-
Eugenic Abortion 2.0
May 23, 2013 | 68 comments
-
Yoani Sánchez Uncaged
April 12, 2013 | 163 comments
-
Take the Helmets Off
February 4, 2013 | 68 comments
-
Let’s Pay Women Not to Abort
January 23, 2013 | 69 comments
-
The Millennial Divide
January 22, 2013 | 30 comments
The Nation's Pulse
The Hate Crimes Farce
The threshold for what constitutes a hate crime continues to decline.
Have you ever used a racial slur?
You may have two answers to that question. There’s your initial, visceral, response: No! Of course not! Never!
But then there’s the response you’d give if you were being a little more honest: maybe… once or twice. So, if you have, does it make you a racist? In the court of liberal opinion at least, the answer seems to be yes.
In the Trayvon Martin case, in which neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman is accused in the shooting death of Martin, the liberal consensus seems to be that Zimmerman, who is Hispanic, acted out of racial hatred against Martin, who was black, and thus is guilty of a “hate crime.”
According to the FBI, “A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson or vandalism with an added element of bias.” Hate crime laws move beyond the criminalization of free speech to outlaw thoughts society deems unacceptable.
Establishing whether a criminal was motivated by bias or hate is nearly impossible because it’s nearly impossible to distinguish correlation from causation. Just because a criminal hates a particular group of people and commits a crime against a member of that group does not necessarily mean he was motivated by hatred when he committed the crime in question.
Of course, there’s little evidence that Zimmerman hates blacks. The only supporting evidence so far is a recording of the 9/11 call he made as he pursued Martin. In it, Zimmerman appears to say, “They always get away, f——ing coons.”
The word “coon” is undoubtedly racist and hateful. But there is doubt about what Zimmerman actually said. It could have been “goons” not “coons.”
Let’s assume Zimmerman committed a crime in shooting Martin, and that he used the word “coon” in reference to Martin. Does that make the shooting a hate crime?
Many on the left seem to think so, including the 21 Democrats who last week convened a Capitol Hill briefing on racial profiling and hate crimes. The Justice Department and FBI are investigating the shooting as a possible hate crime.
But it’s nearly impossible to know whether Zimmerman acted out of racial hatred. His family and friends, some of whom are black, are adamant that he is not a racist. Zimmerman’s lawyer said that he had recently mentored a black boy, taking him to play basketball and participating in fundraisers at the boy’s church.
Sometimes people say racist things not because they are racists but because they want to say the most hurtful thing possible at a time when they are overcome by sudden and intense feelings of anger and frustration. It’s plausible that that’s what happened with Zimmerman.
The threshold for what constitutes a hate crime continues to decline. Last month a jury convicted Dharun Ravi of all 15 charges he faced for using a webcam to spy on his dorm roommate having sex with a man – a verdict, the New York Times reports, “poised to broaden the definition of hate crimes in an era when laws have not kept up with evolving technology.”
Ravi had set up a computer webcam, walked into a nearby friend’s room and viewed his roommate, Tyler Clementi, kissing a man he met on a gay website. Ravi didn’t see any sex. But he sent Twitter and text messages urging others to watch when Clementi invited the man back two nights later.
Ravi didn’t follow through with his plan for a second viewing. But Clementi found out about the webcam and the twitter messages. He jumped to his death from the George Washington Bridge three days later.
About the Author
Daniel Allott is a writer in Washington, D.C.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (74) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Daniel Allott
More Articles From The Nation's Pulse
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/04/04/the-hate-crimes-farce
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.4.12 @ 7:49AM
A gentle reminder of where all this is leading:
From 1984-
A thoughtcrime is an illegal type of thought. In the book, the government attempts to control not only the speech and actions, but also the thoughts of its subjects, labelling disapproved thought as thoughtcrime or, in Newspeak, "crimethink".[1] In the book, Winston Smith, the main character, writes in his diary: "Thoughtcrime does not entail death: thoughtcrime is death."
