It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Woman accused of hate crime against Muslim

page: 7
9
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 04:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Libertygal

Originally posted by His Doodness
have you all lost your minds??

how is yanking a scarf off of someone considered assault?


Spitting on someone, or throwing a glass of water on someone is considered an assault, so why wouldn not physically yanking something off someones' person be, also?


Well, spitting on someone could spread all sorts of disease. Throwing a glass of water could of course hurt someone, cut them, or expose them to whatever else is in the water. These are understandably considered assault. Yanking something off of someone's body, sacred or secular, is not assault. As I said before, a restraining order and a civil suit for emotional distress.



What damages were done to the muslim woman? torn scarf? emotional damage?


For a Muslim woman, yes, it is considered a very personal thing to show their hair in public, and quite offensive to them to have to remove it themsleves, let alone to have it forcefully removed.


So you choose B. emotional damage? What would the charge be then? Emotional Assault?


sounds like a civil suit to me, not a criminal suit.


Actually it is a Federal offense now. Considered to be a major felony.


Show me. I'd like to see this law that criminalizes scarf-yanking.



lets say i was in that supermarket, and there was someone else there who hated me for whatever reason. so they walk up, say something hurtful, pull a hat off my head(or scarf or whatever, doesn't really matter), and throw it on the ground. should i call the police? would you?


If it was induced by hate that falls under the Hate Crimes legislation, yes, you can call the police. The burden of proof does not fall upon you to prove it was caused by hate, the burden of proof falls to the accused to provide proof it was not Hate ariented. Good luck with that, because in many cases, it could be impossible to prove a thought.


Well, I see the Hate part in this scenario, but the Crime part is missing. This lady did not commit a crime, she only offended an apparently devout woman, who should sue for damages if she felt that she was wronged in some way.


if you are a reasonable person you most likely would answer no. no crime was commited here. at most, the muslim woman should get a restraining order and sue for emotional distress.



Actually, the new Hate Crimes legislation allows for them to also pursue a civil suit, as well as to prosecute under Federal statues. She won't need a restraining order, as it is most likely this woman will be used as a tool to make a point to society. I will leave it up to you to decipher that point. A crime was committed here, the real question was, does it constitute being charged with a class 4 felony? Would seem so.


Let me see if I get this straight. According to your circular logic, the fact that this woman was arrested and will be used to make a point justifies her arrest?


law enforcement had no business getting involved in this.


Not only did they have a right, they were required to by law.


They were required by law to get involved in this scarf-yanking incident? AND they have the RIGHT to? are you serious?



am i the only one who sees it this way?


In some ways, believe it or not I agree with you. At most this should have been handled as a simple battery, but then, where were the people when this was signed into law October 29, 2009?


How 'bout a link?



I will give you a clue. They were focused on gay rights if people were paying any attention, and for the ones not paying any attention, it was slipped in on the Defense Spending Bill.

I was attacked for pointing this out in another thread.

Oh well.

bummer.

[edit on 11/18/2009 by His Doodness]




posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by His Doodness
 


See my post above. De-scarfing the woman was akin to ripping the skirt off another woman. You exposed her modesty and dishonoured Allah by showing her uncovered head in Public.

I assume you would have the same attitude if someone slapped the skull cap off a Jew, just because he was Jewish?


my attitude is inconsequential in this situation, but if you must know, yes, i would feel the same for any religion. This does not mean I approve of this behavior though. What kind of a jerk goes around messing with people they don't know.

my point that is being missed here is that this was not an assault, as the damage done was clearly emotional, not physical (as you conveniently pointed out for me).


i could be wrong of course: from what i read, there was no punching, kicking, or anything like that in addition to the scarf yanking. If I missed something and this did occur, it would clearly be assault.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by His Doodness
 


An assault doesn't have to constitute punching or kicking. Assault can be a violent act, without actualy physical harm, whereas the legal term battery is an assault where physical harm was done.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   
I once got arrested and stayed in lock up for 3 nights... without soap.

There was a bar fight and I tried helping to stop it
I put my hand a dude palm foward to stop him from approaching the smaller guy, then someone called the cops on me.

That putting my hand on him was considered assault because I put my hand on someone without their conscent.

in other words... life sucks!



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


It's a crazy world we live in and it's getting worse.
Once,I thumped a co-worker on the back,because he was choking.
He screamed,don't touch me,and backed away from me.I told him
if he was ever choking again,I wouldn't lift a finger to help him.

