missed the logical fallacy of the initial statement. By definition, giving one group more protection means other groups get less protection. You can't have it both ways.

ordinarysparrow, thanks. I thought that's what you meant but I wasn't sure. No need to apologize- I just needed clarification. You're one of the gentlest souls on here. BTW: AGREED on all accounts and great approach to address the "original" comments.

dorothygail (to AustinRoth), "You are obviously a white male. The rest of us know what it feels like to be in the minority and need protection from your group."

I feel that your comment is unfounded. Where does AustinRoth advocate violence against minorities? His statements relate to a difference of opinion about punishment for criminals. AustinRoth is not advocating violence against anyone.

If I were facing gay bashers I'd much rather have AustinRoth behind me than someone else who may think gay bashers deserve a harsher sentence but would rather call the police rather than be involved in a fight. I have the impression that AustinRoth is a protector, not someone who advocates violence against others, but who will nonetheless protect others if necessary.

You can disagree with people about the strength of the punishment, but don't conflate differences in harshness of punishment with people being oppressors.

Austin Roth--

Again, I am not a lawyer. If there is some technical legal meaning to the word "protection" that I am unaware of, then the fault is mine. If, however, you want to keep accusing me of twisting your meaning, go ahead. Enjoy.

I'd also like to note that sixteen years ago, in 1993, William Rehnquist (not a liberal) wrote the opinion upholding hate crimes legislation in the case of Wisconsin v Mitchell. His decision was unanimous, which means that Antonin Scalia (not a liberal) and Clarence Thomas (not a liberal) also voted to uphold hate crimes legislation.

Also, just as I had trouble seeing the seriousness of the crime of parading without a permit, I am having trouble seeing the actual existence of redhead-hatred as the basis of actual violence, except perhaps among the crazy, the intoxicated, or the makers of lame excuses for their poor choices. Even then, it still seems pretty tenuous.

But I guess you wouldn't make a substance-free hypothetical situation the basis for your deeply-held belief. I'm sure of that especially in light of the video at the top of this thread showing an actual man being just because he's gay. The serious problem of violence against homosexuals actually exists. So thank you in advance for providing a link to the actual case of redhead-hatred-caused-violence you have in mind.

I'm looking forward to reading the actual details.

Austin Roth--

"Surely the fact that one group needs more protection can't mean that another group needs less?"

People who don't get beaten don't need assault laws.

But the laws are there for everyone. Just in case.

In the case I referred to, Wisconsin v Mitchell, Mitchell led a group of black men to assault some randomly passing white man just because the random guy was white.

In America, it's illegal to beat someone just for being white.

The protection afforded by laws on sexual orientation would be available equally. But one group would probably need that protection more than the other.

GS -

First, where oh where did I say I thought hate crime laws were unconstitutional? You seem to be making a habit of twisting my words into false arguments and straw men to tear down. I guess actually addressing what I did say is too time consuming, so you would rather take on lies you make up.

Second, I guess I was supposed to be humbled by my inability to actually provide a concrete example of the redheaded beating example I put forth. However, I am not. Instead I am sorry that you are unable to understand the use of the rhetorical device of reductio ad absurdum.

Any other false statements you want to make up and pretend I made and ask me to defend myself against, or any other inabilities to follow along with my purposely logically absurd propositions that you need me to spell out for you? Or are you done beclowning yourself?

StockBoySF -

I agree wholeheartedly in your assessment of AR's character. Excellent, excellent comment.

Thank you very much SB.

GS -

In America, it's illegal to beat someone just for being white

In America, it's illegal to beat someone just because it is illegal to beat someone!!

What is so hard about that concept? Why you beat someone is irrelevant to the severity of the crime and the punishment you deserve. What you did, and how severely you did it, are the factors that should determine that.

AR, you're welcome.

"In America, it's illegal to beat someone just because it is illegal to beat someone!!"

And that's just it in a nutshell, AR. You beat someone senseless "just because" then you should be punished. Of course this doesn't apply to self-defense. But the perpetrators of this crime are straight up criminals. And we don't need hate crime laws to see that nor to deliver punishment. Their attack was brutal and that is enough to warrant a harsh sentence. If I am beaten by a white guy because I'm black, the white guy is a criminal. If I'm beaten by a black guy for my wallet, the black guy is a criminal. Both the white and black guy are equal in my book regardless of the motivation.

Austin Roth--

Beclowning myself?

I have done my best to take you seriously on this thread.

