Hate crime for assault on opposing team fans??

[simplyputsi 0]

Quote

Quote

Back at the police department interview notes are discussed. Ten "Team B's" attacked ten "Team A's", it's clearly a "hate crime".

Clearly.

I never understood why using racial or sexuality slurs during an assault leads to a whole new set of charges, while profanity,..i.e. Asshole, Mother Fucker, Son of a Bitch is okay.

Remember when Jaws called Apollo Creed "Hey Blackie" in Force 10 from Navarone? Technically a hate crime. Go figure.

so saying I don't like you because your black and then beating you is the same as regular old assault???

Skymama's #2 stalker -

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

so saying I don't like you because your black and then beating you is the same as regular old assault???

"regular old assault"?

How quaint.


My question is: why do using racial terms automatically increase the severity of the crime, while other language (intended add insult to injury) is a non-issue?

[1969912 0]

Quote

Nope.

I would have to say most hate crimes are not initially booked as such.
It would never be a cut a dry situation. In your case, it would at least be a starting point to ask more questions. What started the fight?? If you get both groups saying that they said our team sucked, well then you've got a case of morons, and like I said like ten million times now, maybe it shouldn't be a HATE crime, but rather carry a heavier punishment.

Quote

maybe it shouldn't be a HATE crime, but rather carry a heavier

Fair enough. The name isn't really important.

Quote

What started the fight??

All that's known is that B attacked A. There were tons of witnesses close by and none heard a thing.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

So, you are saying that ones health or welfare is worth more than another? Just because the attacker can be said to commited the crime out of hate? What about a couple that is splitting up. One beats the other. Should this be a hate crime?

That is not a hate crime. It may be done out of hate, but you beat the person because you were mad at them, not because they were different from you.
And no, ones health or welfare is not worth more than another. A crime is a crime, but there are severities to them. I throw a rock at you because your a dick, not too big of a deal. I shoot you because your a dick and well that is a bit different.

Getting in a fight with someone because they looked at your girlfriends ass, or some other stupid reason is really no comparison to wanting to attack someone because they like another team.
Although they both involve stupidity, one of them involves a predisposition of hate towards a group.

It's really no different than why road rage is now considered a higher crime than simply getting in a fight. Why do they have degrees of murder than?? Murder is murder according to your reasoning.

What if the couple was of mixed races and the procuter wanted to go the hate crime route. How would one dispute it?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

but rather carry a heavier punishment.

I'll give credence to the argument if you discuss, from the other side, why "regular old assault" should carry a LESSER punishment.

You're still talking deterence for 'reasons' rather than actions.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[simplyputsi 0]

Quote

Quote

so saying I don't like you because your black and then beating you is the same as regular old assault???

"regular old assault"?

How quaint.


My question is: why do using racial terms automatically increase the severity of the crime, while other language (intended add insult to injury) is a non-issue?

racial terms imply that you are committing the crime against that person simply because of their race. Calling someone a motherfucker and getting into a fight with them doesn't imply that you are fighting them because they fuck mothers.

butters said it well "... are a way to legislate your thoughts with your actions"

Skymama's #2 stalker -

[simplyputsi 0]

Quote

Quote

but rather carry a heavier punishment.

I'll give credence to the argument if you discuss, from the other side, why "regular old assault" should carry a LESSER punishment.

You're still talking deterrence for 'reasons' rather than actions.

I said there are degrees to assault and that these instances should be considered a higher degree.
Why though??
Because if you get into an argument at a bar, on the street, whatever and end up getting into a fight chances are it won't happen again from that same person, unless he stalks you down or something.
However, you get into a fight with an opposing fan because he simply just doesn't like your team, and it is very possible that if he was to see you again and you were representing your team that he would assault you again.
We are talking about the potential for repetition of the same crime. Sure the guy that you got into a fight with on the street could very well get into a fight with another person, but it probably won't be for the same reason.

Again assault is a crime and should carry a punishment. Since the morons can't stop beating each other up, maybe they need to have their hands slapped harder.

Skymama's #2 stalker -

[Casurf1978 0]

Quote

A crime is a crime. Hate crimes legislation is nothing more than the PC crowd trying to feel better about themselves.

So then murder is murder regardless of motive, situation or planning. Why are there different degrees of murder then? What youre missing is that hate crimes differ from regular crimes in that the former might be used to intimidate or cause fear to a certain group or class of people.

[1969912 0]

Quote

Because if you get into an argument at a bar, on the street, whatever and end up getting into a fight chances are it won't happen again from that same person...

Are you implying that an indiscriminant mugger or rapist deserves less punishment than one who targets people with certain characteristics? If so, who determines what comprises "people with certain characteristics"?

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

My question is: why do using racial terms automatically increase the severity of the crime, while other language (intended add insult to injury) is a non-issue?

racial terms imply that you are committing the crime against that person simply because of their race.

According to who?

Quote

Calling someone a motherfucker and getting into a fight with them doesn't imply that you are fighting them because they fuck mothers.

Way to miss the point.