You tried helping someone and spent three days in jail.I tried helping
someone and got yelled at for "touching" him.These same people
would probably sue us if we stood by and did nothing. I said earlier,
you just have to keep your hands to yourself no matter what.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder
no, that is only part of the story, the other part is the ridiculous "hate crime" legislation which elevates certain victims



Originally posted by PC equals Newspeak
No. "Hate crimes" only apply to crimes commited against certain protected minority groups or members thereof. That's the perversity of such a silly legislation.


Perhaps you should take the time to actually read the legislation.

" IN GENERAL- At the request of a State, local, or tribal law enforcement agency, the Attorney General may provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime that

(A) constitutes a crime of violence;

(B) constitutes a felony under the State, local, or tribal laws; and

(C) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or tribal hate crime laws."

Race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. That would seem to include EVERYONE.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


this is ridiculous. given 3 years because of the thoughts in her head. what's incredible with the fort hood and 9-11 terrorist attacks is how few acts of violence we have against muslims. i think its a testament to our tolerance.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Snarf
 


Again, your statement is not true, and here are your words:


hate crimes are funny

if a white guy calls a black guy a #, #, or #....or calls a gay guy a #, #, or #, then punch them, they go to jail for a hate crime.


But call a white man a white blue-eyed devil, paddy-o, fay gray boy, honkey, cracka mother f'er and punch him the face. Nothing. Hell, they'd probably take the white guy to jail for simply thinking of a racist term in retaliation.

Another prime example of hypocrisy in our politically correct society.


Friend, what you've done is made a hasty generalization/blanket statement and the proof may be found in your own words. R-E-A-D the above several times before you reply. Did you imply or insinuate it never happens? If so where? Did you imply or insinuate an exception to the rule? If so where?

In closing, my statement stands and you're incorrect.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by His Doodness
 


I'm curious, do you have any experience in any field related to law or criminal justice?



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by EMPIRE
reply to post by His Doodness
 


I'm curious, do you have any experience in any field related to law or criminal justice?


If I did, wouldn't that make me LESS credible?

I apologize, I thought ATS was a forum for rational thought and discussion. Apparently I should only comment on topics in my area of expertise.

All of you law experts have fun debating the gray areas of these 'laws' written by deluded gray haired 'law experts'.

I will refrain from any further logical commentary.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   
I dont mean to go against popularist opinion but xenophobia, no matter whats happening in your world, is WRONG. Its wrong to think like that, but of course you cant legislate against thought. But you sure as hell cant act on a xenophobic thought, and anyone who does so is saluting hitler, saluting mussolini, and doing credit to those who join terror factions due to racial abuse .
I think she deserves everything she gets. Its darwin at work. You want to be stupid, you take the consequence.
It always sickens me when members of developed societies behave like everyone who believes something different , is just as likely to be a threat. Its pathetic, its weak, and we should all be above behaviour so callous and thoughtless. Its damn imperative that people who take any xenophobic psychosis to the next level by acting on it, get jailed. There must be NO tolerance over these things.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   
The purpose of the punishment is no longer to ensure a balanced society but to ensure the stability of the elite leadership and agendas. This is why you would get 3 years for this issue, and maybe 2 for rape. It is not about the society anymore..



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by MacDonagh
Wouldn't community service at a mosque be a more suitable punishment than jail time?

The attacker looks like she lacks irony in her diet. Perhaps she'll get some when she's forced to wear a hijab while she scrubs the floors?


It will be a cold day in hell when this happens. It's obvious she
doesn't care much for the mosque, the hijab, or anything it stands
for. Talk about cruel and unusual punishment . . .



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   
This one is easy, all the white Christian Americans just need to be locked in there homes were they can sit and be silent, go to work so you still pay your taxes so the GOOD folks can still get there check and there health care, but still keep your mouth closed and and your head down (eyes to the ground like the slave you are) so no one is offended, and go back home.
They should stick this lady in the electric chair and make an example out of her so that anyone else with a spine will be urged to just give up and be like the rest of the slaves.
Dont stand up for anything, please just move along and let anyone have what they want. These patriots make me sick because they act like they care or somthing! Just give up and let them have it!
However, when they are done running it in the ground and there is nothing left to take, we will still be here to start building it up again.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by uspatriot109
 


First of all you shouldnt mention Christianity in support of xenophobia, because xenophobia is a blasphemy in itself .
Lets not forget that it is NOT a christian thing to do , to FORCE your religion on any other person. We have to give people a choice, because that is what JESUS himself did. Unless you think yourself better than Christ , stop that mode of thought right there .
Second, Im not saying that one shouldnt stand up for what one believes. I am certainly saying that if that goes to forcing your opinions on others, then you are a damned supremacist, no matter what colour you are, or what creed. Supremacist attitude caused the second world war, and if we are honest, every major conflict before or since, so unless you want to begin a tsunami of death with your bile, I suggest you find a new angle, or at least one that doesnt echo the heresy and hipocracy of hitler.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lilitu
Perhaps you should take the time to actually read the legislation.

