I don't understand hate crime laws

I really do not get it, can anyone explain how hate crime laws are not arbitrary in nature? Take these two stories

www.huffingtonpost.com...
Two teenagers allegedly attacked a 13-year-old boy and set him on fire with gasoline in what police in Missouri are investigating as a possible hate crime.

The eighth grader was walking home from Kansas City's East High School around 3 p.m. last Tuesday when he noticed two older teens following him, KMBC reports.

"And they rushed him on the porch as he tried to get the door open," the boy's mother Melissa Coontold KCTV. "One of them poured the gasoline, then flicked the [lighter], and said, 'This is what you deserve. You get what you deserve, white boy'."

However, Kansas City police have said since the incident first was reported that they do not think it was a hate crime.

Read more here: www.kansascity.com...=cpy

So burning a white kid because he is white and "deserves it" is not a hate crime but this is

An ex-Rutgers student was convicted Friday of bias intimidation and 14 other charges for using a webcam to spy on his gay roommate’s dorm-room trysts with another man.

Dharun Ravi, 20, sat stoically as the jury returned its damning verdict in a case that caused a national furor when the outed roommate jumped to his death from the George Washington Bridge.

The jury deliberated over three days before convicting Ravi, who faces up to 10 years in prison on the hate crime charge and possible deportation to his native India.

Read more: www.nydailynews.com...

So trying to burn someone alive because of their skin color is NOT a hate crime but posting a video of your gay roommate is?

Welcome to the wonderful world of politics and tainted justice....

Welcome to the New America.

Media bias runs rampant here. Hence why we (on here) simply scoff at it.

I don't either - and I don't like them.
When people do hateful stuff to pagans no one gives a crap.
Some minorities seem to be able to use them, some don't.

Anyway, I think the crime should have punishment bad enough, no matter what the motivation.
You beat someone, kill someone, destroy their property, I'm not into being your thought police or your thought jury, I just want you punished for your actions- for the crime itself.

Lady Justice is blind.

Except when faced with political brownie points, popular outrage, money, fame, gender, age, physical attractiveness, etc....

But Lady Justice is blind. Totally.

Originally posted by JayFlores
Welcome to the wonderful world of politics and tainted justice....

Honestly, I not only agree with you, but sometimes I do wonder if the gov. isn't actually trying to create more hatred what with all the highly selective prosecutions of hate crimes.

That kid Mathew Sheppard who was tied to a fence and beaten to death over the course of hours because he was gay... that was a hate crime. Some kid killing himself because his roommate filmed him having gay sex... how is invasion of privacy a hate crime?

Japser TX... dragging a black man behind a truck... hate crime just like the one with the white kid getting lit on fire. But since the kid was white and his attackers black, well... according to federal standards as I have read (not that I have reviewed the laws too too much)... minorities cannot be brought up on charges of hate crimes unless it is against women or now gays, I guess.

The only place I am certain minorities can be charged with hate crimes is AZ. There was an incident years ago where a WM/BW couple were assaulted for being a couple by two black men. In the same week or so, two white men were brought up on charges for a hate crime after having only threatened to assault another WM/BW couple.

The two blacks who physically assaulted couple A got light sentences. The two white guys who made threats to couple B got around 10 years each for biased intimidation under the federal guidelines (they literally were sentenced to 5 times the maximum due to it being a hate crime). The governor at the time... same guy from the lights over Phoenix... he pardoned the two white guys just a few days after the sentencing and then went on a statewide campaign to change all the state laws back to the way they were before lawmakers amended the state laws to be in line with the fed guidelines regarding minority prosecutions for hate crimes. It NEVER made the MSM news, and me and my black gf at the time paid a lot of attention to the story when it was occuring.

AZ... the only state in the union I know of where in a minority can be charged with a hate crime just like white people. But the feds still won't do it.

I know this might sound rather unpopular, but it is the way I view it. Basically in America it isn't a hate crime unless the victim is Gay, Black, female, or of some other non-white race.

Just like racism apparently White people cannot be victimized by racism. Apparently white people are somehow the only racists in the world, and straight people are the only aggressors in the world. Sorry but it doesn't work that way.

