Isn't this a hate crime?

[LuvOrlando]

The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program collects data about both single-bias and multiple-bias hate crime incidents. For each offense type reported, law enforcement must indicate at least one bias motivation. A single-bias incident is defined as an incident in which one or more offense types are motivated by the same bias. A multiple-bias incident is defined as an incident in which more than one offense type occurs and at least two offense types are motivated by different biases.

■In 2008, 13,690 law enforcement agencies submitted hate crime data to the UCR Program. Of these agencies, 2,145 reported 7,783 hate crime incidents involving 9,168 offenses.
■Of the 7,783 reported incidents, 7,780 were single-bias and involved 9,160 offenses, 9,683 victims, and 6,921 offenders.
■The 3 multiple*-bias incidents reported in 2008 involved 8 offenses, 8 victims, and 6 offenders. (See Tables 1 and 12.)
Single-bias incidents
Of the 7,780 single-bias incidents reported in 2008:

■51.3 percent were racially motivated.
■19.5 percent were motivated by religious bias.
■16.7 percent stemmed from sexual-orientation bias.
■11.5 percent resulted from ethnicity/national origin bias.
■1.0 percent were motivated by disability bias. (Based on Table 1.)
Offenses by bias motivation within incidents
There were 9,160 single-bias hate crime offenses reported in the above incidents. Of these:

■51.4 percent stemmed from racial bias.
■17.7 percent were motivated by sexual-orientation bias.
■17.5 percent resulted from religious bias.
■12.5 percent were motivated by ethnicity/national origin bias.
■0.9 percent resulted from biases against disabilities. (Based on Table 1.)
Racial bias
In 2008, law enforcement agencies reported that 4,704 offenses among single-bias hate crime incidents were racially motivated. Of these offenses:

■72.6 percent were motivated by anti-black bias.
■17.3 percent stemmed from anti-white bias.
■5.5 percent were a result of bias against groups of individuals consisting of more than one race (anti-multiple races, group).
■3.4 percent resulted from anti-Asian/Pacific Islander bias.
■1.3 percent were motivated by anti-American Indian/Alaskan Native bias. (Based on Table 1.)
Sexual-orientation bias
Of the single-bias incidents, 1,617 offenses were committed based on sexual-orientation bias. Of these offenses:

■58.6 percent were the result of anti-male homosexual bias.
■25.7 percent were motivated by anti-homosexual bias.
■12.0 percent were prompted by anti-female homosexual bias.
■2.0 percent were the result of anti-heterosexual bias.
■1.7 percent were motivated by anti-bisexual bias. (Based on Table 1.)
Religious bias
There were 1,606 hate crime offenses motivated by religious bias in 2008. A breakdown of these offenses shows:

■65.7 percent were anti-Jewish.
■13.2 percent were anti-other religion.
■7.7 percent were anti-Islamic.
■4.7 percent were anti-Catholic.
■4.2 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
■3.7 percent were anti-Protestant.
■0.9 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc. (Based on Table 1.)
Ethnicity/national origin bias
In 2008, law enforcement agencies reported 1,148 offenses were committed based on the perceived ethnicity or national origin of the victim. Of these offenses:

■64.0 percent were due to anti-Hispanic bias.
■36.0 percent were because of anti-other ethnicity/national origin bias. (Based on Table 1.)












*****Looks like to me that these numbers from 2008 fall into line with our census rankings. My comment about your first post wasn't meant to be a cheap shot, but it does read that you're irritated that these "two priveleged" groups are more in focus.

Black people, in general, are poorer than whites and Asians. This would automatically create more crime. Crime falls amongst the most populated. The population in this country reflects those of European descent. The numbers add up. Of course black people and gay people are going to have the highest incidents against them. With groups such as the Klan and Skinheads.. how could it not? Urban gangs are not formed because of the hatred of white people. They're formed out of what they consider necessity and poverty.

I don't think anyone is denying some groups are disproportionately victimized. IMO women are the least protected but I won't go there today

I think your findings are interesting, but if this is so then why are so many crimes not shuttled in this direction? If a murder is a murder it is classified as such, if an assault is an assault it is classified as such. I mean we often hear even videotapes insults on you-tube these days which is proof positive to me yet the DA's do not push for classification. If the law isn't meant to exclude people how come they are so often excluded??? Why, why why??? Won't this mean the people who victimized the ASians in the article I first posted will, by definition, be charged with a hate crime? If not what exactly are we saying about crimes against Asians because they are of Asian decent?

If the laws do not exclude anyone the problem is a much, much, much easier fix isn't it? You may be 100% right and this disparity is more a problem with individual local law enforcement which needs to be addressed. If that's the case we need to pressure our local DA's, who we choose BTW.

And really, sorry to anyone who felt I was saying we don't need laws like this and found it hurtful. I in no way think this. I just happen to think that if we are ever going to have a truly equal society we really need to start with our laws the letter of the law, the interpretation of the law and the practice of the law.

Out of curiosity, these numbers reflect reported crimes, not necessarily percentages of successfully prosecuted crimes, anyone know the numbers on that?