" IN GENERAL- At the request of a State, local, or tribal law enforcement agency, the Attorney General may provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime that

(A) constitutes a crime of violence;

(B) constitutes a felony under the State, local, or tribal laws; and

(C) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or tribal hate crime laws."

Race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. That would seem to include EVERYONE.


perhaps you should take the time to read what I said- I did not say that the EXPLICIT definition of victim was not "everyone".

Clearly the law does not state that nor did I suggest it did (though we know that in application, certain groups are more likely to receive succour)

What I referred to was one VICTIM being elevated above another- let me expand on that again for you:

a) One victim is stamped to death by a man who just didn't like the look of him

b) One victim is stamped to death by a man who didn't like his skin colour


In scenario b the victim is elevated above the victim in scenario a- utterly perposterous.

There is no actual need in law for hate crimes- as people are not allowed to assault people under existing law, this new additional law is for nerfarious control purposes and elevates one victim over another



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by blueorder
 


I have to point out that the reasoning behind the elevation of a race crime victim beyond that of a normal assault victim, is sound. It goes like this:
If you dont want the second world war again, crush fascist pigs underfoot by wieght of law, EVERY time they act on thier disgusting ideals. Allow NONE to behave in a way that interferes with a persons right to go about thier business in peace regardless of thier ethnicity.
The only way to do this, is to ensure that NO rascist action goes unpunished, and if Im honest , both the US and the UK need to step up to this stuff a hell of a lot more. Both my Grandfathers fought in WW2 to prevent the spread of xenophobic supremacy , I would be devastated if in my life time, that stuff returned. Either devastated or busy building explosives to burn Nazis with at any rate.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueBrit
I have to point out that the reasoning behind the elevation of a race crime victim beyond that of a normal assault victim, is sound. It goes like this:
If you dont want the second world war again, crush fascist pigs underfoot by wieght of law, EVERY time they act on thier disgusting ideals. Allow NONE to behave in a way that interferes with a persons right to go about thier business in peace regardless of thier ethnicity.
The only way to do this, is to ensure that NO rascist action goes unpunished, and if Im honest , both the US and the UK need to step up to this stuff a hell of a lot more. Both my Grandfathers fought in WW2 to prevent the spread of xenophobic supremacy , I would be devastated if in my life time, that stuff returned. Either devastated or busy building explosives to burn Nazis with at any rate.



THis is preposterous, there is no need for the UK or US to "step up to this stuff a gell of a lot more"- we have laws that punish people for mudering others- ten years ago was someone in the UK allowed to murder a black person because he is black and not receive punishment!?!?

My grandfather fought in WW2 and he would be disgusted by the left wing takeover of the establishment- a storm is a brewing my friend



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Wow, a $5000 bail, and the possibility of a 3 year sentence in prison and a $25,000 fine? For pulling the scarf of a Muslim woman? That's just ridiculous. Now before any of you jump to the conclusion that I think this woman's actions were justified and the even more ridiculous conclusion that i'm a racist, that woman does deserve to be punished, but not that harshly. Some community service a small fine would be appropriate for a crime of this caliber. If anyone thinks this woman deserves that harsh of punishment for that petty of a crime, then you're just as bad as her.

[edit on 27-11-2009 by technical difficulties]

[edit on 27-11-2009 by technical difficulties]



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Ok. Let's take a simple example to illustrate what differentiates crimes from hate crimes.

*A person spray paints something silly on a wall. That's vandalism. Minor charge.

*Another person paints a swastika on a synagogue.


Can anyone not see how these two acts are different? Can anyone not see how the second example was meant as an attack on a group of people, while the first was not?


Three years is excessive, but there definitely needs to be a criminal penalty for that kind of , well, bullying. Assault charges are applicable. A shorter prison stint - maybe 6 months - and then a couple of years of parole, and a thousand hours of community service.

But folks, just apply the simple example above. The difference it clear.

[edit on 27-11-2009 by TrueTruth]



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join