"white b**ch" attacked - enough for hate crime charges?

okay, get over the fact that I'm a conservative white male (if you can, just for a couple of minutes) and consider this situation: white woman is called a "WHITE bitch" - not just a "bitch" but a "white bitch" and beaten by four (count em' four) black women. So what - in your various opinions - should be the legal & accepted definition of a "hate crime"?

I'll go first: it doesn't really matter IMHO. An attack is an attack is an attack - full stop. The motivations are a moot point. Here is my reasoning: whether you verbally state it or not, you are obviously upset enough to physically attack somebody and have chosen to do so. Unless somebody can scientifically can prove that the intensity of the attack will be affected by "hatred" I just don't see why it matters.

Another factor is the term and additional charge of "hate crime" is often used unfairly, inconsistently and politicized in many cases. Discuss, fling poo or ignore. The last couple of threads I posted (cat videos not withstanding) to my surprise turned out to be very engaging and productive, and relatively poo free.
READ THE WHOLE STORY PLEASE before you comment.

'You white b----': Woman beaten and bloodied in vicious Mother's Day attack in Kroger parking lot (msn.com)

There’s no such thing as “hate crime.” There’s only crime.

First, something smells funny about this story.
Lot of detail we're not getting, and it feels like it's on purpose.

Second, it's always white guys crying about the definition of hate crime.
Hey, here's a kooky idea, don't assault anyone.
Then you won't stumble into hate crime territory.
See how easy?

And spare me the "but the BLACK person said 'honky'!! " bullshit, would ya?

You've had power imbalances and historical context explained to you upteen times.
Just because you and through it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I don't rag on you for being conservative and white, I rag on you for being staggeringly stupid.

Granted, there's several industries devoted to keeping people like you blinded, so you're working at a disadvantage, but the internet contains the sum total of human knowledge..
If you can't dislodge the blinders with that resource available to you, it's really on you.

And speaking of imbalance, hundreds of cases of white-on-black systemic racism from cops/judges/jurys, dead silence, he finds the one case of black-on-white in the bushel "ohhhhh!!! ".
Eat rat poison, you transparent fuck.

So there's coverage of it on Wave 3 news, one of the local stations, there's evidently video footage from the Kroger's which is in police hands.

The Examiner's a shit source, but local news has it. The difference being the slant. The local news group didn't mention hate crime at all, neither did the police. It's the Examiner (owned by a literal cult) that is pressing hate crime. The police have no comment, it's up to the courts.

Would I? Possibly, depending on the exact wording of the statute.

Regardless, if the video evidence corroborates what is being stated in the story, the 4 black girls probably won't get much leniency.

Beating up a disabled veteran on Mother's day is not going to go well for them.

Yet in some cases "hate crime" was added to the criminal charges which resulted in a longer sentence. So "hate crime" is recognized but it varies from case-to-case.

What do you need any of us for?
Go get a room.

Hey look, its still works.

Murder is murder, assault is assault, battery is battery, libel is libel. Adding "hate" in front of it doesn't make it worse, it just makes it sound more sinister.

You are entitled to your opinion. As simplistic as that may be.

There's a huge body of evidence that has been assessed by both criminologists and sociologists that targeting people for specific traits they have no control over has far more harm to society than attacks motivated by personal animosity or greed.

And it's still crime. Whether someone is killed because they were being robbed or because they were >>random ethnicity<< they're just as dead. And it's just as wrong.

If they're just as dead, why do serial killers get harsher sentences for cannibalism, and/or taxidermy art?
Person's dead, they didn't feel it.
Because we're not robots, the law isn't a computer program, and you and OF know better.

Lanzman has no trouble with there being different degrees of murder charges based on the motives or the "malice aforethought" of the murderer, despite every murder victim being just as dead. It's only when you use the term "hate" that he starts complaining. Lanzman won't accept the authorities making value judgements about "hate," for some reason.

I'll wait for the video, but it looks like assault with a side of hate.

I bet the woman with the broken nose will park in the farthest corner of the parking lot from now on (assuming the lot isn't completely full) and spend a little more time walking to the store - file that under "lessons learned" for her. That aside the only actual poo-flinging in this thread so far is from one wordforge member who will rename nameless.