Moving beyond the particulars of this topic, why do you even care about this? Fights happen at sporting events. If it's such a big deal, change the penalty for assaults at these events. It's pretty easy. But trying to convince us that it's a "Hate Crime" seems like little more than mental gynmastics.

[simplyputsi 0]

Quote

Quote

Because if you get into an argument at a bar, on the street, whatever and end up getting into a fight chances are it won't happen again from that same person...

Are you implying that an indiscriminant mugger or rapist deserves less punishment than one who targets people with certain characteristics? If so, who determines what comprises "people with certain characteristics"?

wow, I love how people pull shit out of their ass on here. I implied nothing near that. Rape is a whole other crime, it does involve assault, but I believe they call that sexual assault and that crime does have a higher punishment that getting into a fight with someone.
And you might be amazed at how little punishment a mugger gets. A mugger that uses a weapon though now has committed assault with a weapon which carries a higher punishment than getting into a simple fight.

I am saying again, that assaulting an opposing fan because they don't like your team should be considered for carrying a higher punishment.

Skymama's #2 stalker -

[simplyputsi 0]

Quote

But trying to convince us that it's a "Hate Crime" seems like little more than mental gynmastics.

Go back and read many of my earlier posts. I stopped with calling it a hate crime like 5 fucking hours ago. And you confirmed what I have went on to say that fighting at or around a sporting even should carry a heavier penalty.

How can I expect you to read that though when you missed the repeated posts saying it should not be a hate crime.

Skymama's #2 stalker -

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

But trying to convince us that it's a "Hate Crime" seems like little more than mental gynmastics.

Go back and read many of my earlier posts. I stopped with calling it a hate crime like 5 fucking hours ago. And you confirmed what I have went on to say that fighting at or around a sporting even should carry a heavier penalty.

How can I expect you to read that though when you missed the repeated posts saying it should not be a hate crime.

Seems like you found a minor point to get worked up over...

while conveniently sidestepping the major ones.

Smooth

[1969912 0]

Quote

Because if you get into an argument at a bar, on the street, whatever and end up getting into a fight chances are it won't happen again from that same person, unless he stalks you down or something.
However, you get into a fight with an opposing fan because he simply just doesn't like your team, and it is very possible that if he was to see you again and you were representing your team that he would assault you again.

Let's try it again.

Are you implying that one who assaults fans of opposing team(s) just because he doesn't like them deserves a greater punishment than one who indiscriminately assaults fans of any team just because he doesn't like them?

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[DSE 3]

Curious, is it common for white guys to put on white hats and burn a cross in the front yard of a white man?
How often do black men dress up in black robes and toss Molotov cocktails into a synagogue?
Been a while since I've seen Hispanics find a homosexual man and tie him to a fence for his sexual preference.

The majority of hate crimes in the US are perpetrated by white people

Assholes are assholes, but if their actions are motivated _predominantly_ because of someone's culture, sexual preference, religion, or gender, then it becomes a hate crime, and should be punished.
I don't agree that when a Georgia Tech fan beats a Florida State fan that it should be a hate crime. If someone is beaten, raped, robbed, assaulted, or physically intimidated primarily because of the above reasons, then it should be an added charge on top of the initial charge. No lessening of the initial charge absent a hate crime makes sense.
All crimes against people of color, gender, sexual pref, or religion don't automatically become hate crimes, either.

Personally, I feel it's a fine line, and a scary one that can be misused. If for example, the Jewish kid beaten on the street for his wallet gets to claim "I was wearing my kippa, so they attacked me because I'm Jewish..." that isn't right, IMO.
If they attack him, beat him up, call him a kike, spray paint a star of David on him, and then steal his wallet,...it's a hate crime. The perpetrators obviously prepped for the crime by carrying paint, they used language indicating their attitude towards Jews. Stealing his wallet is an afterthought.
Everyone has prejudices. Being motivated to violence by those prejudices is a hate crime.

Here's one for ya...
Jewish kid walking down the street of a Jewish neighborhood on Saturday, wearing his iPod, and gets beaten by other Jewish kids for breaking the Sabbath. Is it a hate crime because he's not Jewish enough?

[1969912 0]

Quote

Personally, I feel it's a fine line, and a scary one that can be misused. If for example, the Jewish kid beaten on the street for his wallet gets to claim "I was wearing my kippa, so they attacked me because I'm Jewish..." that isn't right, IMO.
If they attack him, beat him up, call him a kike, spray paint a star of David on him, and then steal his wallet,...it's a hate crime. The perpetrators obviously prepped for the crime by carrying paint, they used language indicating their attitude towards Jews. Stealing his wallet is an afterthought.
Everyone has prejudices. Being motivated to violence by those prejudices is a hate crime.

Here's one for ya...
Jewish kid walking down the street of a Jewish neighborhood on Saturday, wearing his iPod, and gets beaten by other Jewish kids for breaking the Sabbath. Is it a hate crime because he's not Jewish enough?