 

[LuvOrlando]

Hmmm, look at what I found, participation is voluntary, which means an area that does not want to make public an abundance of this particular brand of crime can opt out of participation. See where I highlighted this excerpt red. To find this, from page one click on " Where can I find information about the different biases that can constitute a hate crime in UCR?"



"The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program’s Hate Crime Statistics Program collects data regarding criminal offenses that are motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity/national origin, or disability and are committed against persons, property, or society. Because motivation is subjective, it is sometimes difficult to know with certainty whether a crime resulted from the offender’s bias. Moreover, the presence of bias alone does not necessarily mean that a crime can be considered a hate crime. Only when law enforcement investigation reveals sufficient evidence to lead a reasonable and prudent person to conclude that the offender’s actions were motivated, in whole or in part, by his or her bias, should an incident be reported as a hate crime.
Data collection
Incident types

The UCR Program collects data about both single-bias and multiple-bias hate crimes. A single-bias incident is defined as an incident in which one or more offense types are motivated by the same bias. A multiple-bias incident is defined as an incident in which more than one offense type occurs and at least two offense types are motivated by different biases.
Offense types

The law enforcement agencies that voluntarily participate in the Hate Crime Statistics Program collect details about an offender’s bias motivation associated with 11 offense types already being reported to the UCR Program: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, simple assault, and intimidation (crimes against persons); and robbery, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, arson, and destruction/damage/vandalism (crimes against property). The law enforcement agencies that participate in the UCR Program via the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) collect data about additional offenses for crimes against persons and crimes against property. These data appear in Hate Crime Statistics in the category of other. These agencies also collect hate crime data for the category called crimes against society, which includes drug or narcotic offenses, gambling offenses, prostitution offenses, and weapon law violations. Together, the offense classification other and the crime category crimes against society include 34 Group A Offenses (not listed) that are captured in the NIBRS, which also collects the previously mentioned 11 offense categories. (The Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook, NIBRS Edition [1992], provides an explanation of the 46 Group A Offenses.)"

 

[eliza61]

What you are saying is all 100% true, but it does not justify leaving some people out. Leaving people out is the problem, the only problem... and a pretty big one in my opinion.

Hey we all can agree on the problem. That's generally the easy part. As an African American I can definitely tell you that leaving us out from being able to vote, live where we want and ride the bus how and when we wanted was definitely a big problem for me visiting my grandparents in knoxville Tenns. Not being able to have lunch in a downtown restaurant was a pretty big problem, so you get no argument from me.

My view is a little different because if it were not for civil rights laws and hate crime laws FORCING changes, I'd be willing to bet cash money, I'd still be living in a Jim Crow segregated society. Any time you have a county official saying he's not going to marry some one because their black, in 2009 pretty much tells you the need for such legislation.
You think if it wasn't for the public out cry wackadoodles like this are suddenly going to start treating every one as equal.

Sorry Luv, getting rid of hate crime laws is not going to make the racist and homophobs suddenly sit down and say hey you know what, I'm going to stop harrassing black people. The KKK and neo nazis are not all of a sudden going to see the light of day.

Let me ask you, Let's say we got rid of hate crime legislation do you think that's going to solve the problems of hate crimes?

What exact problems outside of ticking off people who fell they were subject to a hate crime and couldn't for whatever reason get classified has the "hate crime" legislature caused?

 

[metalis4ever]

Hmmm, look at what I found, participation is voluntary, which means an area that does not want to make public an abundance of this particular brand of crime can opt out of participation. See where I highlighted this excerpt red. To find this, from page one click on " Where can I find information about the different biases that can constitute a hate crime in UCR?"



"The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program’s Hate Crime Statistics Program collects data regarding criminal offenses that are motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity/national origin, or disability and are committed against persons, property, or society. Because motivation is subjective, it is sometimes difficult to know with certainty whether a crime resulted from the offender’s bias. Moreover, the presence of bias alone does not necessarily mean that a crime can be considered a hate crime. Only when law enforcement investigation reveals sufficient evidence to lead a reasonable and prudent person to conclude that the offender’s actions were motivated, in whole or in part, by his or her bias, should an incident be reported as a hate crime.
Data collection
Incident types

The UCR Program collects data about both single-bias and multiple-bias hate crimes. A single-bias incident is defined as an incident in which one or more offense types are motivated by the same bias. A multiple-bias incident is defined as an incident in which more than one offense type occurs and at least two offense types are motivated by different biases.
Offense types

The law enforcement agencies that voluntarily participate in the Hate Crime Statistics Program collect details about an offender’s bias motivation associated with 11 offense types already being reported to the UCR Program: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, simple assault, and intimidation (crimes against persons); and robbery, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, arson, and destruction/damage/vandalism (crimes against property). The law enforcement agencies that participate in the UCR Program via the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) collect data about additional offenses for crimes against persons and crimes against property. These data appear in Hate Crime Statistics in the category of other. These agencies also collect hate crime data for the category called crimes against society, which includes drug or narcotic offenses, gambling offenses, prostitution offenses, and weapon law violations. Together, the offense classification other and the crime category crimes against society include 34 Group A Offenses (not listed) that are captured in the NIBRS, which also collects the previously mentioned 11 offense categories. (The Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook, NIBRS Edition [1992], provides an explanation of the 46 Group A Offenses.)"