Because those are additional charges? Not just an extra word added on to make an already-heinous crime seem more heinous?

That the word has legal weight would suggest it's an additional charge.

Ah, so all we'd need to do to get your assent is to make the crimes 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, and hate oriented murder, and you'd be fine with it because it would just be a difference in degree, and not a separate charge?

Yeah, no one is buying that Lanz.

Maybe they were influenced by music.

OF and Lanzman, do you think that someone who spraypaints a swastika on a synagogue should get the same punishment as someone who spraypaints their tagger name on a subway car?

Or do you think that beating a 2 year old baby is the same as beating a 5 year old child is the same as beating a 12 year old child is the same as beating an adult?

Because if you do, then at least I can appreciate that you are consistent in the belief that a vandalism is a vandalism is a vandalism and a beating is a beating.

But I think that most people would say that spraypainting the swastika is obviously worse and deserves an enhanced punishment. The reason is obvious -- sending that hate-filled message does greater harm to the community and thus it deserves a harsher punishment. And I think that most people would recognize that there are differences between beating someone based on some characteristics of the victims. Some victims are just more vulnerable than others based on their characteristics and other factors.

That same logic is why there are hate crime enhancements: that there will hopefully be more deterrence up front, and that when people do commit crimes based on hate, they will have longer incarcerations.

As to the specific incident:

My Spidey-senses tingle a little bit that there may be more to what is reported than meets the eye. According to the victim, she was pulling out of a disabled parking spot when the car with the four black women blocked her in. She says she got out of the car and was like "Do you guys need any help?" The girls cursed her "Fuck you, white bitch" and then she started to go back to her car, and one of the black women threw a cup at her and they began attacking her.

It seems odd to me that rando women would have blocked her in, and that the victim would have gotten out of her car to confront them, plus that the rando women would have gone to "fuck you white bitch."

But taking her account on face value, it certainly could be that the attackers were motivated by race, or it could be that they were motivated by something else. I think it's fairly likely that not every time that a minority person is attacked by a white person, even when race is brought up, that hate crime charges are included.

Actually, I would say that the subway tagger should get the same penalty as the synagogue vandal. And there is a difference between beating someone who could defend themself and someone who couldn’t.

it can be an additional charge, but the charge doesn't carry much weight. So far it's only added a fraction more length to the sentences AFAIK.

hate crime charges are tough to prove without video or eyewitness proof, and even then the charges might be pooh-poohed anyway.

"OF and Lanzman, do you think that someone who spraypaints a swastika on a synagogue should get the same punishment as someone who spraypaints their tagger name on a subway car?" Raoul

I can't speak for Lanzman, but when somebody spray paints a swastika hatred is the entire point of the act. Hate may or may not be the point of why this white woman was attacked by black women.
They may hate whites, but is that why they beat her? Or maybe they were pissed off over something else, and in the heat of the moment let a racial slur fly. It's been known to happen - ask some of these Asians that keep getting physically attacked in some of our cities lately - which BTW are racially motivated. But who knows about this case?

That's a lot of words to not answer a simple question. Do you think defacing a synagogue with a swastika merits the same sort of punishment as a typical vandalism?

Lanzman spoke for himself and says that they do. Which like I said points for consistency. Points taken away for empathy and common sense.

Humanity used up the last of my empathy a long time ago.

If that's what really happened, then yes it's a hate crime.
Never forget......

While I can understand the feeling of all murders are hateful, we do have different degrees when it comes to handing out punishment. I'm not going to lose any sleep over some asshole getting a harsher sentence because he or she is a homophobe, racist or bigot.

fair enough - yes defacing a synagogue is worse than simple vandalism because of the obvious intent behind the act. But as I stated comparing an incident such as that to a simple parking lot assault are two different things entirely. In the parking lot incident (and in many similar incidents) an additional "hate crime" charge is frivolous. If it happened exactly as it was told, "white bitch" could have been hurtful speech versus hateful. That said if the woman (or women) who said that has a proven history of displaying racist tendencies, a hate crime charge might be warranted.

I'm a firm believer in "what goes around comes around" so if these four women do such things on a regular basis (whether as a group or as individuals) sooner versus later they will meet their comeuppance. "He who lives by the sword" and all that.