Jack in Wi.| 4.4.12 @ 7:58AM
Murder is murder and most murderers hate their victims. Why should one guy get more for killing some black guy then if he kills a white guy? Or why should someone get more if he yells some racial name during the commision of a crime. All criminals should be treated the same. The victim is dead in any case.
Maddox| 4.4.12 @ 8:19AM
I totally agree with your thoughts on this Jack. I would ask though, do you feel the same way if the victim is a Jew?
Jack in Wi.| 4.4.12 @ 9:16AM
Murder is murder. Why would I want to see a Jew mudered? They are human beings and I lived in Jewish neighborhood for many years. Most Jews are decent people. But even if you are not decent you should not be murdered. Even Occam who calls for nuclear genocide doesn't deserve to be murdered.
interestless| 4.4.12 @ 9:39AM
so if someone murders a jew and says the reason they murdered the deceased is because they are a jew is that still not considered a hate crime?
Bob K.| 4.4.12 @ 10:36AM
If you really give a damn and haven't posed a rhetorical question why don't you ask Al Sharpton about his Massacre at Freddy's in Harlem in 1995 where 8 people were killed. It's got all the ingredients including cries to "Burn the Jew out."
If that sets the standard for hate crimes against Jews then apparently it is not a hate crime if a black are the killers.
TrueBlue | 4.4.12 @ 2:13PM
I think the point is that it doesn't matter if there was "hate" involved, a crime is a crime. Bringing in additional bits like racial hate serves only to instill bias for or against a particular group. Why does it matter that a white guy killed a black guy? The story should be that somebody killed someone else.
Maddox| 4.4.12 @ 9:38PM
I asked the questions because so many of your comments on Israel do not lead me to believe you value their lives. Murder is murder, race, gender, age (elderly or unborn), and nationality make no difference.
Jack in Wi.| 4.5.12 @ 12:56AM
Maddox: I write nothing but what I believe to be the truth. The truth of the matter is that Israel is a racist, apartheid, state that treats half the population under it's control like they are termites to be exterminated. The life of a Jew is no more or less valuble then any one else.
Bob| 4.4.12 @ 1:01PM
Yes, except this is not a murder.
The Bruce| 4.4.12 @ 7:51PM
Welcome to Animal Farm, Jack.
K.Hunter| 4.5.12 @ 11:56AM
"Murder is murder and most murderers hate their victims." Why must you buy into the leftist premise that this killing was a murder? The fact is that the shooting could be considered self defense depending upon whether or not it can be proven that Martin attacked Zimmerman. Beyond that, there is some question regarding whether Zimmerman continued stalking Martin or was returning to his vehicle after being told by the 911 dispatcher that he need not continue to follow Martin.
Bob K.| 4.4.12 @ 10:49AM
Bill,
This crime was devised to get around the prohibition of Double Jeopardy.
It is almost always used to prosecute people who have been found not guilty of crimes in previous criminal cases where the perpetrator and the victim were of different races. It has always been used against white perpetrators and never, to my knowledge, against blacks or hispanics.
Maddox| 4.4.12 @ 9:39PM
Yes, it is used as a political tool by those who disregard our established laws.
Nick| 4.5.12 @ 1:37AM
I'll bet O'Romney has supported so-called "hate crimes" legislation.
Oh, wait. I don't have to bet. He did:
In 2002, Romney Supported Hate Crimes Legislation Including Sexual Orientation Provision. “On gay rights, Romney supports hate crimes legislation which provides added penalties for crimes committed against a person because of their sexual orientation, race or religion. He does not support gay marriage, but believes health and other workplace benefits should be extended to domestic partners, [Romney aide Eric] ehrnstrom said.” (Erik Arvidson, “Romney’s Running Mate Could Leave Him In Tight Spot,” Lowell Sun, 3/30/02)
Massachusetts Log Cabin Republicans’ Ken Sanchez, In 2005: “What happened to the Mitt Romney who ran for governor supporting employment non-discrimination, hate crimes legislation…” (Steve LeBlanc, “Massachusetts’ Romney Is The Latest Republican Governor With A Wandering Political Eye,” The Associated Press, 3/3/05)
- The Romney Book, pg. 30
Link: http://cdn2.dailycaller.com/20.....Romney.pdf
and,
http://dailycaller.com/2012/01.....-campaign/
Why do you support someone who supports thoughtcrimes, Billy Boy?
