"Hate Crime" Laws

Oh spare me. Why don’t you read the testimony??? The witness HG was never asked if either of the Carr brothers uttered any racial epithets. Under questioning by the police, she wasn’t asked either. The Carr’s home was never searched for anti-white hate literature even though one was wearing a FUBU label sweater (FUBU is a black clothing company and FUBU means For Us By Us) From the very beginning, the prosecution was claiming it wasn’t a hate crime even though for weeks only whites had been targeted.

It seems pretty obvious by your bleating that the only possible “hate crime” can be those committed by white racist homophobes. Hate crimes don’t apply if committed by those of other races or sexual orientations against straight whites. Your logic reminds be of a political science prof I had in grad school. He taught that violence committed by the Left was “creative” while that by the Right was “repressive”. I felt like puking then and I do now when faced with this stupidity.

I wonder how you have felt if it had been you and yours kneeling in the snow that night, nude, waiting for the Carr brothers to put a bullet in your skull. Sleep tight, MT. Your righteousness protects you.

The reason I think hate crime laws deprive people of equal protection is because of how they are implemented. Have any non-caucasians been prosecuted/convicted under these laws for committing hate crimes against caucasians? I don’t believe so. If there have been, I would venture to guess that the proportion is negligible. Do you really expect me to believe there are no “hate crimes” committed against caucasians or other groups that to date have not been “protected” by the enforcement of “hate crime” laws?

But Kenny, the 14th Amendment states: No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. It says person, not defendents. Although “hate crime” laws generally don’t explicitly name groups that require protection, the reality is that they are implemented in a way that “protects” some groups while ignoring others. Ultimately, race or ethnicity are social constructs that are always changing. I think we are going down a slippery slope when we try to decide if 1.) the victim belongs to a definite group, both in the mind of the accused and of the victim, and 2.) the accused wronged that victim because he/she wanted to harm or intimidate the whole group. Rigorous prosecution under normal laws is enough to deter and punish those who hurt others because of hate.

MT, the reason racist whites were able to get away with lynching, burning houses, etc., without being prosecuted was because of the lack of the rule of law. If sheriffs and prosecutors of the day had been willing to fairly apply the law, then most violent crimes against blacks and others could have been punished or deterred. The laws were there, but the system was too corrupt and prejudiced to use them. “Hate crime” laws wouldn’t have made any difference. The reason blacks or others were treated violently was not for lack of “hate laws.” It was because racists knew that the local redneck sheriff or prosecutor would not bother to nail them on the existing laws of the day.

Yes, but hate crime laws have nothing to do with these rights. Tell me when a hate crime law was used to protect any of these rights.

Thanks for the moralizing, but I don’t see anyone here arguing to roll back the advances made during the civil rights movement.

Yes, normal laws should protect all of these groups. The problem in the past was generally not the lack of law, but the lack of will to prosecute under existing law. Why is it that you believe these “hate crime” laws actually protect people?

How is that? I’ve never heard a convicted white supremacist quoted as saying: “I was such a hateful person before, but my conviction for a hate crime has taught me to love my fellow man and that the state won’t tolerate hate.” I believe that if our goal is to dampen prejudice and to reduce bias/hate/prejudice related crimes, hate crime laws aren’t the way to do it. If you want people to put down their prejudices, you have to help them understand the people they hate and to see where they may share common ground. These laws don’t promote tolerance. They just make moralizing idealists feel better about themselves. I don’t believe hate laws are going to provide added protection for anyone or lead to better inter-racial relations.

[quote=“Mother Theresa”]Jive Turkey, surely you can see how “hate crimes” are different from other types of crimes. They are often part of an organized criminal gang seeking to intimidate and deprive the rights of a whole class of people. While BF’s guys did horrible things (and got the death penalty for it) that is a different type of crime from the following:
You have chosen as good examples as any to support your argument, but I still believe that all of these thugs and the groups to which they belong can be handled quite well with pre-hate law civil rights law and criminal law.

Well your wish is now reality in the majority of states. According to the ADL’s website, 29 states have “hate laws” that cover homosexuals.

According to the ADL’s website, you are wrong. Check their charts and graphs for state hate crime laws.

There was a case in Jasper, Texas that received world-wide coverage.

"on June 7, 1998, three white racists in a pickup truck crossed paths with a 49yearold black man named James Byrd, who was walking home from his niece’s bridal shower. The trio offered to give Byrd a ride, and after he accepted, they chained his ankles to the back of their truck and dragged him nearly three miles to his agonizing death. In the process, the victim’s head and right arm were severed from his body, the mutilated remains of which were thereafter dumped in front of a black cemetery. This grisly incident made national news; indeed all of America was riveted to the story for weeks.