I mean a schizophrenic can still be more peaceful and non-violent then a sane rational man. The way our world is viewed by the legal system and frankly other people is entirely skewed.

reply to post by DavidWillts
It's okay to hate caucasians.
It's okay to hate christianity.
It's okay to hate smokers. (Unless it's that medical stuff they sell in California)
It's okay to hate the military.
It's okay to hate the rich successful people.
It's okay to hate conservative radio talk show hosts.
It's okay to hate conservatives.
It's okay to hate FOX News.
It's okay to hate the Tea Party.
It's okay to hate terrorists (as long as they're domestic)
It's okay to hate militias.
It's okay to hate gun owners.
It's okay to hate patriots (unless you're patriotic duty includes paying taxes)

Everyone, everything else you can't hate. Then it'd be a hate crime.

reply to post by beezzer


Ok after reading your post. I had to think for a minute on mine. It's entirely possible that if two white men beat a arab american to death for no reason that it might not be considered a hate crime since right now in America it seems to be acceptable to hate middle eastern people because "they are all evil".

It's all a load of @#$^. Humans are human beings, and if someone is killed becasue of their religious views, skin color, sexual orientation, or there sex. It is a hate crime pure and simple. If the perfect Christian woman shoots a man because he is a Man or a Muslim. That is still a act of hatred.

reply to post by Phantom28804

I have questions. (Not picking on you, but you responded )

If a neo-nazi shoots a black man who was going to rob him, is it a hate crime?

If a white man kills a black man, is the death different than if a white man killed a gay white man?

If a black man kills another black man, why isn't that a hate crime? The killer obviously hated the victim enough to kill him.

reply to post by beezzer


Well I understand the logic of what you are saying and I myself have often wondered why "Hate Crimes" were invented in the first place. I mean in retort to what you said or maybe even in relation to what you said. When did the life of a any person become anymore important then the life of another person. Because they were black does that mean their life was somehow more meaningful then if they were white?

I do not understand that logic of the law at all to be honest.

That being said, the way it is worded is that the crimes has to be racially, sexually, or religiously motivated to be classified as a hate crime.

Hate crimes have outlived their purpose, they came about with civil rights and were meant to stop people from lashing out at minorities for things that that they could not have done before. Whites are actually a minority group now
latino.foxnews.com...
www.newser.com...
So it is not that hate crimes are meant to protect minorities but to punish them.
In the case with the 13 year old being burned he was actually in a predominately black school, so how is he not a minority?

Originally posted by Phantom28804


That being said, the way it is worded is that the crimes has to be racially, sexually, or religiously motivated to be classified as a hate crime.

But not monitarily. Class warfare, striking out at someone who is different, ie; someone who is wealthy when the perpetrator is not, should be described as a hate crime then, don't you think?

Socio-economic status is no different than religious/sexual/racial status?

I wonder if "they" planned it so economic status wouldn't be a discriminator for hate crimes.

Thanks for the feedback.

Unfortunately there are no simple answers. First is understanding that prosecutors make their charges based on what they can prove. The first case you posted could arguably be classified as a hate crime, but proving that it was another matter entirely. This is not to say there aren't imbalances as to how hate crime legislation is prosecuted. White people will almost always come out on the bottom side of these things because being largely the ethnic group in positions of power and cultural favoritism. Face it the markets pretty much cater to us. Minority groups also have organized social groups whose sole purpose is to ensure that national attention gets focused on issues they deem important.

It may not seem fair to many, but life isn't typically fair. An organization like the NAACP could be formed to push issues such as these for white people and it would be decried as racist, which may or may not be true. But that is what the perception would be. There comes a time where one has to realize that perception is everything and being the group largely in control, puts white people at a disadvantage when someone asks is this type of organization really needed.

There shouldn't be a need for any organization that is ethnically based, but unfortunately there is. One day we won't need them but for today they have a function. We can go back and forth with what is right and what is fair between the races all we want and it will take us back over a hundred years. At some point somewhere someone has to stop and say enough. Someone has to say these are the laws we have and we want to see them uniformly enforced. The Martin/Zimmerman case was not treated uniformly. Zimmerman should have been arrested and the evidence investigated cataloged and collected that night. Even if he was not ultimately charged, at least the police department could say they treated him like any other suspect and maintained their impartiality.

reply to post by DavidWillts


I understand the intentions of the law when it was first created; however now it is no longer needed for it's original intentions. It is now being used as fodder for the race cannon that is so widely used in America. Only in America can you be racist/bigot/hatemonger for speaking out on a issue that involves anything to do with race/religion/sex.

If you disagree with Gay marriage you are anti-gay. If you disagree with teaching the bible in school or taking god out of the pledge of allegiance (that wasn't there in the first place) you are anti-chrisitian; however christians will be damned if any other religion is practiced in school or anything else that tickles their fancy. If you disagree with Israel you are anti-sematic.

Somewhere somehow between Civil Rights and Women's Lib America lost the plot.

reply to post by Phantom28804


They got lost because "equal rights" turned into "black rights" and "women rights" instead of them just being rights for ALL Americans. The whole thing got turned around into special rights.

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
Unfortunately there are no simple answers. First is understanding that prosecutors make their charges based on what they can prove. The first case you posted could arguably be classified as a hate crime, but proving that it was another matter entirely. This is not to say there aren't imbalances as to how hate crime legislation is prosecuted. White people will almost always come out on the bottom side of these things because being largely the ethnic group in positions of power and cultural favoritism. Face it the markets pretty much cater to us. Minority groups also have organized social groups whose sole purpose is to ensure that national attention gets focused on issues they deem important.

It may not seem fair to many, but life isn't typically fair. An organization like the NAACP could be formed to push issues such as these for white people and it would be decried as racist, which may or may not be true. But that is what the perception would be. There comes a time where one has to realize that perception is everything and being the group largely in control, puts white people at a disadvantage when someone asks is this type of organization really needed.

There shouldn't be a need for any organization that is ethnically based, but unfortunately there is. One day we won't need them but for today they have a function. We can go back and forth with what is right and what is fair between the races all we want and it will take us back over a hundred years. At some point somewhere someone has to stop and say enough. Someone has to say these are the laws we have and we want to see them uniformly enforced. The Martin/Zimmerman case was not treated uniformly. Zimmerman should have been arrested and the evidence investigated cataloged and collected that night. Even if he was not ultimately charged, at least the police department could say they treated him like any other suspect and maintained their impartiality.

I just read your post and the first thing that came to my mind is that as long as the mentaility that race means anything at all exists. There will always be racism. The majority of blacks in America spend their time moaning and griping about their social status and how they can't do anything to improve their social standing,but they don't try to improve it. I know several succesful black people including the mayor of my town, who did not let themselves fall into that mentaility and made something of themselves. Barack Obama regardless of how much I don't like him didn't fall into that mentality and look where he is now. One of my good friends went from 20k a year to 60k a year and is now working on his doctorate in business and he is under 40 yrs old.

And this is not race restricted.. White,black, hispanic, or asian can all fall into the same mentality of "Oh I am doomed to fail and "this is the only thing I can do" As long as you believe that you are quite literally dooming yourself to that. I am not saying that society doesn't create that image on some races, but that doesn't mean you have to conform to it. Just because there are more liquor stores in or around your neighborhood doesn't mean you have to drink. Self choice is everything. If you choose to start drinking, selling drugs, or doing drugs. You made that choice yourself it is not societies fault. Just as I choose to live the lifestyle I live is my choice. Society tells me a lot of what I eat and drink are bad for me, but it's my choice and my right to do what I want. So therefore I do not conform with popular demand which right now is all about healthier living etc.

I am not lecturing nor am I saying that I am right about everything, but honestly racism is created out of people tryign to conform to what they are being fed. The sooner you accept that we are all the same the better off you will be.

Yes, homosexuals have successfully subverted the legal system, in their own favour.

I should probably be careful what I say, though. It's likely that even talking about that could be considered a hate crime.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by DavidWillts

 

It's okay to hate caucasians.
It's okay to hate christianity.
It's okay to hate smokers. (Unless it's that medical stuff they sell in California)
It's okay to hate the military.
It's okay to hate the rich successful people.
It's okay to hate conservative radio talk show hosts.
It's okay to hate conservatives.
It's okay to hate FOX News.
It's okay to hate the Tea Party.
It's okay to hate terrorists (as long as they're domestic)
It's okay to hate militias.
It's okay to hate gun owners.
It's okay to hate patriots (unless you're patriotic duty includes paying taxes)

Everyone, everything else you can't hate. Then it'd be a hate crime.

Admittedly, I think the point is primarily to create a scenario where the shoe is on the other foot. To be entirely honest, a scenario where rich, geriatric, fundamentalist Christian white males don't rule the planet, also suits me right down to the ground; and I say that as a white male myself, ironically enough.

So that aim in and of itself is something I can sympathise with; but they should definitely have come up with a different way of going about it. Hell, they could have just called it cultural revenge. Where Christians and the Republican Party are concerned, I'd be completely down with that.

reply to post by petrus4


But what about racism towards white people? If you honestly believe that is irrelevant or non-existent that you are only kidding yourself. The Japanese are extremely racist towards white and black men. We are considered inferior to them.Not so much as a race but because of our culture upbringing etc.

Black people are just as racist as white people. The true irony is that now that the American Hispanic populace has increased whites and blacks have now become more racist towards Hispanics then one another.