I can see one could pull that sentence out of context but to me it does not read as you stated "participation is voluntary" but rather that the law Enforcement Agencies aren't mandated to collect and share the data but do so on a voluntary basis.

The fact of the matter is as I have previously stated there will never be complete equality because our society does not allow for it as we are a free people. To paraphrase a previous poster there is not one person who views everyone as equals, I mean how can we? We all have different World Views, different Ethos, different life experiences, belong to different micro-cultures(i.e. Religions). We all have bias towards at least one group of individuals it's the way our society is. Now bias is a long ways away from HATE. Bias can foster discussion and a seeking of understanding, however hatred can never lead to anything productive. The answer to all of this is simple its education, its stepping up as parents, teachers and mentors and being the vaccine to the generational disease of hatred, bigotry, racism, and ignorance. The battle isn't won with badges or court rooms it's won in our schools and in our homes.

 

[LuvOrlando]

I can see one could pull that sentence out of context but to me it does not read as you stated "participation is voluntary" but rather that the law Enforcement Agencies aren't mandated to collect and share the data but do so on a voluntary basis.

The fact of the matter is as I have previously stated there will never be complete equality because our society does not allow for it as we are a free people. To paraphrase a previous poster there is not one person who views everyone as equals, I mean how can we? We all have different World Views, different Ethos, different life experiences, belong to different micro-cultures(i.e. Religions). We all have bias towards at least one group of individuals it's the way our society is. Now bias is a long ways away from HATE. Bias can foster discussion and a seeking of understanding, however hatred can never lead to anything productive. The answer to all of this is simple its education, its stepping up as parents, teachers and mentors and being the vaccine to the generational disease of hatred, bigotry, racism, and ignorance. The battle isn't won with badges or court rooms it's won in our schools and in our homes.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree. The only quality anyone needs to be capable of viewing others as equals is humility. If a person, me for example, accepts that he/she may be completely wrong about their beliefs and assumption he/she is capable of viewing others as possibly not wrong, and therefore equals.

I have beliefs, and I am very strongly grounded in them because they are all Faith based. Faith based in the things I have been taught, learned or observed in any and all aspects of my life, my surroundings, the books I've read, the stories I've heard, my family, my station in life etc. I say Faith based because many of my (our) ideas were not actually the result of our first hand experiences were they? I accept these ideas second hand because I have a measure of faith in the people behind these ideas stories etc. But since my interpretation of these things is completely subjective by virtue of my inescapably human limitations, I am very acutely aware that I can very possibly be wrong about any number of them. So if I can be wrong someone else can be right. How on earth can I consider myself any more likely to be correct than someone else, how can any of us? That right there is why I can tell you I absolutely think some people, not all people, but some people see others who are different from them as equals. As a result I think we are all instead subjective, but not necessarily biased. Bias implies one is more right and the other is more wrong whereas subjective simply mean preference, the two ideas are not the same. As in I prefer to visit WDW when on vacation, but that does not mean an alternative is wrong, its a subtle difference but in this case it means everything KWIM.

I think that in order to hate one must first feel superior. I think it is arrogance and pride that breed hate not preference, not subjectivity and not difference.

 

[LuvOrlando]

Hey we all can agree on the problem. That's generally the easy part. As an African American I can definitely tell you that leaving us out from being able to vote, live where we want and ride the bus how and when we wanted was definitely a big problem for me visiting my grandparents in knoxville Tenns. Not being able to have lunch in a downtown restaurant was a pretty big problem, so you get no argument from me.

My view is a little different because if it were not for civil rights laws and hate crime laws FORCING changes, I'd be willing to bet cash money, I'd still be living in a Jim Crow segregated society. Any time you have a county official saying he's not going to marry some one because their black, in 2009 pretty much tells you the need for such legislation.
You think if it wasn't for the public out cry wackadoodles like this are suddenly going to start treating every one as equal.

Sorry Luv, getting rid of hate crime laws is not going to make the racist and homophobs suddenly sit down and say hey you know what, I'm going to stop harrassing black people. The KKK and neo nazis are not all of a sudden going to see the light of day.

Let me ask you, Let's say we got rid of hate crime legislation do you think that's going to solve the problems of hate crimes?

What exact problems outside of ticking off people who fell they were subject to a hate crime and couldn't for whatever reason get classified has the "hate crime" legislature caused?

I never said we should get rid of the legislation. It should be expanded to protect everyone. How on earth did ANYONE get the idea I'm an advocate for getting rid of the legislation from anything I said? I can tell you flat there is no way to reasonably draw this conclusion because I simply do not agree with getting rid of it.

I do not see how anyone can go from me saying the people who attacked the individuals in Philly because they are Asian should be punished FOR a hate crime to the notion that I want to get rid of it? What you are saying is a complete contradiction of my entire thread. I'm not a racist so what's up with the getting ticked off part? I do not identify with the people who go to jail for this at all, instead I identify with the people being left out and assert that the 2 are not the same. It's not cool to try to dilute my ideas in this manner.