Appleby| 4.4.12 @ 7:50AM
If you haven't read 1984 recently (or ever) you might want to check it out. The Canadians are very big on "hate crimes" -- I have startled some of them by pointing out that the ugly things they say about Americans could actually go on their Permanent Record, as "American" is a nationality, believe it or not. I had occasion to call out a young lawyer who was talking about how "stupid" Americans are because we don't use the metric system; I told him that since I was an adult, I wasn't going to run tattling to Mommy, but I suggested he might want to think twice before speaking once. He didn't thank me for saving his backside from the thought police.
In Atlanta I found that the constant drumbeat of YOUARACIST! tended to creat racists where they had never been before...only very careful ones who spoke only to people they knew well and in their own homes or next to running water in open territory. Give a dog a bad name and hang him, my Granny used to call that. Keep on yelling RAAAAAACIST and you'll cause more than you cure.
Bob K.| 4.4.12 @ 10:10AM
" ..................the constant drumbeat of YOUARACIST!"
You mean like on this website?
Bob| 4.4.12 @ 1:04PM
Only from the folks who are on the Media Matters payroll. These folks always deliberately spread misinformation.
John Navratil| 4.4.12 @ 12:09PM
Appleby,
Now we know why no one cares about black-on-black crime.
Darin| 4.4.12 @ 7:57AM
Someone please explain why it is that whenever a non-black person kills a black person, it's a hate crime, while when a black person kills a non-black person, it's not a hate crime. In both cases, someone is dead. In both cases, the victim and perpetrator are different races. The truth is black people are just as capable of hating as non-black people. But truth seems to be irrelevant.
Slacker| 4.4.12 @ 2:05PM
Don’t you know it is perfectly fine for blacks to hate whites? Blacks can also hate Asians, Latinos, fags, Jews, and pretty much anybody.
I forget why this is but trust me that some professors have figured it all out.
This Ravi kid wouldn’t be in trouble if he had the back shield. The dot shield is weak.
Timothy L. Pennell| 4.4.12 @ 8:40AM
Let me help you out.
Let's cut the Bullsh*t, shall we?
There is, and always has been, only ONE threshold in the Hate Crime Universe, and it's this: NO BLACK can ever be charged with a Hate Crime. EVER!
Con Chef has documented a Car Jacking Case, where the White guy and his Girl were both Brutally RAPED, he was MUTILATED, and they both were MURDERED.
No Hate Crime.
A White Kid was doused with Gasoline and set on fire, just the other day, by 9 pieces of Black Filth.
No Hate Crime.
We have White people being Murdered, every day of the week, by Blacks. Asians, Hispanics, and Jews, repeatedly end up at the receiving end of this Human Sub-Species that we call: African American.
Never are they categorized as Hate Crimes.
Like the Animals they are, they roam around in Packs, seeking out the weak as their Prey. Young Kids, 80 Year old Men. 90 Year old Women. Like the Grizzly Bear, the Female of this Species must be vigilant, as the Male is wont to KILL her Children. Not to eat (as the Grizzly does) but to make it Quiet as he plays his X-Box, or because the baby sneezed on the Male's Cocaine, or spilled his Crack.
They tend to MATE like Animals, rather than MARRY and have Families, like People do.
