What constitutes a hate crime?

I would say so too, but there's probably parts of what happened that we don't know about.

The Closer needs a bigger closet, or maybe he should have a hippie beard for him — that way nobody will be suspicious when he starts threads about pesky Jews and victimized white people.

Hey...they just HAPPENED to be Jewish.


Actually I don't know. I didn't bother reading that thread.

Dude, what is your deal? Are you just looking for it at this point?

I think I agree with the NCVS definition. I just think that if the tables were turned and it was white guys slurring and beating on black guys, pretty much everyone would agree that it is a hate crime. So why should it matter if the colors are reversed? The crime still occurred. One rule of law for all people regardless of color, creed, sexual orientation, or ability.

Exactly what racial slurs were being tossed here? I mean, there's "honky" and that's about it.

Peckerwood
Cracker
Albino
Whitey
Vanilla
Charlie
Mayonaise

I mean, the list is endless. I'm sure the locals have some better material. It might have been easier to slur if the supposed "victims" were Irish, Jewish, or Italian.

Well, "white-ass motherfucker" may not be a "racial slur" but I'd think it would indicate where the beater was coming from.*


* - not saying that phrase was used by the accused, just sayin'

Chavez, if that's true — certainly not from a place that values creativity when slurring the other ethnicities.

More or less a fact: The internet is full of bigots, lunatics, and trolls.

Observation: You have 48 posts. You have started two threads in politics: one questioning the Isreali — read: Jewish — "playing" of the holocaust card; the other attempting to investigate the application of the term "hate crime" in the context of black on white assault.

Conclusion: You're probably going to start a whole bunch of odious topics that "innocently" question assorted ethnic minorities, their positions, and whether they're not just "out to get" white people. You may actually be the sort who genuinely wonders why there's "so much reverse racism" or why "they can't just get over it." You may be a perversly sophisticated passive-agressive troll. You might be stupid; under the impression that your topical offerings are not equivalent to handing out bags of your own shit — which you may well be smearing on yourself, down in that basement, amongst the semen-stained copies of Guns and Ammo.

Hey — I could be wrong. But you are asking for it.

Obviously. I'll let you take it from here. I'm interested in what your next topics will be.

Bigotry is repugnant no matter what creed, religion, color or whatever. A hate crime is a hate crime. I can't speak to this particular situation because I wasn't there, but there is a point to be made wrt this thread and the whole "reverse racism" charge in general.

One thing that can't be argued is that there is a white majority in the US and A and that white majority is in control. Just take one look at the Senate and what do you see? White men, mostly. There are deep rivers of racist policy and practices that exist like a cancer here. The cases against African Americans that come down to racism are countless and yet don't always get counted. It's too commonplace to be "newsworthy." So, when someone makes a stink about a case of "reverse racism" -- yes, racist bigotry of any kind is wrong, but holding up one case of black on white kind of misses the forest for the trees, in my opinion, be it ever so humble. Maybe it's getting press because of that. Maybe it would get equal press if it were reversed. I don't know.

My point is, I guess, that there are certain truths that have to be accepted as fact -- and the changes effected by the civil rights movement were in many cases superficial. Racism especially against African Americans continues to thrive beneath the surface of the national consciousness. Just look at the banking crisis - even qualified African American borrowers with good credit were given crappy subprime loans. That's just one instance. Look at the statistics involving the death penalty for another. It's endless and ubiquitous.

I wish there would be a second movement that really examined race relations in a real way and helped us as a society move forward toward fairness and harmony, instead of letting things fester.

The idea of hate crime laws is specifically to help minority groups when they're targeted by members majority. There's a perfectly reasonable argument for not applying them when the majority is targeted by the minority.

I think the debate to be had is not so much whether this is a hate crime, but whether you agree with the idea of hate crime laws.

Obviously being beaten up, harassed and intimidated is not fun. But taking the violence out of the equation, can you really compare a bunch of black people calling a white guy "peckerwood" or "whitey" (or, for that matter, "honky") with a bunch of white guys shouting "nigger"? There's a whole different context at play here.