Jesse Jackson, who personally visited Mr. Byrd’s family to express his condolences, presided over Byrd’s funeral at Greater New Bethel Baptist Church in Jasper. In his eulogy, Jackson made it clear that this crime because of its racial component was of supreme national significance. “Turn a crucifixion into a resurrection,” he exhorted the mourners. “There is power in the blood of innocents. [Byrd’s] innocent blood could well be the blood that changes the course of our country’s history.” The implication was clear: Perhaps white America would now, at long last, condemn and strive to extinguish the ugly flame of racism that still raged in its collective heart."

But! Have you heard of 44 year old Ken Tillery?

In January, 2002, "in the town of Jasper, three men in a car offered Tillery a ride, which he accepted only to be kidnapped and driven, against his will, to a remote location. When the terrified Tillery jumped out of the vehicle and tried to flee, the kidnappers caught up with him, beat him, and finally ran over him dragging him to his death beneath their car’s undercarriage.

Ken Tillery’s name is unfamiliar to most Americans. Though he died very near to where James Byrd had died before him, few people outside of Jasper ever heard about his gruesome slaying. No civil rights activists attended his funeral. There were no pained oped pieces lamenting his death. No prominent political figures issued public statements about the national significance of his killing. Mr. Tillery, you see, was white, and his three killers Darrell Gilbert, Blake Little, and Anthony Holmes were black. Thus his death had no political currency for those whose reputations depend upon their ability to portray themselves as crusaders for justice, ever guarding against white racism. Even though blackonwhite killings far outnumber the whiteonblack variety in this country, unfortunate people like Ken Tillery die in complete anonymity as opposed to unfortunate people like James Byrd, whose deaths are spotlighted in the national media. Should a murder victim’s skin color determine the significance of his or her death? It’s a serious question, well worth pondering."

frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re … sp?ID=1337


[b]All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.[/b]

  • George Orwell

To set the record straight, the DA of Sedgwick County, Nola Foulston, is a Democrat. However, all of Sedgwick is very conservative. Dan Glickman was ousted as 4th CD rep in the Gingrich’s '94 revolution; Wichita is now represented by Todd Tiahrt, R-Goddard. I remember being on the campus of Wichita State Univ. on election day and seeing Rosie Greer and Tiahrt both together, gettin out the vote. In addition, both senators are R and one of them, Sam Brownback, is apparently also in the pocket of Koch Industries, with Tiahrt (former Boeing DOD-contracts manager). Koch Industries is the second largest privately held company in the US (behind only Cargill; the core industries are gas and oil, fossil fuel distribution, and agriculture. It’s very likely Charles Koch, the CEO, sat in on VP Cheney’s energy powwow. Charles Koch is a billionaire “movement conservative,” has been for years. By personal experience I can tell you that one of the favorite topics of discussion among executive management is “Austrian economics,” which is code for laissez-faire markets. In short, the whole of Sedgwick County, together with Johnson County, forms the heart of the GOP in Kansas. Of course, as an agricultural state it’s also wildly populist, much like Texas and Oklahoma are.

What you apparently haven’t seen is that Jonathan Carr was arrested the morning after the crime while crawling out the window of his girlfriend’s apartment on E. 21st Street. His girlfriend was white.

Obviously he was some kind of sick mofo, but it’s hard to charge him with a hate crime against whites when he’s lovin’ one of 'em up like that.

I have no doubt you encountered a particularly thick faculty person.

Not good. Not many people, even Wichitans, are as tough as HG. As an interesting aside, the trial was broadcast live. She was referred to as HG throughout, but her name got out, word of mouth, like within a day. So she had a lot to deal with, no doubt. If you ever get a chance to hear her testimony, I’m sure you’d be impressed with HG. One brave woman.

[quote=“flike”]What you apparently haven’t seen is that Jonathan Carr was arrested the morning after the crime while crawling out the window of his girlfriend’s apartment on E. 21st Street. His girlfriend was white.

Obviously he was some kind of sick mofo, but it’s hard to charge him with a hate crime against whites when he’s lovin’ one of 'em up like that.

I knew it but didn’t see it as relevant. Although frowned upon, in WWII, Nazi officers in the death camps regularly had Jewish mistresses living with them. For that matter, there are lots of guys in Taiwan who don’t like Taiwanese who still have Taiwanese girlfriends. Mr. Happy is not a racist.

About SS Sgt Paul Groth:

“Three beautiful girls came to Sobibor on a transport from Vienna. Groth took Ruth as his servant and mistress. Sergeant Poul, the drunk, smuggled the other two into the Merry Flea. Groth fell in love with the dark-eyed teen-ager and, almost as a favor to her, or so it seemed, stopped beating the other Jews.”

nizkor.org/faqs/reinhard/rei … aq-18.html



Just reading her testimony has hard enough. A brave woman indeed.