Have a nice evening.

Tidbits, thanks.

I think its a question of societal price since laws are, at least generally or supposedly, made in the societal interests. Meaning a mugger hurts you but a racial or homosexual or religious based attack harms the societies ability to make its citizens feel safe, if they are part of the attacked group especially if they are a minority group, and free to exercise their rights. Do not get me wrong I think they are silly but I think they fill an important societal role though I think civil rights violations and lynching statutes are more appropriate.

How am I a racist? I'm WHITE too!

Austin, your comment was "However, it still does not make me support the concept of hate crimes, not for gays or anyone else. I just do not accept the premise of certain classes of people being more protected than others."
It stands to reason that you MUST be a white male if you do not understand the need for certain groups of people to deserve protection. Just pointing out a fact, not an attack or a racial comment. I am white and not a racist or sexist. Just a fact that you can't understand the plight of a minority group because you have never had to feel what they feel. Name calling is very unattractive. My comment simply was "You are obviously a white male. The rest of us know what it feels like to be in the minority and need protection from your group." I didn't name call or attack. Just stated a fact. You are the bigot, not me. You can spin and twist my words any way you want, the FACT still remains that if you were in ANY other sub group other than "white male" you would be able to understand the need for oppressed people to be protected and supported.

I NEVER expressed hate. I pointed out that the reason Austin can't understand the plight of minority groups is because he is a white male, if he were anything other than white male he would know the truth of how it feels to be oppressed or hated. My comment was simply; "You are obviously a white male. The rest of us know what it feels like to be in the minority and need protection from your group." And you read hate into that? I'm white and I love males, smart ones any way. Just pointed out a fact. You seem to be overly bothered by the fact though.

You are the bigot, not me. You can spin and twist my words any way you want, the FACT still remains that if you were in ANY other sub group other than "white male" you would be able to understand the need for oppressed people to be protected and supported.

I'm having a difficult time in following your logic.

First of all, despite the varied opinions on the issue of hate crimes, I don't believe a single commenter here has approved of or sympathized with violence towards gays. And I don't think a single commenter here has argued that people who commit violence against gays should not be punished. It is the degree to which they should be punished as compared to someone who commited the exact same crime but did not have bigoted motivations.

So I don't understand how you can level the accusation of "bigot" against anyone here at TMV.

Make no mistake. There are people who oppose hate crimes legislation based upon bigotry, and I have no problem with condemning such people. But I can find no evidence here at TMV of bigotry being a reason for opposing hate crimes legislation. You'll have to look elsewhere.

Some white men understand the feelings of minorities, but there are SOME who don't. The ones who use their power to oppress and harm others just because they can are the ones who I have a problem with. I have never heard a black man disagree with the fact that there are groups of people who need to be protected from HATE CRIMES. Again, I am white! Not a hater, just stated a fact. I think ALL people should be treated the same. With all the same rights!

Austin's comment to me was "That was a bigoted, racist AND sexist comment you made (you hit the trifecta), and seems to show that you have deep-seated issues requiring resolution."
Your comment to me is "So I don't understand how you can level the accusation of "bigot" against anyone here at TMV."
He called me a bigot and you attack me for saying that he is a bigot. Wow. I guess I need to learn to read between the blogs lines here.

dorothygail -

I really hate getting involved in these kinds of discussions, but here's what I'm seeing.

When you say, "need protection from your group" it sounds an awful lot like what white folk used to say about keeping blacks out of the neighborhood. And the group you refer to Is "white male", no exceptions...sort of like "all blacks are dangerous", or "we're at the mercy of the Jews because they control all the money."

Not trying to get on your case, just trying to shed some light on the perception that some might have.

Some white men understand the feelings of minorities, but there are SOME who don't. The ones who use their power to oppress and harm others just because they can are the ones who I have a problem with. I have never heard a black man disagree with the fact that there are groups of people who need to be protected from HATE CRIMES.

But here's my point...

We already have laws on the books protecting people from hate crimes. They're called laws, and they protect everyone equally.

This was not always the case. There was a time in United States history when bigots could commit crimes against Blacks, Asians, Mexicans, religious minorities, and gays, and the government would simply look the other way. It was once not all that uncommon for law enforcement officials and prosecutors to refuse to arrest or prosecute people for commiting crimes against minorities.