Part of the reason for hate crime laws is that there is inequality in the first place. While they may seem "unfair" when applied to specific cases, such as this one, the broader idea is to prevent the majority from abusing their advantage over a minority. If you're white, and someone calling you a "honky" makes you upset, you have very very thin skin. That's because it's someone coming from a historical position of disenfranchisement taking a shot at someone who has traditionally come from a position of power.

Obviously members of a minority group can commit a hate crime against white people, but what makes it tricky is that people who are at an economic or social disadvantage are more likely to commit crimes, period, and minorities tend to be at an economic or social disadvantage. So hate crimes in the broader sense are harder to determine, and also less neccessary. It's possible a, say, Latino mugger might only want to rob white people, but the basic motive there is financial. "Hate" assumes that racism or prejudice was the primary reason for the attack, and tends to imply someone at an economic or class level equal to or higher than the victim, or possessed of some form of social power over the victim.

At any rate, since part of the point of hate crime laws is to act as a deterrant, I'd say it's less important to bring them in in cases where the assault came from a member of a minority group. It's kind of like drawing a distinction between a terrorist and a guy who shoots up a McDonalds. Both are serious crimes, but there's a political element to the former that needs to be taken into account.

I dunno, I'm assuming in both cases the intent is to intimidate and belittle someone who is in the "not-us" category.

The context that the black dudes are coming from an ethnic group that has historically been on the butt end of such intimidation may have some sociological import in the big picture but doesn't make the small picture behavior any less abhorrent than the opposite situation would be.

That's fine, but we're talking about a law here. The law is governing a larger social situation that supercedes any one specific case.

To use the first example that pops to mind from my high school law classes, consider the fact that statements given to a priest or a psychiatrist are generally inadmissable in court. I'm sure that's been frustrating for a lot of people over the years--not least the priests and psychiatrists--but the larger picture is that if people could be sent to jail for something they said to these two professions, it would make it impossible for them to do their job. So the law serves a larger purpose than simply nabbing criminals whenever possible.

Since it's not like people wouldn't still be charged with harassment, assault, or murder even if they were black and the victim was white, so I'm not seeing how this is radically unfair to white people. It's an add-on intended to help combat prejudice-related crimes.

I certainly understand/sympathize with that intent, but I don't see where you draw the line that only counts prejudice as going one way. What if a black person assaults Latinos, or a Jew assaults a Hindu, in a prejudice-related crime?

I'm one of those silly folks who, while realizing that white people hold most of the cards and in some ways enjoy de facto privileges that non-whites must overcome, thinks that racism from ANY person towards ANY other group is reprehensible and is thoroughly unacceptable. If the legal system is unable/unwilling to prosecute ALL crimes falling under the "hate" banner equally, take it off the fucking books.

Just to be clear here, I'm not saying black people shouldn't be charged with a hate crime for beating up white people, if that was indeed their motive. But it's generally easier to prove "hate crime" when the victim is a minority (and yes, that applies to Hindus assaulting Muslims, blacks beating up Jews, etc.) That's all I'm referring to. I don't think that fact makes it an unjust law.

Hate crimes aren't just crimes which involve ethnic slurs, they are a form of mental terrorism designed to intimidate an entire group. If I get in a street fight with a Hispanic guy, and whilst mutually raining blows I get called a cracker and he gets called a spick, that's not a hate crime. If I spray-paint "GO HOME SPICKS" on a prominent clock-tower, probably a hate crime. Like many crimes, the intent of a hate crime is critical to its definition.

Graynadian nailed it

It's worth noting that, in some instances, hate crime charges aren't brought against an individual because the punishment is actually more severe without them. This is particularly true in states that don't have hate crime laws on the books and have to rely on federal hate crime laws.

Intent. That pretty much sums it up. The original idea was to prohibit actions such as running a job add with "blacks and hispanics need not apply" included in the text. I'm fairly sure uttering slurs during a common Baltimore transit assault isn't a hate crime — it's a transit assault.