Like Al Qaeda - this group likes to Shoot up the sidewalk. They like to shoot up Weddings and Funerals. They like to Car Jack, and Flash Mob. Like mindless Savages, they will burn down their own Neighborhoods in a fit of Rage. They will Rape and Rob and Murder their Neighbors, and then complain that there are no Businesses where they live, and they can't get a job. Like Locusts, they descend on an area, and devastate it (Detroit, Newark, Camden, Oakland, Gary, Baltimore, Philly, Cleveland) leaving it barren, and lifeless.
They can't go to a Concert without a Gun Fight erupting. You can't ask them to leave a Party that they weren't invited to, without then coming back, a few minutes later, with a GUN.
They will KILL you for your Jacket. They will KILL you for your Shoes, KILL for your Car, and KILL you for the Hell of it.
They will KILL you for looking at them. They will KILL you for bumping in to them, they will KILL you for "Dissing" them. And if you're a Female of this Sub-Species? You're life with these Males is about as SAFE, as a Palestinian Girl dating an Israeli Soldier.
For the most part, Blacks in America ARE a Hate Crime. They are a Hate Crime waiting to happen, but they're more apt to get up every morning, and go to work, or be the Valedictorian at MIT, then they are to be charged with a Hate Crime. Not in this Country. Not under this Racist President.
Ain't gonna happen.
The word has gone out, across the Land: If you are Black, during the Reign of President NWA, and his "Blacks Only" Justice Department, you can do whatever TF you want, as we're seeing right now, in Sanford, Fla. You can even put out a BOUNTY on an American Citizen, if you are the NWA's pals, and the person you're after isn't Black. (That would be a Hate Crime)
This President is a Hate Crime. This Attorney General is a Hate Crime. The blind eye of the Media to this President, is a Hate Crime. The fact that 60 Million Stupid MFers in this Country, voted for this Racist, Anti-Semitic, America Hating, Louis Farrakhan Loving, Muslim, Marxist, ABOMINATION, is a Hate Crime.
One I hope we can rectify, come November.
Black America?
They will continue to Devolve, as the Newest Americans run rings around them, with their Strong Work Ethics, their Faith, and their DESIRE for a better life.
And, they'll keep voting for Democrats, because Democrats feed them and pet them.
"Good boy. Sit. Now, beg."
I hope that was of assistance.
Ernie Kaputnik| 4.4.12 @ 9:33AM
LOL! Hey, Tim tell us how you really feel.
Excellent rant.
Ernie approves.
Louis Jenkins| 4.4.12 @ 9:46AM
That about sums up the argument. There are no hate crime charges against blacks. It's all about blacks being targeted by whites. Best to be rid of the "hate crime" title. All crimes are hate crimes, but no one gives a rat's as- about the white people. How does it feel to be a white person with a target on your back? We always hear about the number of blacks that were hung back in the Jim Crow days, now the shoe is on the other foot. And the white people are beginning to drop like flies. Even in my small town there are places I don't go after dark.
John Navratil| 4.4.12 @ 1:27PM
Louis Jenkins,
Do you think it ever occurs to the potentially dead black youth that his death is somehow less important because the killer was black? Does is make a damned bit of difference to the deceased if his killer is never prosecuted for want of prosecution ("no snitch") or if a George Zimmerman is? It doesn't, but it should make a big difference to his friends and family. It doesn't appear to do so. It is a perversion of justice that some imputed motive trumps the actual crime.
Rurik| 4.4.12 @ 11:19AM
Having made an argument openly based on inherent racial characteristics, Mr. Pennell can fairly be called a racist. So what? The more relevant question is, Are his facts wrong, or are they correct but devilishly unwelcome? We define, you decide.
la comedia e finito| 4.4.12 @ 3:18PM
"Mr. Pennell can fairly be called a racist. So what"
Having said that, how can ANY of his "facts" be taken, in any sort of GOOD FAITH, and objectivity?-
- that's the "So What?", nu?
