Apparent "hate crime" in Seminole County, Florida

[joeydb]

Here's what the police know so far:
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...vits-crimeline

[Dahoss]

I missed it in the article, why is this a hate crime?

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

I missed it in the article, why is this a hate crime?

They didnt keep the car. Just beat the guy for no apparent reason...

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

I missed it in the article, why is this a hate crime?

Still being investigated of course, but the same racial difference exists in the perpetrators vs. the victim. Unless the motivation can be found to be non-racial, there is the possibility of this being a hate crime.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Still being investigated of course, but the same racial difference exists in the perpetrators vs. the victim. Unless the motivation can be found to be non-racial, there is the possibility of this being a hate crime.

Right, but you labeled it a hate crime. So now everytime a white guy attacks a black guy and vice versa we're just going to label it a hate crime without getting all of the facts?

We're in a lot of trouble as a society...

[Riot]

Joey ... Zimmerman is on tape calling Trayvon, "f.u.c.k.ing coon", and the kid wasn't doing anything but walking down the street while black, let alone beating a victim he dragged out of a car with a hammer.

That is being investigated as a hate crime, as it should be. "F.u.c.k.ing coon" is a racial epithat. It's not being investigated as a hate crime just because the murderer was a different color than his victim.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

Joey ... Zimmerman is on tape calling Trayvon, "f.u.c.k.ing coon", and the kid wasn't doing anything but walking down the street while black, let alone beating a victim he dragged out of a car with a hammer.

That is being investigated as a hate crime, as it should be. "F.u.c.k.ing coon" is a racial epithat. It's not being investigated as a hate crime just because the murderer was a different color than his victim.

So without a tape recording, there is no hate crime? What about the point made above, that the car was not the motive for the crime?

We don't know what was said to whom in the case of the hammer beating. If, and I stress IF, the victim was selected because of his race, it is a "hate crime"

Incidentally, I don't think "hate crimes" should be punished any differently. Murder is murder. If Zimmerman killed Martin in cold blood (no self-defense as he has asserted) he should get the sentence comensurate with the crime. If pre-meditated, he could get the death penalty.

Same with this other crime. If they pre-meditated to go after a caucasian violently, and if the victim dies, electric chair time.

[brianwspencer]

Glad they were arrested...since that's how it's actually supposed to work.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

So without a tape recording, there is no hate crime?

No. When there are indications of possible racial motive, it's investigated. It's not that difficult. The federal qualifications for meeting "hate crime" is pretty easy.

Incidentally, I don't think "hate crimes" should be punished any differently.

I do. Killing someone because they are gay, or black, or white, or female needs to be punished far differently than murder committed out of passion, or crime.

Originally Posted by Riot

I do. Killing someone because they are gay, or black, or white, or female needs to be punished far differently than murder committed out of passion, or crime.

Slippery slope time, Riot. Aren't we getting into "thought crime" here, and
1st amendment issues?

Take a crime less serious than murder. A graffiti artist gets arrested for defacing a storekeeper's window with his innocuous artwork. Another graffiti artist gets arrested for defacing a like storekeeper's window with the slogan "I HATE QUEERS." The damage is the same, yet you're saying we need to punish the second perp more than the first?


Ocala Mike

[Rupert Pupkin]

This case looks like a definite hate crime. This happened a few days ago in Palmdale, which is about 40 miles from Los Angeles. You have 7 black teens arrested for attacking a 15 year old Hispanic boy while he was walking home. The attack was caught on video and the perpetrators were using racial slurs during the attack.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...amS_story.html

[Danzig]

seems to me, and i know i've read this before, that all crime has a level of hate involved-that pretty much all crime is a hate crime. i doubt very many rob or murder out of love. regardless of motive, the punishment should fit the crime or crimes. more heinous, more time-but how does one judge the level of hate? is it fact or opinion to decide if something is a hate crime? and does investigating something as a hate crime engender racial or other stereotypes? should we attempt to stop categorizing the 'why'? does it give unsavory elements press for others looking for a place? in the end, does 'why' matter anyway? do we punish for act or motive? seems to me the former is really what matters. and quite often, there is no real reason why.
the shooter in oakland killed seven last i heard-has anyone suggested a hate crime? if not, why not? it obviously is one. but since it had random victims without a pattern, there's no effort. i think the only type of crime that it would be important to seek a pattern is when you have a serial killer on the loose, since they sometimes only seek women of a certain hair color or some such detail.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

seems to me, and i know i've read this before, that all crime has a level of hate involved-that pretty much all crime is a hate crime. i doubt very many rob or murder out of love. regardless of motive, the punishment should fit the crime or crimes. more heinous, more time-but how does one judge the level of hate? is it fact or opinion to decide if something is a hate crime? and does investigating something as a hate crime engender racial or other stereotypes? should we attempt to stop categorizing the 'why'? does it give unsavory elements press for others looking for a place? in the end, does 'why' matter anyway? do we punish for act or motive? seems to me the former is really what matters. and quite often, there is no real reason why.
the shooter in oakland killed seven last i heard-has anyone suggested a hate crime? if not, why not? it obviously is one. but since it had random victims without a pattern, there's no effort. i think the only type of crime that it would be important to seek a pattern is when you have a serial killer on the loose, since they sometimes only seek women of a certain hair color or some such detail.

Right. The aspect of "hatred" being added to the crime means nothing - except it was the motive.

What's an "honor killing" as seen in a Muslim father killing his daughter because of disgrace - is that a "love crime"?