That is no longer the case. While bigots continue to exist in our society, the laws have been written and interpretted to mean that crimes against all people--minorities included--must be addressed and the guilty brought to justice. Virtually everyone in this country--regardless of political persuasion--would agree that people who comit crimes against minorities must be prosecuted. Indeed, even many bigots themselves understand that their right to their bigoted views does not give them the right to physically assault or murder a minority.

Hate crimes legislation goes beyond holding bigots criminally responsible for their violent actions. It seeks to hold them criminally responsible for their bigoted views. And as I've said before, in a free society, we prosecute people for their actions, not their thoughts--however despicably they may be.

I sympathize with your goal of standing up for minorities, but I earnestly feel that hate crimes legislation is not the way to go about this. Bigotry cannot be conquered with laws. It can only be destroyed when popular opinion turns against it. It comes by preaching love and tolerance. Hate crimes legislation does not accomplish this.

The sad thing is that despite all your efforts in support of hate crimes legislation on behalf of Blacks, Asians, Mexicans, gays, and relgious minorities, it is extremely unlikely that hate crimes legislation will have any tangible benefit whatsoever for the people you seek to be defending. Anyone who beats or murders a gay individual knows there will be consequences for his actions once he is caught.

If a person is despicable enough to murder another human being, is the fear of having another ten years tacked onto their sentence for committing a hate crime really going to make them reconsider?

I think not.

dorothygail, you said, "I have never heard a black man disagree with the fact that there are groups of people who need to be protected from HATE CRIMES."

Please see T-Steel's comment above. You may also wish to look at his picture.

Edit added. T-Steel's comment, my view is one othe best on this thread, especially this "If I am beaten by a white guy because I'm black, the white guy is a criminal. If I'm beaten by a black guy for my wallet, the black guy is a criminal. Both the white and black guy are equal in my book regardless of the motivation."

If you question T-Steel's cred, ask him. He's got it.

There are some people who believe that classifying some crimes as "hate crimes" may protect the victims (by showing the oppressors that their hate crime actions will not be tolerated and will be more severely punished). There may be other people who see an assault on another person as wrong, regardless of whether that person is gay or straight (or whoever) and that the punishment should be the same because all people are the same with the same rights and that no one has "special rights" just because they belong to a certain class or group of people.

Then there are other people with other ideas.

And I'm not going to get into a debate about which belief is "better" than the others. Bottom line is that most people think attacks are just plain wrong. I won't get bogged down in the current bickering. I've argued my beliefs on this very same subject on here some months ago and that's that. I don't need to "be right" or "more right" than anyone else. I'm just happy to have had the opportunity to share my thoughts on the subject.

Thanks Joe for the article and everybody's comments. I enjoyed it!

How am I a racist? I'm WHITE too!

You continue to show your racism. You just don't seem to be self-aware enough to realize it.

I am not trying to insult you, really I am not. I feel very sorry for you, actually.

your comment was "However, it still does not make me support the concept of hate crimes, not for gays or anyone else. I just do not accept the premise of certain classes of people being more protected than others." It stands to reason that you MUST be a white male

There you go again showing your racism. I know from his postings T-Steel believes exactly as I do. I know he will be shocked, to say the least, to find out he must be a white male, too.

I guess I need to learn to read between the blogs lines here.

Not at all. You need to read, period. You are the one stating that I must be a white male because I don't support the concept of hate crime legislation. That IS a bigoted, sexist and racist statement. Plain and simple.

The corollary to what you are saying is that NO ONE who is NOT a white male DOESN'T support hate crime legislation. That, too, would be a bigoted, sexist and racist statement. And quite frankly, a stupid statement as well.

WoW! Father Time. . . with sincere smile. . .and thumbs up!

I'm amazed at just how much I agree with you.

WOW!

And now GS does his best Sir Robin impersonation by bravely running away from the fight!

After I call you out for your post full of lies and distortions about what I have said, you remove it, making it look like I was ranting incoherently. Cute, but ineffective., as DISQUS emailed my your original post!

To whit:

Austin Roth--

Again, I am not a lawyer. If there is some technical legal meaning to the word "protection" that I am unaware of, then the fault is mine. If, however, you want to keep accusing me of twisting your meaning, go ahead. Enjoy.

I'd also like to note that sixteen years ago, in 1993, William Rehnquist (not a liberal) wrote the opinion upholding hate crimes legislation in the case of Wisconsin v Mitchell. His decision was unanimous, which means that Antonin Scalia (not a liberal) and Clarence Thomas (not a liberal) also voted to uphold hate crimes legislation.

Also, just as I had trouble seeing the seriousness of the crime of parading without a permit, I am having trouble seeing the actual existence of redhead-hatred as the basis of actual violence, except perhaps among the crazy, the intoxicated, or the makers of lame excuses for their poor choices. Even then, it still seems pretty tenuous.

But I guess you wouldn't make a substance-free hypothetical situation the basis for your deeply-held belief. I'm sure of that especially in light of the video at the top of this thread showing an actual man being just because he's gay. The serious problem of violence against homosexuals actually exists. So thank you in advance for providing a link to the actual case of redhead-hatred-caused-violence you have in mind.

I'm looking forward to reading the actual details.

I have to admit I am losing all respect for you GS. You used to be intellectually honest in your arguments and dealings.

Austin Roth--

I didn't delete anything. Maybe T-Steel can explain what happened, but I can't.

I also didn't lie or misrepresent you.

More to follow, and soon, but I want this much out there right away.

T-Steel--

Since you are the technical guru here, I expect you to explain this.

Austin Roth--

I did not remove that comment. Not at all. I don't know where it went, but I'm not the one who took it down.

Not at all.

It is, in fact, still available in its original unedited form, in my Discus achieve. I trust that is evidence enough to support me.

Why would I take it down? There are no lies or misrepresentations is that comment.

I brought in the Supremes to show the argument in favor of hate crimes that is strong enough to persuade even Antonin Scalia of their merit. I thought maybe you would step up your intellectual case against them.

I don't see the part of that comment where I claim you called them unconstitutional. You're the one who's doing the misrepresenting, Austin Roth. You. You are. Not me.

If "the rhetorical device of reductio ad absurdum" is the best intellectual case you can muster, then you should go with that. Maybe you think the law is nothing but a matter of logic. But I'm going to fall back, once again, on the thinking of conservative judge Oliver Wendell Holmes, who said, "The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience." If you want to say the experience of redheads is equivalent to the experience of homosexuals, that's your choice. I'm sure you do the best you can.

As for the fact that assault is already a crime, in our system, intent matters. (Thanks to Tidbits for clearing up the distinction between intent and motive last week.) That's why there are distinctions between murder, manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, and self-defense. It is also a fact that women, blacks, Jews, gays, and other minorities are subject to violence simply for their membership in their group. There's nothing logical about it--but I don't see any reason to deny the truth of that experience. It seems to me that this fact is a valid basis for a law PROTECTING them. And you know what? That fact also seemed like a valid basis to William Rehnquist, who was no liberal.

As for the idea of "special protection"--what a joke that is. The Mitchell case referred to earlier is proof enough that these laws are also available to protect white males.

There was absolutely no reason for me to remove that comment. That's why I didn't do it.

ALL: There has been a serious problem with our third party commenting system. If your comment was deleted, IT WAS NOT BECAUSE OF CONTENT, BUT BY A SOFTWARE MALFUNCTION.

I am all over this like white on rice with Disqus and WILL stay on top of this. I apologize for ALL the confusion and emotion over this.

Thank you!

GS - I owe you an apology, as it appears that DISQUS itself is to blame. I am sorry for jumping to a false conclusion and impugning your character about the deletion.

As to the constitutional question, nope, it was you whose raised the issue, citing a Supreme Court ruling upholding them. Why would you have raised that issue otherwise? The question the Court answered was indeed the question of Constitutionality.

And yes, reductio ad absurdum is the best I case I can raise, because it is exactly what I did, and I use that form of argument on a very regular basis here.

And there is a difference between using motive to determine WHAT crime was committed vs. using motive to determine if the same crime deserves greater punishment.

Austin Roth--

I accept your apology.

Last week, Tidbits drew a clear distinction between motive and intent. In these kinds of crimes the intent is to injure someone strictly for their membership in a group. Therefore, without the hate, there would be no intent to injure and therefore no crime would be committed. I described this more clearly during the discussion last week.

If you think logic trumps experience, you're free to make that case. If you think it's unfair for me to bring in additional evidence, like the Supreme Court ruling, you're free to make that case. If you prefer to ignore some of my arguments, like what I said about equal protection, you're free to do that as well.

For that matter, if you think personal insults make your case stronger, indulge in them.

I have the opportunity to respond or not.

Have a nice day.

Dear Readers and COMMENTERS. Dr. E here.

