Man Is Held in Anti-Muslim Stabbing of Cabdriver

[Omar]

And it has begun...

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/ ... -attacked/

[AZhitman]

Applying the logic from another thread in this forum, perhaps we should just call this a "random crazy guy with a knife", rather than an anti-Muslim crime.

Of course, I don't believe that, but it illustrates how easy it is to be swayed.

Here's hoping justice is swift, certain and severe, and I pray for the victim's rapid healing.

[heliochrome85]

Applying the logic from another thread in this forum, perhaps we should just call this a "random crazy guy with a knife", rather than an anti-Muslim crime.

Of course, I don't believe that, but it illustrates how easy it is to be swayed.

Here's hoping justice is swift, certain and severe, and I pray for the victim's rapid healing.

im with you greg.

as for the other thread, context is incredibly important. thats why im against rebranding of fort hood as just a random act. i just hope that all that terrrrrrrist talk doesnt drown out the discusssion of military mental health and the very real epidemic of PTSD related murders.

[heliochrome85]

Michael Enright, 21, has been charged with second-degree attempted murder as a hate crime, second-degree assault as a hate crime, aggravated harassment, and criminal possession of a weapon.

[AZhitman]

"Hate crime".

[stebo0728]

Hate crime legislation is FAIL. Prosecute em for what they did, not what they thought or how they felt.

[AZhitman]

BINGO.

What will they say if/when we find the perpetrator was Muslim? How would we even know? Was 9/11 a hate crime, even though Muslims died alongside Christians and gays and Jews and women?

[Cold_Zero]

Isnt all crime essentially hate crimes? If you really loved ta person you wouldnt perpetrate crime against them.

[stebo0728]

Isnt all crime essentially hate crimes? If you really loved ta person you wouldnt perpetrate crime against them.

Exactly, but "hate crime" seeks to add further punitive action to someone simply because they did it "with hateful intention", or to broaden it a bit, because they were "racist". Im all for swift appropriate justice for an act against someone, but NOT against their thoughts and feelings. Here is the slippery slope (and please dont think im pulling a page our of WF's diary) but "hate crime" legislation could possible one day be used to "silence" a minority, or to "silence" someone who speaks out in a religious or moral sense. For example, ministers who preach against homosexuality. Now before IB drops his binky, I know this would be an affront to the First Ammendment, and quite plausibly would not stand in court TODAY. But this legislation could easily set the stage for later abridgement or liberties.

[IBCoupe]

That's almost what a hate crime is supposed to be. "Hate crime" is supposed to indicate a crime against not only the purported victim, but also against the entire class to which the victim belongs.

For example, you burn a swastika into the front lawn of my Synagogue, that's not just an act against the property of the synagogue, but it's also a message meant for Jews in general (or, if not meant to be one, it is a message for Jews in general).

Now, there are certainly issues with prosecuting against a person's state of mind, rather than solely their actions, but I think it's worth pointing out the actual intent of hate crimes.

And, Greg:
I'm okay with calling this just some guy stabbing another guy, up to the point that hate crime legislation comes into play. If we accept the validity of that legislation, then motive necessarily becomes part of the charge, and it's harder to separate them.

[AZhitman]

I refute the validity of all "hate crime" legislation, including the swastika on your church lawn.

Hate crimes lead us down the slope to "thought police". It's a completely unnecessary addition to bureaucracy and a burden on the judiciary, for WHAT? Serves NO additional purpose, doesn't alter the crime, and is 100% IMPOSSIBLE to prove.

If I come out right now and state: I HATE EVERYONE, does that mean that any further actions I may commit fall under the curtilage of hate crime legislation?

Oooh, yeah - Look at me in the drivers' seat now.

[IBCoupe]

That's certainly a sensible argument, Greg, and it's not one that I'm saying I disagree with.

I would say that it does serve an additional purpose; it most certainly alters the crime (from a legal standpoint): it adds length to a sentence, it creates an additional thing to be proved, and, from a public policy standpoint, it creates an incentive not to commit racially-motivated crimes.