 

[metalis4ever]

I'm sorry but I have to disagree. The only quality anyone needs to be capable of viewing others as equals is humility. If a person, me for example, accepts that he/she may be completely wrong about their beliefs and assumption he/she is capable of viewing others as possibly not wrong, and therefore equals.

I have beliefs, and I am very strongly grounded in them because they are all Faith based. Faith based in the things I have been taught, learned or observed in any and all aspects of my lIife, my surroundings, the books I've read, the stories I've heard, my family, my station in life etc. I say Faith based because many of my (our) ideas were not actually the result of our first hand experiences were they? I accept these ideas second hand because I have a measure of faith in the people behind these ideas stories etc. But since my interpretation of these things is completely subjective by virtue of my inescapably human limitations, I am very acutely aware that I can very possibly be wrong about any number of them. So if I can be wrong someone else can be right. How on earth can I consider myself any more likely to be correct than someone else, how can any of us? That right there is why I can tell you I absolutely think some people, not all people, but some people see others who are different from them as equals. As a result I think we are all instead subjective, but not necessarily biased. Bias implies one is more right and the other is more wrong whereas subjective simply mean preference, the two ideas are not the same. As in I prefer to visit WDW when on vacation, but that does not mean an alternative is wrong, its a subtle difference but in this case it means everything KWIM.

I think that in order to hate one must first feel superior. I think it is arrogance and pride that breed hate not preference, not subjectivity and not difference.

So basically what you're saying is you don't feel as though your beliefs are any better than other peoples? So if someone believed that flying a plane into a building is right but you think it's wrong both beliefs are equal? If one believed that vaccinations caused autism and someone else who accepts the scientific evidence that states otherwise to be true both views have equal merit? As one feels they are right and the other wrong and vice versa. You have bias we all have bias. In certain aspects of life there is no room for subjectivity or faith just rationality.

When one speaks of trivial things such as where to vacation or what color is best then yes you have a point but real world issues can not be viewed through a rose colored lens. Otherwise, there would be no "Hate Crime Legislation" for you and others to criticize.

 

[Wall-E1]

I don't know about anyone else but I don't listen to a single person of which you mention. All these ideas and observations are 100% straight out of my own head. I know what I see and what I do not see. I notice because this effects me because it could be me, not because of some latent bigotry on my part. What I do not see is anyone being sent to jail for hate crimes against people who happen to be like me, and for the record I make no apologies for the random act of being born white Christian and heterosexual and I don't think I should feel guilty for it any more than I think anyone different from me should feel bad about how they randomly got into this world.

If you are correct and this issue is manufactured based upon fallacies then you (and/or anyone else who agrees with this thought stem)should be able to find a few cases where homosexual individuals were tried and convicted for hate crimes against heterosexual individuals, where non-whites were convicted of hate crimes against whites, and non Christians were convicted of hate crimes against Christians. I do not think you will be able to find them because I have never been able to find them. However, I am not always the best researcher on the planet so maybe my findings are more due to my ineptitude than fact. If you, or anyone else can find ANY cases which stood up to an 'actual conviction; following the aforementioned recipes I will gladly and humbly apologize.

I think the problem here is what you see, and what you choose not to see.

You asked for evidence of cases where gays were tried and convicted for hate crimes against homosexuals. You also stated that you were not able to find any cases of this. I could not find any cases either. This is not because of some conspiracy where gays attack heterosexuals and the crimes aren't tried as hate crimes. This is because gays don't generally attack heterosexuals out of hate. Gays don't torture and tie heterosexuals to fences, leaving them to die. Gays don't wait outside of clubs and bars for heterosexuals to leave, and then jump them and beat them up. Gays in the military don't attack, sodomize or kill their fellow recruits upon learning of their sexual orientation. These violent acts are almost entirely exclusive to heterosexuals. Gays would much rather go shopping, decorate their houses, or do other fabulous things. So, you thinking that the law is enforced on a one sided basis is flawed, as the minority side is basically not committing these hate offenses. Over 98% of sexual orientation hate crimes are directed against gays. This also is why these laws are needed. There is a lot of unprovoked violence against gays. These crimes used to be brushed under a rug. With the new hate crime laws, this is no longer possible.

You wanted evidence of black people being charged and convicted of hate crimes towards white people. You claimed that you could not find any cases. Here are some newspaper articles that document the crimes and convictions of hate crimes performed by black people against white people:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...1A25754C0A9609C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/nyregion/02shootout.html

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7045725

As I stated earlier, over 20% of hate crimes are committed by black people. So, it appears that the hate crime laws do apply to black people, as well as white people. If you would choose to see this, you would understand that hate crime convictions are not solely directed at white people.

As to your concerns about Christians being attacked by non-Christians - you can't be serious. Almost 80% of Americans consider themselves Christians. What other group do you feel is attacking Christians? Jews? Muslims? Atheists?

Realize this - all people are not created equal in this great nation of ours. If they were, these laws would not be needed. When inter-racial couples are being denied marriage, we are not all equal. When two consenting gay adults are denied marriage, we are not all equal. When there are still segregated proms for high school seniors, we are not all equal. So, as long as the majority continues to deny equal rights to minorities, hate crime laws are needed as an extra protection.

 

[LiLIrishChick63]

I consider that a hate crime because it was a racially motivated crime. There was a post here on the DIS about a white couple that was murdered by some guys who were black. They wanted to know why it was not considered a hate crime. Was there evidence that they were killed because they were white? Or it was just random, it could have been anyone of any race, it did not matter to the killers, like the car jacking story above.

that's what my argument was, too! because it was racially motivated! but they're still not charging them for a "hate crime".....

 

[Wall-E1]

well tbh idk what is considered a "hate crime" anymore. a few weeks ago my local news had a story on it about this boy who lived in a neighboring city who got beat with bricks. he was a white boy, and he was dating a black girl, and he got beat up by a group of black boys because he was dating a "black" girl and on the news they kept having all of these people claiming it WASN'T a hate crime.

one of them even went so far as to say "this isn't a hate crime, just a hateFUL crime"....

that's what my argument was, too! because it was racially motivated! but they're still not charging them for a "hate crime".....

This is the problem - picking out random cases and playing judge, jury and executioner. Then comes the claim that the hate crime law is not fair. The hate crime law is fair. It does not discriminate against white people. This is a matter of choosing what to see, and not actually seeing all of the evidence. Remember we are a country of laws. I took a few minutes and read up on the Brian Milligan incident. This is the beating that you were talking about. In a nutshell - he is white, and is dating a black girl. He was beaten by a group of black men with pieces of a concrete brick. This resulted in severe injuries including swelling of the brain. It was a heinous act. Personally, I fully believe this to be a hate crime. I'm willing to bet that the investigators feels this way too. Here's the problem. All of us feeling this way will not be enough for a jury. We are a country of laws. The fact is that Brian was jumped from behind. The fact is there are currently no witnesses. The fact is that Brian cannot remember anything about the attack. We all have that gut feeling that this is a hate crime, and we are right to feel this way, but it is the prosecution's job to charge the guilty party with charges that can be won in court. They currently feel that they do not have the evidence to bring forth hate crime charges. They have no proof. This is common in our justice system and is not exclusive to hate crimes. Prosecutors all the time are forced to compromise. For example - they see cases where they know in their hearts that it is first degree murder. Unfortunately, they don't have the evidence, so they are forced to seek second degree or manslaughter charges instead. They may be forced to bargain down charges with somebody in exchange for testimony. This does not mean that the above laws are unjust. It's just a matter of bringing forth charges that they feel have the best chances of bringing about a guilty verdict. The criminals in this beating case will be brought to justice. Based on the current evidence, they probably won't be charged with a hate crime. This is not because the hate crime law is skewed against white people. It's a simple case of lack of evidence to charge them with this. Even Brian Milligan, when asked about whether the attack was racial, said, "Since I can't remember nothing, I really don't know"." Now, how is a prosecutor supposed to work with that? They need evidence.

On a positive note about this story, which hopefully will help to ease tensions - a predominately African-American Baptist Church put out a call to their community to help find the perpetrators of this crime. Police credit their involvement in this case as helping to catch the three criminals that attacked Brian. The community that this church serves have voiced their disgust over this incident. They have really taken positive steps to show that this was a heinous attack even though it was black on white crime and they are a predominately black community.

This is why it is so ridiculous for me to hear how white people are being treated unfairly. Do you really think that the police and law enforcement, who take an oath to serve and protect, and put their lives on the line for us each day, are purposely ignoring hate crimes against white people? I think that is a ridiculous accusation and an insult to our law enforcement individuals throughout this nation.

 

[OceanAnnie]

This is the problem - picking out random cases and playing judge, jury and executioner. Then comes the claim that the hate crime law is not fair. The hate crime law is fair. It does not discriminate against white people. This is a matter of choosing what to see, and not actually seeing all of the evidence. Remember we are a country of laws. I took a few minutes and read up on the Brian Milligan incident. This is the beating that you were talking about. In a nutshell - he is white, and is dating a black girl. He was beaten by a group of black men with pieces of a concrete brick. This resulted in severe injuries including swelling of the brain. It was a heinous act. Personally, I fully believe this to be a hate crime. I'm willing to bet that the investigators feels this way too. Here's the problem. All of us feeling this way will not be enough for a jury. We are a country of laws. The fact is that Brian was jumped from behind. The fact is there are currently no witnesses.The fact is that Brian cannot remember anything about the attack. We all have that gut feeling that this is a hate crime, and we are right to feel this way, but it is the prosecution's job to charge the guilty party with charges that can be won in court. They currently feel that they do not have the evidence to bring forth hate crime charges. They have no proof. This is common in our justice system and is not exclusive to hate crimes. Prosecutors all the time are forced to compromise. For example - they see cases where they know in their hearts that it is first degree murder. Unfortunately, they don't have the evidence, so they are forced to seek second degree or manslaughter charges instead. They may be forced to bargain down charges with somebody in exchange for testimony. This does not mean that the above laws are unjust. It's just a matter of bringing forth charges that they feel have the best chances of bringing about a guilty verdict. The criminals in this beating case will be brought to justice. Based on the current evidence, they probably won't be charged with a hate crime. This is not because the hate crime law is skewed against white people. It's a simple case of lack of evidence to charge them with this. Even Brian Milligan, when asked about whether the attack was racial, said, "Since I can't remember nothing, I really don't know"." Now, how is a prosecutor supposed to work with that? They need evidence.

On a positive note about this story, which hopefully will help to ease tensions - a predominately African-American Baptist Church put out a call to their community to help find the perpetrators of this crime. Police credit their involvement in this case as helping to catch the three criminals that attacked Brian. The community that this church serves have voiced their disgust over this incident. They have really taken positive steps to show that this was a heinous attack even though it was black on white crime and they are a predominately black community.

This is why it is so ridiculous for me to hear how white people are being treated unfairly. Do you really think that the police and law enforcement, who take an oath to serve and protect, and put their lives on the line for us each day, are purposely ignoring hate crimes against white people? I think that is a ridiculous accusation and an insult to our law enforcement individuals throughout this nation.

**Bolding and underlining mine**

I remember reading about this case. There were witnesses. I looked it up just now to be sure. It does give one pause. Here's a link and video:

http://blackpoliticalthought.blogspot.com/2009/08/brian-milligan-18-severely-beaten-by-10.html

 

[Wall-E1]

**Bolding and underlining mine**

I remember reading about this case. There were witnesses. I looked it up just now to be sure. It does give one pause. Here's a link and video:

http://blackpoliticalthought.blogspot.com/2009/08/brian-milligan-18-severely-beaten-by-10.html

Again, the problem arises from not getting all the facts. Thank you for underlining and bolding my statements. I'll repeat them in capital letters. THE FACT IS THERE ARE CURRENTLY NO WITNESSES. THEY HAVE NO PROOF.

Here is a link to a news article, not a blog that only gives partial information. http://www.wgrz.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=72393&catid=37

Please take note of this in the news article -
Milligan thinks a witness to the attack can convince the district attorney's office to charge the teens with a hate crime. He believes the witness heard the teens use racial slurs during the beating, but he's got to find that person first.

The prosecution currently has no witnesses. There may have been twenty people that witnessed the crime. Nobody has come forward or been found. Again, the prosecution currently has no witnesses.

I don't understand why people are so hell bent on trying to diminish the good that this law does.

 

[OceanAnnie]

Again, the problem arises from not getting all the facts. Thank you for underlining and bolding my statements. I'll repeat them in capital letters. THE FACT IS THERE ARE CURRENTLY NO WITNESSES. THEY HAVE NO PROOF.

Here is a link to a news article, not a blog that only gives partial information. http://www.wgrz.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=72393&catid=37

Please take note of this in the news article -
Milligan thinks a witness to the attack can convince the district attorney's office to charge the teens with a hate crime. He believes the witness heard the teens use racial slurs during the beating, but he's got to find that person first.

The prosecution currently has no witnesses. There may have been twenty people that witnessed the crime. Nobody has come forward or been found. Again, the prosecution currently has no witnesses.

I don't understand why people are so hell bent on trying to diminish the good that this law does.

Stating there are no witnesses is different than stating there are witnesses that haven't come forward.

As for no proof why can't they use the girlfriend who was harassed and threatened and heard the threats to the boyfriend prior to his beating? That's a good starting point. The thugs made good on their threats.

 

[DaParkers]

What you are saying is all 100% true, but it does not justify leaving some people out. Leaving people out is the problem, the only problem... and a pretty big one in my opinion.

Welcome to my world! And the world of "TRUE" minorities. I don't know your race, so this is a broad statement. It's kind of funny when people want to be treated equally as some minorities, when it benefits them, yet, they don't want the struggles that come along with being a minority. They don't want to be profiled, wrongly accused of horrific crimes, or the stigma that comes along with it. BTW! The crime should be considered a hate crime, but who said it wouldn't be?

 

[Wall-E1]

Stating there are no witnesses is different than stating there are witnesses that haven't come forward.

As for no proof why can't they use the girlfriend who was harassed and threatened and heard the threats to the boyfriend prior to his beating? That's a good starting point. The thugs made good on their threats.

Oh my god!!! Are you serious!?!?!? You are trying(and failing) to take my words out of context. In my post, when I made that statement, I was stating what the prosecution was lacking, pertaining to evidence. That is why I said there are no witnesses. It is a factual statement. Do you seriously not understand this? The fact is, the prosecution currently has no witnesses. You tried to prove me wrong by posting a link to that blog of yours. I disproved it through an actual news article. The time has now come for you to admit that you were mistaken.

As to why they can't use the girlfriend for testimony - if you read the link to the news article that I provided, you would have your answer. I will provide that same link once again:

http://www.wgrz.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=72393&catid=37
Taken directly from the news article:

"The alleged incident that took place a week earlier, where comments were made, these are not the same individuals, we know this through our investigation, they are not the same individuals," said Deputy Chief Daniel Derenda on Tuesday.