Besides the obvious fact that no one can truly know the inner thoughts of another - just what he or she chooses to express - the concept of hate crime prosecution is an absurdity as far as legal proceedings go.

[GenuineRisk]

Neither of these cases are a parallel to the Trayvon Martin situation because in both of the cases cited in this thread, the alleged perpetrators have been arrested. What started the furor over Trayvon Martin wasn't the shooting itself, it was the alleged non-handling of the shooting by the Sanford police.

The US has a pretty well-documented history of violence against blacks by other races being disregarded, or willfully covered up by authorities, especially in, but certainly not limited to, the South. That's what this furor is about, no matter what the media chooses to focus on. The protests are not about whether Zimmerman would have viewed a non-black or black stranger equally; they're about whether we can trust our local, state, and federal government to treat a non-black or black offender equally.

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

The protests are not about whether Zimmerman would have viewed a non-black or black stranger equally; they're about whether we can trust our local, state, and federal government to treat a non-black or black offender equally.

I agree that the protests should be about that, and that is what bothers me most about this case. I am also bothered, however, by those that see this case as STRICTLY about race.

Ocala Mike

Genuine Risk the champion for racial equality and you can look at her threads on racism in this subse...err wait. NVMD.

You give a f.uck about racial equality. Otherwise you wouldn't vote for Obama. Blacks are being locked up in record numbers. GTFO with your Faux Mother Teresa routine.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Neither of these cases are a parallel to the Trayvon Martin situation because in both of the cases cited in this thread, the alleged perpetrators have been arrested. What started the furor over Trayvon Martin wasn't the shooting itself, it was the alleged non-handling of the shooting by the Sanford police. The US has a pretty well-documented history of violence against blacks by other races being disregarded, or willfully covered up by authorities, especially in, but certainly not limited to, the South. That's what this furor is about, no matter what the media chooses to focus on. The protests are not about whether Zimmerman would have viewed a non-black or black stranger equally; they're about whether we can trust our local, state, and federal government to treat a non-black or black offender equally.

but is race brought into that particular discussion to say that the arrest hasn't happened due to the race of the victim, when in fact the arrest hasn't happened because of the way a law is written? this is the first time i've seen anyone say that race is why there was no arrest. i thought race was mentioned as why zimmerman reacted as he did? in no way have i seen that the martin case is evidence of poor police work-instead, everything i've seen is a result of the police feeling they couldn't make an arrest because of the stand your ground law. and as i've said before, i don't know that if they did arrest there would be a conviction. i'd suggest that they compile all the evidence and put it in front of a grand jury to decide if there should be a move forward...and i'd also think that the law might need to be tinkered with for in future.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Ocala Mike

Slippery slope time, Riot. Aren't we getting into "thought crime" here, and
1st amendment issues?

We've been there for some time. I'm talking about supporting our existing legal system. Not changing anything. There have been different punishments and definitions for various types of murder and crime, including "hate", for some time.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Ocala Mike

I agree that the protests should be about that, and that is what bothers me most about this case. I am also bothered, however, by those that see this case as STRICTLY about race.

Ocala Mike

The "coverup", the "lack of investigation", is what the family were initially alleging was about race. The death of a black teenager wasn't seemingly as important for a thorough, deep investigation as the death of a white teen would have been investigated. And anybody who lives in the USA and denies that's true in many cultures in the south doesn't have a handle on our culture since the civil war.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

but is race brought into that particular discussion to say that the arrest hasn't happened due to the race of the victim, when in fact the arrest hasn't happened because of the way a law is written? this is the first time i've seen anyone say that race is why there was no arrest. i thought race was mentioned as why zimmerman reacted as he did? in no way have i seen that the martin case is evidence of poor police work-instead, everything i've seen is a result of the police feeling they couldn't make an arrest because of the stand your ground law. and as i've said before, i don't know that if they did arrest there would be a conviction. i'd suggest that they compile all the evidence and put it in front of a grand jury to decide if there should be a move forward...and i'd also think that the law might need to be tinkered with for in future.

That's why it's important to spread a wide net when you're reading about a story- various media outlets will shape the facts to fit the narrative they want to tell, whether it's NBC editing audio, or Fox doing softball interviews of a professional "friend" of Zimmerman.

The Sanford PD has had at least two instances of delaying arrest of a white attacker of a black victim, until the public furor got too great, and in those cases, one, caught on video sucker punching a homeless man, got off with a light sentence of one year probation, and the other two, who shot and killed an unarmed man, were cleared. Now, one could also argue that both instances, the corruption was due to the attackers having connections to the PD, but either way, it's still not right, and I can see why black residents would see it as whites covering up for their own, not just police covering up for their own.

And in this case, the police didn't do a drug and alcohol test on Zimmerman, though they did on Martin. Even though they had Martin ID'd and his phone number, did NOT ATTEMPT TO REACH HIS FAMILY. In fact, they sent him to the morgue as a John Doe and it wasn't until his father was able to file a missing person report, which, as we all know, you can't do until 24 hours have elapsed, that Trayvon's family was informed their child was dead. They were not given any chance to see him until he'd already been cleaned up for the funeral, and the police won't let them see the autopsy report.

Now, this might all turn out to be because the Sanford police are buddy-buddy with Zimmerman, and trying to protect their buddy. Just as corrupt, but not racially motivated. BUT- it was poor police work on behalf of the PD, and, especially in the listing of the already-identified Trayvon as a John Doe, it's hard for me to believe that they would have behaved the same about a white victim.