Great reasons NOT to have "hate crime" laws. It's a can of worms best left sealed.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[DSE 3]

Again...I disagree. Just because it's complex doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.

hamburger-$1.50
Fries with that-$1.00

Vandalize someone's home-3 years

Vandalize someone's home by burning a cross in their front yard because they're black-3 years for the initial crime, and add a year because it was racially motivated.

No one is stupid enough to not see the obvious crimes that are hate-based. No one.
The small ones that aren't so obvious...that's for the lawyers to hammer out.

[1969912 0]

Quote

Vandalize someone's home by burning a cross in their front yard because they're black-3 years for the initial crime, and add a year because it was racially motivated.

Assuming you intended "because" to be a necessary condition, what would you suggest to be adequate evidence to prove the the burning was done because the victim was black?



I don't like racists any more than you do. If I knew of someone whoe would go around burning crosses in black people's yards, I'd probably torch their house myself.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[billvon 2,434]

>what would you suggest to be adequate evidence to prove the the burning
>was done because the victim was black?

The burning cross would probably do it.

[1969912 0]

Quote

>what would you suggest to be adequate evidence to prove the the burning
>was done because the victim was black?

The burning cross would probably do it.

Read the post to which I was replying. DSE implied that the cross burning would have to be done BECAUSE it was a black's house. My question to him was regarding sufficient evidence to prove the BECAUSE.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I am saying again, that assaulting an opposing fan because they don't like your team should be considered for carrying a higher punishment.

You keep saying it, but you haven't yet given a valid reason why.

People who do that are people looking for an excuse to fight. And somehow, this seems to be a real problem for SEC drunks. (The South needs to get a life already, or maybe a better conference next year - they suck this year) So you nail them for assault. That's a felony and no hand slap.

[Andy9o8 0]

DSE: Well-said posts.

Laws, even politically-motivated ones (read: most of them) are not created in a vacuum. Generally, they're created because of a perceived need to address a problem in society. (Forget the off-the-wall bills proposed by the some wacky Assemblyman or Representative. Concentrate on bills that actually make it through committee, pass both houses of a Legislature or Congress and are signed into law by a Governor or the President.)

Some of those problems are more perceived than real (where is this epidemic of flag burning I keep hearing about?) Others, on the other hand, are real. Hate crime legislation is an example of the latter. It didn't come into existence in an absence of context. It has come about to address this country's sad, not-so-distant history of people being attacked, beaten, raped and lynched precisely BECAUSE they have been black, or Catholic, or gay.
(Google "Emmett Till".)

Legislatures have concluded, as a matter of policy, that a violent crime committed primarily BECAUSE of the victim's race not only targets the victim himself, but also intimidates and makes life intolerable for the victim's GROUP that was targeted - and that, historically, this is so outrageous an evil against the whole of society that the existing criminal laws were inadequate to address the evil. That is the true justification for hate crime legislation.

Quote

"Hate crimes ... send a powerful message of intolerance and discrimination to all members of the group to which the victim belongs... and ..intimidate and disrupt entire communities ..... Current law does not adequately recognize the harm to public order and individual safety that hate crimes cause. ... Therefore, our laws must be strengthened to provide clear recognition of the gravity of hate crimes and the compelling importance of preventing their recurrence."

New York State Legislature, 2000


http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/legalservices/ch107_hate_crimes_2000.htm

[DSE 3]

Quote

Read the post to which I was replying. DSE implied that the cross burning would have to be done BECAUSE it was a black's house. My question to him was regarding sufficient evidence to prove the BECAUSE.

Historically, the burning cross comes from a hate group. Hopefully we agree on that point?
Historically, is there any evidence that a cross has been burned in the yard of any non-minority, save it be for a couple of isolated instances during the civil rights movement? Seems to me that empirical evidence would prove this out.

I think it is well-known that the hangman's noose, burning cross, swastika, white pointed cap, Celtic cross in a circle, HFFH, 88, (and to some) the Confederate flag are all symbols of racist tendencies or activities.
When any of these are visited upon a non-white as part of a crime, it's self-evident that it's hate-related in nature. If it is self-evident to a non-partisan body of society, it is self-proving. "We hold these truths to be self evident..." and all that.

[simplyputsi 0]

Quote

Quote

I am saying again, that assaulting an opposing fan because they don't like your team should be considered for carrying a higher punishment.

You keep saying it, but you haven't yet given a valid reason why.

Why?? So that innocent fans can go to a game and not have to worry as much about being assaulted because they wanted to see their home team at the visitors stadium.
So that fans start to realize that it is just a game and that lives do not need to be lost over whose team is better.
Maybe it is something that needs to be done on the stadium level somehow. Of course the majority of incidents happen outside the stadium.

Skymama's #2 stalker -

[1969912 0]

Quote

Vandalize someone's home by burning a cross in their front yard because they're black-3 years for the initial crime, and add a year because it was racially motivated.

So the "because" in the above statement should not be there? That's all I was asking. Burning a cross on the lawn of a blak person/family's home, in an of itself, is sufficient to constitute a "hate crime"? Correct? Simple question.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG