Isn't this a hate crime?

[LuvOrlando]

Shouldn't this be treated as a Hate crime or do we actually have a law limited to only 2 privileged groups, including only 1 ethnicity and 1 orientation?

I don't know about anyone else out there but this particular topic REALLY gets to me time & time again.


PHILADELPHIA (CBS 3) ―


Students at a Philadelphia high school claim they are being targeted by gangs at their school because they are Asian.

As a precaution, there was an increased police presence at South Philadelphia High School on Friday.

Some parents and students are upset after hearing reports that a group of Asian students were attacked by fellow students.

"It was blacks and whites and they saw the Asians at the school, it all started with an argument," an unidentified student told Eyewitness News.

According to Xu Lin, a counselor at the Chinatown Development Corporation, one Asian student was attacked after school on Wednesday. Lin said the attack continued Thursday inside the school and later outside the school.

"When Asians students were picked out, they simply turned their back and when students reported to them, they did not document the incident," Lin said.

Lin said at least 26 Asian students were victimized and many of them required medical assistance.

"We will not tolerate violence either in our school or outside the school," Superintendent Michael Silverman said.

Lin said the safety measures in place are not working.

However, school leaders say it is a work in progress.

"We've suspended ten students, those students are all going to be all sent for disciplinary transfers," Silverman said.

School officials say they are working closely with police and added that the number of students suspended could rise and some of the students could face criminal charges.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Hate crimes are not limited to groups. I do not know the standard of proof to qualify it as a hate crime.

It does say they will possibly face criminal charges. It doesn't say that those charges would not include hate crime.

I think it is too early to tell.

 

[LuvOrlando]

Personally I'm pretty skeptical, normally they shout out hate crime in the headlines if anyone is thinking of it.

Maybe you are right and the decent thing to do will prevail, but I'm not holding my breath. Same old, same old, they'll just wait until it gets old sweep it under the rug and try to pretend it's not really an issue. But I have a LONG memory.

If you really don't think they are limited to particular groups how do you explain the treatment of that poor Caucasian family that was assaulted by a mob shouting racial epitaphs back on the 4th of July? What about the Incident among Columbia University faculty a few weeks back? TO my knowledge none of the very blatant criminals were charged with a hate crime, or even investigated as ones.

 

[golfgal]

Unfortunately it seems like the only "group" protected under the hate crime laws are blacks. It most defiantly would not be a hate crime if the victims were white. I am sure this comes off sounding racist but it is not, just the plain truth.

 

[metalis4ever]

Unfortunately it seems like the only "group" protected under the hate crime laws are blacks. It most defiantly would not be a hate crime if the victims were white. I am sure this comes off sounding racist but it is not, just the plain truth.

Where are you statistics and/or studies that support this "plain truth" of yours?

Since ignorance is not bliss...Here are the FBI 2008 Hate Crime Statistics :

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2008/index.html

Of the incidents of "Racial bias" hate crimes 72.9% were victims of anti-black bias which was clearly the highest however 16.8% of the "Racial bias" hate crimes were victims of anti-white bias which is the second highest. So clearly it's not that "blacks" as you said are protected more by the "Hate Crime bills" it is that they need the "Hate Crime Bills" for protection.


This particular case seems as though it is a "Racial bias" hate crime and should be treated as such.

 

[golfgal]

Where are you statistics and/or studies that support this "plain truth" of yours?

Since ignorance is not bliss...Here are the FBI 2008 Hate Crime Statistics :

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2008/index.html

Of the incidents of "Racial bias" hate crimes 72.9% were victims of anti-black bias which was clearly the highest however 16.8% of the "Racial bias" hate crimes were victims of anti-white bias which is the second highest. So clearly it's not that "blacks" as you said are protected more by the "Hate Crime bills" it is that they need the "Hate Crime Bills" for protection.


This particular case seems as though it is a "Racial bias" hate crime and should be treated as such.

Except that your reasoning if flawed--the problem is that black on white crime or black on Asian crime isn't be LABELED as a hate crime so it won't show up on these reports.

 

[snarlingcoyote]

Yes, from the article, it certainly sounds as though it could be a hate crime. No, from the article, it doesn't sound as though it could be prosecuted as a hate crime.

In order to prosecute a crime, the prosecution must prove a crime was committed. In this case, prove hatred of a certain group was to blame. To prove something you need evidence. Statistically speaking, you can infer that the reason the students were beaten up was because they were Asian, but that's not cut and dried absolute proof. Proof would be something like other students saying something racially charged about Asians or harrassing the Asians verbally, or using racially charged symbolic items to harrass the Asian students. And all the harrasssment was specifically about the Asians being Asian - not anything that was done or said. Just harrassment because the students existed and were Asian.

This is why it's very hard to prosecute hate crimes unless the culprits are dumb enough (or stoned enough or drunk enough) to say the wrong things/do the wrong things and give prosecutors enough evidence before they attack. Even then it's difficult in some cases. For example, in Louisiana, sexual orientation is protected against hate crimes. However, in Louisiana, a lot of people are homophobic. Most of those people do not commit hate crimes. So at what point does the homophobia coupled with violence towards a gay person turn the action into a hate crime? At what point is there enough evidence that the gay person's orientation the cause of the crime and different from any other assault?

There's a big difference between recognizing that something likely happened a certain way and having enough proof to convict someone. That's how our courts were set up and honestly, I'm glad they were. I know personally of cases where prosecutors convicted men of crimes based upon likelihood and then years later it turned out the men had not committed any crimes and all that was left behind were broken families and broken men.

 

[metalis4ever]

Except that your reasoning if flawed--the problem is that black on white crime or black on Asian crime isn't be LABELED as a hate crime so it won't show up on these reports.

Your reasoning is based on an assumption therefore irrational where is your evidence that this is happening?

I could say that your reasoning is flawed -- the problem is there are little blue unicorns telling the police and authorities to only label said crimes as hate crimes against black people...said claim would have just as much credence...For I could not prove it...

 

[LukenDC]

Hates crimes pertain to crimes against people who are victimized because of an innate characteristic or protected class. Hate crimes receive special consideration because the culprit is intimidating an entire class of people through the perpetration of his/her crime. Attacks against someone because of their race, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, etc are all prosecutable under hate crimes laws. Note that these are broad terms that encompass all people, not specific groups. Everyone has a race, everyone has a sexual orientation.

As a strong supporter of hate crimes legislation, I wholeheartedly support the application of hate crimes statutes when the victims are part of a majority class (i.e. white, heterosexual, Christian). To do otherwise is to jeopardize this class of laws.

 

[C.Ann]

As far as I'm concerned, when any human attacks another human with the intent of causing physical harm (or worse) for no reason at all, there is "hate" involved - no matter how people choose to classify it..

 

[ChrisFL]

As far as I'm concerned, when any human attacks another human with the intent of causing physical harm (or worse) for no reason at all, there is "hate" involved - no matter how people choose to classify it..

Understood, but things are different when there is reasoning behind something....

For example, someone owing another person $5,000 and they don't pay it back...the person owed beats up that person...yes, its a bad thing but it's for a reason.

Beating someone up because they look different is a much worse crime because it speaks to an overall hatred which can cause chaos in society (see: holocaust)

 

[C.Ann]

Understood, but things are different when there is reasoning behind something....

For example, someone owing another person $5,000 and they don't pay it back...the person owed beats up that person...yes, its a bad thing but it's for a reason.

Beating someone up because they look different is a much worse crime because it speaks to an overall hatred which can cause chaos in society (see: holocaust)

I did say "for no reason at all" - so the $5,000 situation is not what I meant.. Beating someone up because of how they look, dress, etc. is the type of "no reason at all" I was referring to.. Because someone "looks" different is not a "reason" - it's "hateful".. See what I mean?

 

[eliza61]

Hates crimes pertain to crimes against people who are victimized because of an innate characteristic or protected class. Hate crimes receive special consideration because the culprit is intimidating an entire class of people through the perpetration of his/her crime. Attacks against someone because of their race, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, etc are all prosecutable under hate crimes laws. Note that these are broad terms that encompass all people, not specific groups. Everyone has a race, everyone has a sexual orientation.

As a strong supporter of hate crimes legislation, I wholeheartedly support the application of hate crimes statutes when the victims are part of a majority class (i.e. white, heterosexual, Christian). To do otherwise is to jeopardize this class of laws.

As far as I'm concerned, when any human attacks another human with the intent of causing physical harm (or worse) for no reason at all, there is "hate" involved - no matter how people choose to classify it..

That's very true C. Ann.

Guys remember the hate crime classification has been watered down and lost in it's original intent.

The classification developed from a real failure on the part of American law officials to investigate crimes against certain groups. They began during the late 60's
Many civil rights organizations (specifically african american and gay organizations) found that crime specifically targeted to members of these communities were not taken seriously by local law enforcement. Hate crime bills were a way that groups could seek investigation on a federal level when most other people would sweep it under the rug.

It's not used as much with Caucasians because historically as a group in this country, whites have always had the protection of the judicial system. Until very recently (remember it took a supreme court ruling to allow blacks to even sit in front of a freakin bus and that was only 50 years ago) Caucasians made the laws, interperted the laws, enforced the laws so it's really hard to claim a history of discrimination.

 

[ChrisFL]

I did say "for no reason at all" - so the $5,000 situation is not what I meant.. Beating someone up because of how they look, dress, etc. is the type of "no reason at all" I was referring to.. Because someone "looks" different is not a "reason" - it's "hateful".. See what I mean?

oops, my fault, I misread your post at first

 

[C.Ann]

oops, my fault, I misread your post at first

No problem..

 

[Wall-E1]

For those posters that claim that hate crimes only focus on one or two groups, perhaps a little education would be in order, so as not to portray yourselves as completely ignorant. Blacks and gays are not the only two groups that are protected under these laws, although these are the two groups that are mostly targeted by racial and hate crimes. The hate crime laws have been used in Native American cases, other ethnicities (Mexican, Hispanics, etc.), religions (Jews, Muslims, etc.). Your comments seem tinged with a bit of anger towards the gays and blacks - at least that's the impression that I get. Until people learn to accept blacks, gays and other groups as equals, these hate crime laws are needed and effective.

 

[LuvOrlando]

I think it is ridiculous to say that the mere voicing of obvious disparities are indicative of hatred directed towards the people who benefit from the inequality (benefit is a loosely used term regarding crime but how else do I say it?). I think we are in very dangerous territory when anyone is demonized simply for making observations. This behavior is not new at all, it is an old true blue method of silencing dissent. The only thing that ever seems to change through eons of history is the "WHO' that is victimized by it and the 'WHO' that is pulling the strings.

As far as the logic behind the statistics regarding hate crime legislation: If only Norwegian women were candidates for being classified as Rape victims, wouldn't the formally counted population of Rape victims therefore be 100% Norwegian???? It's all about linear reasoning and logic. If there was only one thing I took with me out of college with my Degree in Economics, it's that statistics, regardless of their appearance of validity, can be ridiculously easy to manipulate. All you have to do to distort them is be selective about the group from which you collect your samples.

I do happen to see these groups as equals,but then again I happen to see everyone as equals. Being from NYC where I shared a lunch table with every ethnicity imaginable I find it hard to grasp how anyone thinks that superficial attributes alter the human condition. That said, I do not think grooming resentment in the general population though obvious inequlaities is a good way to go about removing the social problems of which you speak. If the goal is to remove social inequalities I happen to think the best place to start is in institutional organizations. I think the whole way things are being managed along these lines, while necessary at the onset, have devolved into being counter productive at this point. IF we are all equal THEN we must all be treated as equal at the very least, in the eyes of the law. Therefore IF a person, any person, is targeted because they are different from their victimizer THEN they should be treated accordingly. No exceptions.

As a result, I believe this case of bias against the Asian community needs to be addressed regardless of the ethnicity of their persecutors as well as any other case that comes along. IMO, its wrong to define who a victim is based upon that persons attributes just like it's wrong to define a criminal's status as such based upon his/her attributes.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I think it is ridiculous to say that the mere voicing of obvious disparities are indicative of hatred directed towards the people who benefit from the inequality. I think we are in very dangerous territory when anyone is demonized simply for making observations. This behavior is not new at all, it is an old true blue method of silencing dissent. The only thing that ever seems to change through eons of history is the "WHO' that is victimized by it and the 'WHO' that is pulling the strings.

As far as the logic behind the statistics regarding hate crime legislation: If only Norwegian women were candidates for being classified as Rape victims, wouldn't the formally counted population of Rape victims therefore be 100% Norwegian???? It's all about linear reasoning and logic. If there was only one thing I took with me out of college with my Degree in Economics, it's that statistics, regardless of their appearance of validity, can be ridiculously easy to manipulate. All you have to do to distort them is be selective about the group from which you collect your samples.

I always thought hate crimes were those against minorities--why likely you won't ever see a crime against a woman a "hate crime" since sex is not considered a factor and they are not.

I thought also that hate crimes were developed as someone said to expressly punish additionally against those who essentially persecute minorities.


I see the need for such legislation since folks take "free speech" wayyyyy too far, but my DH feels a crime is a crime is a crime and everyone should be protected from them.

In this case, while the group may have been singled out, the standard of proof that would make it a hate crime likely will not be met since in order to convict someone of that, you'd have to prove it.

There are no burning crosses, or effigies, or racial slurs painted in grafitti or anything of that nature that we are aware of. Those types of acts would help this case be prosecuted as a hate crime.

If perhaps there was a witnessed verbal exchange in which slurs were used--that might help.

But from what some have posted, maybe the burden is higher than expected.