Mark in LA| 4.4.12 @ 9:58PM
What's "good faith" got to do with facts. Some things he said are verifiable. Some things are opinion.
la comedia e finito| 4.5.12 @ 12:27AM
Which are which, Mark... ??
(I would love to see just one of those statements of pure hatred shown to actually be FACTUAL)
Timothy L. Pennell| 4.5.12 @ 7:16AM
They are ALL "verifiable". You just don't want to believe it. Like all snivelling women, you will need to be CONVINCED. YOU need to be punched in the face. You need YOUR Family member to be Raped and Murdered. You need YOUR Kid to be set upon by these ANIMALS.
Like any good little Lib, you refuse to believe your eyes. You have to "learn" THE HARD WAY.
Be sure to let all of us "Racist" (Ooooooooh BOO!) how that turns out, ya hear?
As far as "Hating" them? Yeah. I HATE all of these MFers who live like Animals. They have DESTROYED our Cities. They've made the Schools an impossible place for other kids to learn. They make Rob and Rape, and Beat and KILL, like they're creatures in a Horror Movie.
What is it about all of these FACTS, that you don't understand?
la comedia e finito| 4.5.12 @ 9:41AM
I STILL DON'T SEE --ANY- FACTS....
Just an awful lot of irrational extreme HATRED....
la comedia e finito| 4.5.12 @ 9:57AM
It tells me all I need to know just reading your line, .."...like All snivelling Women..."
I hope you dont beat and whip your wife , TOO HARD...( ONE CAN ONLY SHUDDER , THINKING..)
theblackcommenter | 4.4.12 @ 12:41PM
It wasn't, but thanks anyway.
I am opposed to "hate crime" legislation in every shape or form. It is junk.
la comedia e finito| 4.4.12 @ 1:45PM
"We have White people being Murdered, every day of the week, by Blacks. Asians, Hispanics, and Jews,...."
..uh...EXCUSE ME....?!?!
AREN'T (MOST) JEWISH PEOPLE--WHITE, AS WELL...??
..JUST ASKING.....
albert constantine jr.| 4.4.12 @ 5:42PM
Though you qualify with a (most), the spirit of the late Sammy Davis, Jr. disagrees, along with a bunch of Ethiopians, among others.
Gary B| 4.4.12 @ 6:53PM
I second that. Excellent rant.
Obama has already accused me of being a racist. He's inspired me. Maybe I'll become one so I can be just like him.
Von Mises Jr.| 4.4.12 @ 9:29AM
Liberals are dangerous simpletons. They are among the dullest of people.
I call myself Mises Jr. with love and respect for Mises and his peers. Economics started a couple hundred years ago with the same shallowness as today's liberal/progressives. They looked for an "Objective theory of value." They were so limited in their cognition and volition that every product was supposed to have a set value based on objective criteria. The Classical School started by defining these as land, capital and labor.
But they soon realized that personal decisions were not based on "objective" value, but "marginal utility." If I had a freezer full of steak, and steak was affordable and in abundance; I might prefer to buy lobster at a premium. So they sought a quantitative value of the marginal unit. But this also proved a fool’s errand.
The Austrian School understands that prices and demand are based on "subjective value theory." Every day, 311 million Americans make individual choices all day long. They are rational to the individual, but we can never completely know why they decided what each person chose, nor if the datum were slightly different that they would have chose something else. Only the person who chose has an understanding of his wants and makes informed value judgments.
Not to bore anyone; but "hate crimes" are an example of liberals infantile understanding of human action and thought. They think that they are so damn smart that they can divine what is best for us regardless of what happens in 311M Americans minds all day every day. They are pompous asses who still think like people did 250 years ago that did not know any better. They refuse to learn, and they are fools.
This is why they are proponents of planned economies. They are either lacking or misinformed about economics, philosophy and actual history.
Mike 3/505| 4.4.12 @ 10:03AM
You need to expand this and make it an Article.
Four Oh!