Now, you might think that this is a bad thing, but it does alter the "crime." And, no, your statements wouldn't open you up to hate crime legislation. You've got to be doing it against a protected class:

The 1964 Federal Civil Rights Law, 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(2), permits federal prosecution of anyone who "willingly injures, intimidates or interferes with another person, or attempts to do so, by force because of the other person's race, color, religion or national origin" [1] because of the victim's attempt to engage in one of six types of federally protected activities, such as attending school, patronizing a public place/facility, applying for employment, acting as a juror in a state court or voting.

Persons violating the 1969 Federal Hate Crimes Law face a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both. If bodily injury results or if such acts of intimidation involve the use of firearms, explosives or fire, individuals can receive prison terms of up to 10 years, while crimes involving kidnapping, sexual assault, or murder can be punishable by life in prison or the death penalty.[1] U.S. Courts provide for criminal sanctions, but only victims of gender-motivated hate crimes can "seek compensatory and punitive damages as well as injunctive and declaratory relief".[2]

[stebo0728]

That's certainly a sensible argument, Greg, and it's not one that I'm saying I disagree with.

I would say that it does serve an additional purpose; it most certainly alters the crime (from a legal standpoint): it adds length to a sentence, it creates an additional thing to be proved, and, from a public policy standpoint, it creates an incentive not to commit racially-motivated crimes.

Now, you might think that this is a bad thing, but it does alter the "crime." And, no, your statements wouldn't open you up to hate crime legislation. You've got to be doing it against a protected class:

The 1964 Federal Civil Rights Law, 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(2), permits federal prosecution of anyone who "willingly injures, intimidates or interferes with another person, or attempts to do so, by force because of the other person's race, color, religion or national origin" [1] because of the victim's attempt to engage in one of six types of federally protected activities, such as attending school, patronizing a public place/facility, applying for employment, acting as a juror in a state court or voting.

Persons violating the 1969 Federal Hate Crimes Law face a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both. If bodily injury results or if such acts of intimidation involve the use of firearms, explosives or fire, individuals can receive prison terms of up to 10 years, while crimes involving kidnapping, sexual assault, or murder can be punishable by life in prison or the death penalty.[1] U.S. Courts provide for criminal sanctions, but only victims of gender-motivated hate crimes can "seek compensatory and punitive damages as well as injunctive and declaratory relief".[2]

So this is what we have to do to get lengthened sentences? Screw that, if the crime warrants a longer sentence, give it a longer sentence, but stop d*cking around with prosecution of emotional status.

[IBCoupe]

That's something I've been saying for quite some time about a number of things in our legal system, Stebo. And, no, that's not the only thing you can do to get a longer sentence.

[UpStar]

And it has begun...

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/ ... -attacked/

Michael Enright - "Are you Muslim?"

Cab Driver – "Yes."

Enright - "Assalamu alaikum muthaFkur!"

Stab, Stab, Stab, Stab, Stab

Yep.... Hypocrisy is contagious! People can play it down but it is what it is. Religious Hate Crime! I hope they stick this clown with every charge possible. He'll do fine in a NY state prison Dont drop the soap boy!

[themadscientist]

The pasty chubby face of American terrorism.


Looks sort of normal don't he? Imagine what the real freakshows are planning in the back of a trailer meth lab.

[stebo0728]

And it has begun...

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/ ... -attacked/

Michael Enright - "Are you Muslim?"

Cab Driver – "Yes."

Enright - "Assalamu alaikum muthaFkur!"

Stab, Stab, Stab, Stab, Stab

Yep.... Hypocrisy is contagious! People can play it down but it is what it is. Religious Hate Crime! I hope they stick this clown with every charge possible. He'll do fine in a NY state prison Dont drop the soap boy!

So do we just start charging people for hating? Locking them up? Or do you only punish someone for hating if the commit ANOTHER crime? How is this supposed to work exactly?

