Our justice system

[allison443]

"Police, prosecutors and the victims' families maintain that Newsom and Christian were not victims of a hate crime, rather victims of a carjacking that went terribly awry."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,539927,00.html

I guess every crime pepetrated by people of one race against victims of another race is not automatically a hate crime?

 

[Muushka]

Why not read up on the legislation and decide for yourself?

You are operating on a flawed premise here- that just because it was a heinous and hateful crime that it was a "hate crime".


The very first rule of a hate crime is that there needs to be some evidence.

Evidence, not assumption or innuendo of a bias motive for the crime.

I don't see any evidence, other than the fact that the victims were white and the perpetrators black, that the crime was motivated by enmity or bias against a particular group. There isn't any, because neither did anyone else.

What type of evidence are you referring to? Can you give me an example of a hate crime that was successfully argued and what evidence they presented? You sound like you might be a lawyer so hopefully you could shed some light on this for me.

 

[RadioNate]

As sad and tragic as the crimes were, and as outrageous as the verdicts seem, I see no evidence of a hate crime.

The fact that the perpetrators were one race and the victimes another doesn't make it racially motivated or a hate crime.






What privileged thing to say.

Hate crimes happen to people of color at rates much higher than whites. Sorry if the coverage, oh, I mean the shoving down your throat of these terrible crimes makes you uncomfortable.

Did you read what they did to these people? It is UNIMAGINABLE. I'm sure Channon was praying that she would just die. She was tortured for DAYS.

It that isn't HATE. I don't know what is??

 

[allison443]

Did you read what they did to these people? It is UNIMAGINABLE. I'm sure Channon was praying that she would just die. She was tortured for DAYS.

It that isn't HATE. I don't know what is??

I agree, but we must be missing something, because the victims' families, police and prosecutors all didn't consider this a hate crime. (The article was linked above.)

 

[wvjules]

OK, I can understand why this is legally not labeled a hate crime since no one has said that the sole basis for the crimes was race. HOWEVER, I will stand my my opinion that if it were a black couple being raped, tortured and murdered by a group of white people it would be all over the news.

 

[kellyg403]

I actually read about this case on another website and I was appalled at the crime itself. How do you go from carjacking a couple to torturing and all the other totally repulsive things they did to them??? And how does one stand by, live in the house, watch what is going on and not do something about it? At that point, I would have been wondering when and who would be next and making sure it wasn't anyone else. Just repulsive to the bitter end.

Prayers for the families, I could not imagine having to go through this ordeal and knowing what happened to my child in those few days. Strong, Strong people. If they are saying it was not hate crime, I tend to side with them. They know way more about the case than I do.

I do tend to agree, though, had the roles been reversed it WOULD have been headline news for days with Jessie and Al on CNN every single night.

Kelly

 

[FireDancer]

OK, I can understand why this is legally not labeled a hate crime since no one has said that the sole basis for the crimes was race. HOWEVER, I will stand my my opinion that if it were a black couple being raped, tortured and murdered by a group of white people it would be all over the news.

The issue is the inconsistancy. In white vs. black crimes race doesn't have to be the sole motivation for the charge. For example, there was a case in Howard Beach where a bunch of white kids beat black teens who were stealing cars with bats while yelling racial epithets. Race wasn't the sole motivation in that case as preventing the theft was also a motivation, but they were charged with a hate crime.

Contrast that to a case in Harlem, 2006, where a group of black teens chased a 20-year old white man into the street because the suburban white kid was an easy target. One witness also claimed at least one of the kids yelled "Get Whity", and they weren't charged with a hate crime because robbery was a motive.

In both cases there was motive besides race (robbery or the prevention of theft) and race was mentioned but only one was charged with a hate crime.

I'm not defending Fat Nick, what he did was a hate crime and he should be charged with it, but then so was the Harlem case and this case. The inconsistency in how the charges are filed is what really bugs me more then anything.

Look at the difference in how the Kobe case and the Duke Lacrosse case were handled. In Kobe's case there was a thorough investigation and I can't remember anyone even mentioning a hate crime. In the Duke Lacrosse case Reverend Al was all over the place calling for a hate crime and the prosecution were suggesting hate crime charges would be applied even though in the end there was no crime committed.

 

[Buckalew11]

OK, I can understand why this is legally not labeled a hate crime since no one has said that the sole basis for the crimes was race. HOWEVER, I will stand my my opinion that if it were a black couple being raped, tortured and murdered by a group of white people it would be all over the news.

I totally agree with you. And I have wondered since january 2007 WHY this hasn't been in the news more. I posted about it here before and it went zap.

Surely to God crimes like this aren't so common in this country that they don't feel the need to report it (although I've read some all too similar stories around the country ). This one touched my soul though--it really has disturbed me.

 

[tinatark]

Regardless of whether it was a hate crime or not, by legal definition, she was
criminally responsible - guilty.

(DA Fitzgerald's explanation of the law of criminal responsibility)

The law on criminal responsibility says a person is guilty whether he actually killed the couple or not if “in acting with the intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense or to benefit in the proceeds or results … (he) solicits, directs or attempts to aid another person to commit the offense.”

In other words, if the person made it possible for Christian and Newsom to die and was OK with the crimes that led to their deaths, he’s just as guilty as the suspects who actually killed the couple.

She assisted in and benefitted from the offense, IMO.
From trial transcripts :
Jurors saw a red purse that belonged to Coleman and had some of Christian's items in it.
Christian's purse was found in a trash bag with a floral strip of cloth in it that had her blood and Coleman's DNA.

 

[allison443]

I totally agree with you. And I have wondered since january 2007 WHY this hasn't been in the news more. I posted about it here before and it went zap.

Surely to God crimes like this aren't so common in this country that they don't feel the need to report it (although I've read some all too similar stories around the country ). This one touched my soul though--it really has disturbed me.

I remember someone had posted on the dis about this horrific crime before-I guess it was you! However, I don't remember seeing anything about it in the media or newspapers. I agree, it is so disturbing and my heart goes out to those poor families.

 

[wvjules]

Like Mr. Newsome said yesterday "if you pick a jury that doesn't understand the definition of perpetration then what do you expect."