I've been under the weather and slammed at work, and have not followed comments on this article until this morning when we received an email from George Sorwell laying out that there were some disappearing comments on this particular article and that it had caused misunderstanding and upset.

Firstly, the same issue of comments recognized as 'spam' and therefore deleted, popped up also for one of Tmv's writers and that writer contacted us yesterday about the matter which Tyrone immediately began looking into as he is the only one at TMV who knows the innards of the system down at code level.

We did not know until we received George's email this morning, that a comment had gone poof on a different article, apparently also yesterday.

You likely saw Tyrone's comment above about the matter. And there is also an article this morning on TMV with an update as well, about what the situation is that caused such re some comments being marked as spam.

I want to say George's letter to us was reasoned and polite even though he was concerned, not knowing what had happened. We all here at TMV admin who have been handling this issue yesterday and today, JoeG, Tyrone and myself, appreciate his tone.

It appears to me, from a cursory reading of the comments on this article today, that there is misunderstanding in the back and forth because George's comment was missing in the spam prison.

I apologize that there was any misunderstanding because of this glitch, and know that ALL commenters know and agree by commenting at TMV, that even with misunderstandings, ad hominem attacks are unacceptable.

In that light, if any commenter here, would like to adjust their comments after the fact, there is always a button at the bottom of your comment that allows you to edit your own comment after it was first posted. Just afterward, press save, and comment will be back up in its new form.

Thanks George for letting us know the issue was more than just on one article. I believe the Disqus system will hiccup less now.

Kind regards,
dr.e

I don't need your pity. I'm not the small minded one here. You should feel sorry for yourself for not being able to feel empathy for others.

You can spin it and twist it any way you like. It only makes you look foolish. I am not a racist, I stand up for groups of people who are being oppressed or disenfranchised. I am proud that I try to make others understant how it must feel to be treated poorly by groups of people who use their power to hurt others.

My statement was meant to show that you are in a group of people who are either unable or unwilling to understand how it feels to be oppressed or disenfranchised by a larger and more powerful group. If you were treated unfairly because someone else didn't like the way you look or because you were a "fill-in-the-blank," you might be able to understand what it feels like. I was advocating empathy.

I'm just getting around to reading this thread, so I don't know if anyone else has answered this question, but if not.... Pete, "Queens" refers to the NYC borough in which this crime occurred. The headline admittedly is a bit confusing for anyone who doesn't know NYC place names that well -- and this word in particular of course lends itself to confusion since it has a double meaning.

"The problem is that certain classes of people ARE more protected than others, by the virtue being straight, or white, or cisgendered, etc. That's already the reality."

You are right, roro. I lost a scholarship because I was not black or american indian or eskimo. I then, had to pay for my own college education by working through college. The straight white male, in this case, was discriminated against. And yet the ACLU was nowhere to be found.

ANY beating like the one in the video should be punished with a beating, or similar punishment that fits the crime.

Wonder why?

I do not know why I am bothering to reply to you; you are obviously deranged. But what the heck, one more try.

How you can fail to see that stating someone must be a part of one ethnic group or is a specific sex simply because of their feelings on a specific type of law is not a racist and sexist comment is simply beyond me.

What if someone said "if you believe that welfare is a good idea, you must be a black woman"? Wouldn't you (rightfully) consider that a racist and sexist comment? Any sane person would, so think carefully about your answer.

And what approved groups (by your small-minded definitions) would I have to be part of to meet your criteria of being capable of empathy?

I am: overweight (obese by the medical definition, actually); diabetic; bi-polar; lived as a homosexual and bi-sexual for years; a high school drop out with only a GED as my 'formal' education; have been physically abused by my father; was raped when I was 14; I was a drug addict for 20 years, and I am a recovered drug addict now.

Any of those "good enough" for you?

You seem to mistake empathy with political or legal viewpoints, or more correctly you refuse to allow that others can be as empathetic as yourself, but simply not agree with you on some particular point.

Anyway, you cannot win an argument with an idiot or a deranged person, so I am done communicating with you.

Dr E--

Thanks for the explanation.

Thanks also to T-Steel for the work he did, and does.

Me and Tyrone appreciate your appreciation, thanks George!

I dont know if you noticed, but Disqus put up a different avatar for my comments than I've used since forever... just since yesterday there's this pink and orange thing where there was a black and violet image. I have no idea where my original little picture went. I think it must have been deleted as spam too. Sad face. I am going in search of the original now.

hang in there.

kind regards,
Dr.e