In the past, this couple did have racial slurs shouted their way. Police, though, have determined that the attackers were not the same individuals that were heard shouting racial slurs.

Is there a reason you are so interested in trying to disprove the facts of this story? The police are doing the best that they can.

 

[OceanAnnie]

Wall-E1, In your first post, you stated, "There are currently no witnesses.". I took that at face value. I can see you are very passionate about this case. I am not. I believe I stated up front, I *remember* reading about this case. In other words, I hadn't read anything recently and I *thought* there were witnesses. There are witnesses. I am doubtful they will come forward for fear of the same beating the victim received.

I do not wish to argue with you.

 

[Wall-E1]

Stating there are no witnesses is different than stating there are witnesses that haven't come forward.

As for no proof why can't they use the girlfriend who was harassed and threatened and heard the threats to the boyfriend prior to his beating? That's a good starting point. The thugs made good on their threats.

One thing I find a bit amusing about this is the misquote of my statement. Here's your statement:

Stating there are no witnesses is different than stating there are witnesses that haven't come forward.

That statement is true, but if you look back to my post, you will see that I was misquoted. The word "currently" was convieniently left out. My original quote was "There are currently no witnesses", not "There are no witnesses". The word "currently" is key to all of this. "Currently" holds open the possibility that witnesses may still come forward in the future. So, if an honest comparison were done - "There are currently no witnesses" and "There are witnesses that haven't come forward" both mean the same thing. Both statements mean the authorities currently have no witnesses and both statements leave open the possibility of witnesses coming forward at a later date.

I only ask that if I am quoted, please don't remove words of your choosing, in order to misrepresent what I am saying.

Wall-E1, In your first post, you stated, "There are currently no witnesses.". I took that at face value. I can see you are very passionate about this case. I am not. I believe I stated up front, I *remember* reading about this case. In other words, I hadn't read anything recently and I *thought* there were witnesses. There are witnesses. I am doubtful they will come forward for fear of the same beating the victim received.

I do not wish to argue with you.

Thank you. I accept your apology. I just don't know why you can't be honest with yourself. You claim you are not passionate about this case, and yet your prior posts do not reflect this attitude. You have been very passionate and diligent in your attempts to disprove the facts of this case. Obviously, if you only had a passing interest in this, you would not have put forth the time and effort that it took you to repeatedly try to discount the investigators work in this crime.

I don't consider our conversation "arguing". I appreciate the fact that we can have a conversation about this issue. I just believe that there is a broad consensus among some on this thread that this law treats some groups(whites) unfairly by not prosecuting blacks under this law. In my posts, I have proven these views wrong. I was asked to provide evidence of actual convictions of black people for hate crimes. I was told that I probably would not be able to find a single case. I found several and posted the links. I was presented a case where posters on this board felt that a white man was being treated unjustly by this law because his attackers were not being prosecuted under said law. I, once again presented facts showing why the investigators currently are unable to do this.

I am passionate about this, and willing to admit it. I don't like to see minorities or majorities being treated unfairly.

 

[OceanAnnie]

One thing I find a bit amusing about this is the misquote of my statement. Here's your statement:

Stating there are no witnesses is different than stating there are witnesses that haven't come forward.

That statement is true, but if you look back to my post, you will see that I was misquoted. The word "currently" was convieniently left out. My original quote was "There are currently no witnesses", not "There are no witnesses". The word "currently" is key to all of this. "Currently" holds open the possibility that witnesses may still come forward in the future. So, if an honest comparison were done - "There are currently no witnesses" and "There are witnesses that haven't come forward" both mean the same thing. Both statements mean the authorities currently have no witnesses and both statements leave open the possibility of witnesses coming forward at a later date.

I only ask that if I am quoted, please don't remove words of your choosing, in order to misrepresent what I am saying.

I think you are over analyzing it.

Thank you. I accept your apology. I just don't know why you can't be honest with yourself. You claim you are not passionate about this case, and yet your prior posts do not reflect this attitude. You have been very passionate and diligent in your attempts to disprove the facts of this case. Obviously, if you only had a passing interest in this, you would not have put forth the time and effort that it took you to repeatedly try to discount the investigators work in this crime.

I don't consider our conversation "arguing". I appreciate the fact that we can have a conversation about this issue. I just believe that there is a broad consensus among some on this thread that this law treats some groups(whites) unfairly by not prosecuting blacks under this law. In my posts, I have proven these views wrong. I was asked to provide evidence of actual convictions of black people for hate crimes. I was told that I probably would not be able to find a single case. I found several and posted the links. I was presented a case where posters on this board felt that a white man was being treated unjustly by this law because his attackers were not being prosecuted under said law. I, once again presented facts showing why the investigators currently are unable to do this.

I am passionate about this, and willing to admit it. I don't like to see minorities or majorities being treated unfairly.

I didn't apologize. I stated my perspective. Just as you find it amusing that I left out a single word that is so "open" to interpretation, I find it amusing that you inserted an apology where there is none.

I do consider your posts to be aggressively argumentative, and highly presumptuous.

 

[Wall-E1]

I think you are over analyzing it.