[IBCoupe]

I suspect you're being facetious, but here's how it works:

1. There has to be a hate for a certain protected class.
2. There has to be a crime of some level of violence against a member of that protected class.
3. The crime has to have been motivated by that hate.

Still unclear?

[themadscientist]

I say we just leave him in a room with a couple of pipe-swingin NOI dudes. Whatever happens happens. These types tend to only get brazen around weaker victims.

[stebo0728]

I suspect you're being facetious, but here's how it works:

1. There has to be a hate for a certain protected class.
2. There has to be a crime of some level of violence against a member of that protected class.
3. The crime has to have been motivated by that hate.

Still unclear?

Yes facetious, to a point, but I guess I was sorta trying to be a bit hyperbolous as to the ludicrous nature of penalizing thoughts and emotions. The problem is that the person did what they did, that it was fueled by any sort of emotion is irrelevant for prosecution. Its nice to know for further societal education, and possibly staving off further hatred of that nature, but you are really on a greased ramp to no where when you start trying to penalize it.

[IBCoupe]

Well, as I wrote to you before, hate crime legislation is a recognition that this sort of crime is not just a crime against the person that got beaten or murdered. It's not about punishing thoughts, it's about an open threat to any person who shares a certain trait with the victim.

Now, there are certainly problems with punishing people for crimes they haven't yet committed, but let's at least properly frame the debate. This isn't about saying that you think wrong, it's about saying it's improper for you to act on those thoughts. Simply being racist is not, and will not ever be a special crime. You can't be charged with a hate crime until you've actually committed a real crime, so it's not logically possible for hate crime legislation to be about what you think.

[themadscientist]

Hate crime?
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/articl ... -overtones

[IBCoupe]

Might be, but that would depend on the motivation for the crimes. I don't believe there's legislation that protects you on the basis of your profession, so simply going after cops isn't enough. Also, that your victims happened to be one race or another isn't enough. The motive is what drives the extra charge.

[stebo0728]

I would argue you are imputing a threat to other people. As I said before, punish the person for what they did, theres no need to put any kinds of "hate" justification to it, theres no need to add extra charges. If you add the extra charge, you absolutely convicting them, at least for that one charge, based on their thoughts and emotions. We are talking about a seperate charge. Yes it accompanies another charge, but still it is a seperate charge, and could absolutely at some point be seperated out to stand on its own. If we dont want that to happen, then dump the whole notion of it altogether, and just deal with what he DID.

[IBCoupe]

Like I said, there are problems with convicting people for things they haven't yet done, but, at its core, hate crime legislation is not about regulating thought.

And it can't be separated out. A "hate" crime is preconditioned on the existence of another crime.

[stebo0728]

It cant be seperated out NOW, its useless, and its just another instance of our heightened victim mentality.

[IBCoupe]

Well, I can't promise you that we won't ever repeal Constitutional protections, but I'm not about to buy a tin foil cap from you, either.

[stebo0728]

Well, I can't promise you that we won't ever repeal Constitutional protections, but I'm not about to buy a tin foil cap from you, either.

I understand, and we've talked before about not making legislation solely based on what may or may not happen later. But the point is, its a possible pitfall later, BUT its a bad idea NOW too!

[UpStar]

The pasty chubby face of American terrorism.


Looks sort of normal don't he? Imagine what the real freakshows are planning in the back of a trailer meth lab.

No! There is nothing normal looking about him. He looks like guy who just attempted murder against a Muslim cab driver.

Lets see if the right wing media will run to his aid and attempt to make him into a hero, sorta like the JetBlue airline butler.

[stebo0728]

The pasty chubby face of American terrorism.


Looks sort of normal don't he? Imagine what the real freakshows are planning in the back of a trailer meth lab.

No! There is nothing normal looking about him. He looks like guy who just attempted murder against a Muslim cab driver.

Lets see if the right wing media will run to his aid and attempt to make him into a hero, sorta like the JetBlue airline butler.

Hey that JetBlue dude is a hero, planes are full of stupid b*tches and its about time someone called em out!