Just b/c someone attacks someone of a given protected class (race, religion, ethnicity, etc) doesn't mean that they committed a hate crime.

For some people are just criminals and attack whomever and to cast the stone that any attack on person A by person B who is of a different _______, without any substantial proof that they did it with no other reason in mind (i.e. random attack and it happened it was a person of whatever class)--would not be right IMHO.



*I am not an attorney nor do I play one on tv.

 

[eliza61]

IAs far as the logic behind the statistics regarding hate crime legislation: If only Norwegian women were candidates for being classified as Rape victims, wouldn't the formally counted population of Rape victims therefore be 100% Norwegian???? It's all about linear reasoning and logic. If there was only one thing I took with me out of college with my Degree in Economics, it's that statistics, regardless of their appearance of validity, can be ridiculously easy to manipulate. All you have to do to distort them is be selective about the group from which you collect your samples.

I do happen to see these groups as equals,but then again I happen to see everyone as equals. Being from NYC where I shared a lunch table with every ethnicity imaginable I find it hard to grasp how anyone thinks that superficial attributes alter the human condition. That said, I do not think grooming resentment in the general population though obvious inequlaities is a good way to go about removing the social problems of which you speak. If the goal is to remove social inequalities I happen to think the best place to start is in institutional organizations. I think the whole way things are being managed along these lines, while necessary at the onset, have devolved into being counter productive at this point. IF we are all equal THEN we must all be treated as equal at the very least, in the eyes of the law. Therefore IF a person, any person, is targeted because they are different from their victimizer THEN they should be treated accordingly. No exceptions.

As a result, I believe this case of bias against the Asian community needs to be addressed regardless of the ethnicity of their persecutors as well as any other case that comes along. IMO, its wrong to define who a victim is based upon that persons attributes just like it's wrong to define a criminal's status as such based upon his/her attributes.

But that's the rub Luv, You see every one as equal. The problem is we know for a fact that quite a few people DO NOT.

Consider the simple fact that just last month a Justice of the Peace, a person elected to power in Louisiana denied some one the right to marry based on the color of their skin. To make matters worse, he freely defended this stupidity. All that you say is absolutely 100% true in principal. Hate crimes exist because we 100% know that it is not being practiced.

Now if anyone can come up with a viable solution to have a color blind justice system, then you'd have 100% support from me but until such time, hate crime legislation is very much needed.

Now one of the problems may be that we need to make the classification a bit harder so every Tom, dick and Harry who happens to get insulted does not run off to the DA's office screaming hate crime. For example if I get into a fight with a White girl at a bar and she calls me the N-word, that's not a hate crime. That's two women fighting in the street but if I move onto a block where I'm the only minority and crosses start burning on my front lawn....well now we may have to investigate...

 

[metalis4ever]

As far as the logic behind the statistics regarding hate crime legislation: If only Norwegian women were candidates for being classified as Rape victims, wouldn't the formally counted population of Rape victims therefore be 100% Norwegian???? It's all about linear reasoning and logic. If there was only one thing I took with me out of college with my Degree in Economics, it's that statistics, regardless of their appearance of validity, can be ridiculously easy to manipulate. All you have to do to distort them is be selective about the group from which you collect your samples.

I agree completely with this statement just reference that scientist (and I use the term loosely) who manipulated the data to show that Vaccinations and Autism were linked..Having said that baseless observation is just as bad as statistical manipulation/distortion after all as I like to say perception is not reality but rather just another word for ignorance.

After going over the data and statistics provided by the FBI one can clearly see the disparity at the top which I guess could be attributed to some extent to the whole "white guilt" factor but how much? It's not even something that is measurable. And given that the FBI compiled the data of "Reported Hate Crimes" I guess one could knock a few more percentage points...But where does that leave us? The disparity would still remain as is...Since I have confidence in our legal system I choose to see them as valid statistics of "reported hate crimes".

We should in theory see ourselves as equal as we are all (well most of us living in the US) Americans, therefore that should be our common bond. Unfortunately we allow our Ethnicity, Ethos, and Micro-Cultures (Religions, Fraternities, Jenny's book club etc...) divide us which only furthers inequality. I'm not expounding that we should promote or hold a "Marxist view" of our society but a little civility would go a long way. Inequality and hatred is a generational disease most individuals hate the things/people their parents hated and love the things their parents loved.

But commenting on this this specific case clearly an ethnic group is being targeted now whether it is gang related or not the bottom line is one ethnic group is harassing and tormenting another culminating in violence. Having read the available resources on this and referencing the "hate crime legislation" to me the incidents described definitley qualify as hate crimes and should be treated as such. This definitley exceeds the norms of school yard bullying.