I didn't apologize. I stated my perspective. Just as you find it amusing that I left out a single word that is so "open" to interpretation, I find it amusing that you inserted an apology where there is none.

I do consider your posts to be aggressively argumentative, and highly presumptuous.

I'm sorry that you feel that I was over analyzing the omission of part of my statement, which changed the entire meaning of my statement.

I'm sorry that you feel that the word "currently" is so open to interpretation. Most would think that this word has a very defined meaning.

I'm sorry that you interpret correcting misconceptions about issues and laying out facts as being aggressive, argumentative, and presumptuous.

Thank you for this additional apology. I really do appreciate your sentiment on this and the fact that you are big enough to admit when you are mistaken.

 

[Wall-E1]

A statement on society today and misguided notions about minorities

After rereading the posts in this thread, I had some thoughts. The OP felt that an incident that took place at a Philadelphia high school should have been treated as a hate crime. The OP then insinuated that hate crime laws are only for the benefit of two privileged groups.

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.

The OP is wrong in this assumption. The law is not limited to only two privileged groups. Furthermore, the OP is upset that the Philadelphia incident is not being treated as a hate crime. The OP's disgust in this is misguided. The incident happened last week. Ten students have been suspended from the school over the incident. The case has been turned over to the police for investigation. It is currently being investigated by the police. Nobody has said that these offenders will not be charged with a hate crime. Here is a quote from the Chief Inspector:
“If there’s an arrest for aggravated assault or assault and it’s determined it’s because of their nationality, that is a hate crime,” said Chief Inspector James Tiano.

Perhaps the OP should learn how our legal system works before venting about injustices. Police investigate incidents first. They file charges after the investigation has been concluded. Currently, they have ten suspects, thirty victims, and many possible witnesses. Charges are not always filed the same day or the next day. The police may need some time to get their case together before filing charges. Personally, I believe it to be a hate crime and hope that they are charged with that. However, I am not about to bash the hate crime law before authorities have had a chance to finish their investigation.

Here is another assumption where the OP is incorrect...

Most people assume the law is open to all but it is not. On paper the idea seems more inclusive than when translated into in practice. In reality law enforcement never even pursue real world hate crimes unless their victims fall into particular groups therefore the issue is never actually addressed.

If you are correct and this issue is manufactured based upon fallacies then you (and/or anyone else who agrees with this thought stem)should be able to find a few cases where homosexual individuals were tried and convicted for hate crimes against heterosexual individuals, where non-whites were convicted of hate crimes against whites, and non Christians were convicted of hate crimes against Christians. I do not think you will be able to find them because I have never been able to find them. However, I am not always the best researcher on the planet so maybe my findings are more due to my ineptitude than fact. If you, or anyone else can find ANY cases which stood up to an 'actual conviction; following the aforementioned recipes I will gladly and humbly apologize.

The OP felt that only minorities were protected under this law. The OP also felt that everybody should be protected under this law. Well, guess what? Everybody is protected under this law. The OP requested proof that hate crimes were being prosecuted and convictions were made in hate crimes against whites. The OP felt that finding these cases would not be possible. A simple google search proved this assumption wrong.

You wanted evidence of black people being charged and convicted of hate crimes towards white people. You claimed that you could not find any cases. Here are some newspaper articles that document the crimes and convictions of hate crimes performed by black people against white people:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...1A25754C0A9609C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/nyregion/02shootout.html

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7045725

Since posting the proof, the OP has mysteriously disappeared. No response. No humble apology, as promised. No acknowledgment that the OP's views may have been misguided. Nothing. The OP just abandoned the discussion once factual evidence was brought into it.

I then looked into another case where a different poster felt that a crime against a white person was unfairly, not charged as a hate crime. I explained the reasons why it is currently not being charged as a hate crime. The poster in this situation also did not bother to gather information about the case before voicing opinions. I tried clearing up the misconceptions by providing a link to the actual news story and presenting actual facts. The poster in this situation had the facts entirely wrong. They incorrectly tried to link two separate incidents into one, thinking that the same parties were present at both incidents. This was wrong. They also felt, based on information provided in a blog, not an actual news site, that there were witnesses that had come forward. This was wrong. I provided links and quotes to the poster correcting the inaccuracies in the statements. The poster, upset over facts being brought into the discussion called me aggressive and argumentative. I make no apologies for bringing forth evidence that counters inaccurate information.

What does this say about us as a society? I'm speaking of the attitudes of some posters on this thread. They are so quick to rally around a broad notion, no matter how misguided. Then, when facts and evidence are brought into the discussion, they scatter like mice when lights are shined upon them. The OP was all over this thread and then suddenly disappears when proven wrong. Another poster resorts to name calling when shown inaccuracies in statements about a news story. We, as a society need to learn a bit of humility. When we are wrong, we should be big enough to admit it. There is nothing wrong with an admission of fault. This is how we learn and grow as a people. This is how we open our minds to new possibilities. We cannot grow if we choose to see only what we want to and ignore the things which may not adhere to our preconceived notions. We all need to open our minds up to other viewpoints and possibilities if we wish to grow as a nation and truly all be created equal.