Old Soldier| 4.4.12 @ 9:45AM
Why are crimes based on greed, envy, or simple anger more desirable than those based on hate? I don't get it.
Why does the motivation for a crime change the severity of the crime?
Von Mises Jr.| 4.4.12 @ 10:01AM
Crimes based on greed, for instance, are just as subjective as "hate" crimes.
Jon Corzine is still a free man, and Charlie Rangle has still probably not paid his taxes. But Bernie Madoff and Allen Stanford are still in jail.
Objecting to Obama's tyranny is "racist," but OJ killed two whites and it was justified by black rage.
I think the only issue with hate, greed and anger depends on who does the hating, greed or anger?
This is why if they intimidate us to shut up, we lose the war, my good soldier friend.
Bob| 4.4.12 @ 1:10PM
This is a good question to ask, but you have to be careful. Say that enough times, and eventually you'll come to believe that what Zimmerman committed was also a crime. Then, you will have fallen to liberals and give them the win.
Dick Nome| 4.4.12 @ 9:48AM
What is a "Love Crime" then?? How would you know??
albert constantine jr.| 4.4.12 @ 10:03AM
In the old days, it was called statutory rape, where one of the "lovers" was not legally able to consent to sex as a result of the age of consent.
Mike 3/505| 4.4.12 @ 10:05AM
"Love in the Third Degree"-(Alabama)
Great song.
Bob| 4.4.12 @ 1:12PM
They're called "crimes of passion", and they're also used subjectively to make the preferred race/gender/whatever win the case.
Old Soldier| 4.4.12 @ 9:49AM
http://blog.nj.com/njv_mark_di.....n_rav.html
Clint| 4.4.12 @ 9:57AM
The PC'ing Of America.
Lloyd Hendrix| 4.4.12 @ 10:18AM
The concept of"hate crimes" appears to me to be a devious way of standing the equal protection clause on its head; it is never applied in reverse, that is, to a member of a favored minority who acts with animus toward a member of the majority.
Bob K.| 4.4.12 @ 10:44AM
Lloyd,
It's big purpose is to get around the prohibition of Double Jeopardy.
Virtually every hate crime prosecution has taken place against people who were originally found not guilty of a crime in a Criminal Trial. I don't believe it has ever been used as an initial prosecution.
Dr. X| 4.4.12 @ 10:20AM
Hate crimes are nothing more than political crimes and thought crimes. The same kind of crimes that Stalin held the show trials of the 1930s for.
The case of the gay kid in New Jersey is particularly egregious, because there's no proof that the kid who webcammed him was acting out of gay bias. Suppose the gay kid had been with a woman, or jerking off on the webcam instead, and killed himself over the embarrassment. Obviously that would have constituted an illegal invasion of privacy but there would be no "hate crime" lynching by the gay mafia.
Do I use racist words? You bet! Every single day, when I turn on the television and see Hussein Obama engaged in demagoguery, lies, stealing hardworking people's property through socialist theft, and enacting his plan to "transform" America by destroying it. And if anybody wants to charge me with a hate crime you can bet I'm not going to sit there in court like that college punk Ravi and passively let them frame me on trumped-up charges.
Bill| 4.4.12 @ 10:29AM
Obama's DOJ waged a war on Asians, favoring Blacks and Latinos.
albert constantine jr.| 4.4.12 @ 10:45AM
In a related discussion a week or so ago, I noted that I am aware of at least one black male convicted in the state court system of a hate crime. The case was a slam dunk, though, as the perpetrator announced “I hate white people” as he launched his assault on a motorist stopped at a red light at his drug corner, Granted, that was in 1996, when there was a Republican state Attorney General (not that any decision had to be made at that level), and not the current Democrat son of the Democrat VPOTUS.
Since writing that, the defendant from that case lost his appeal for habeus relief in his latest robbery conviction the U.S. District Court, in a decision posted on their website.
Among the problems with improper overuse of a term is that the term ceases to have real meaning. By labeling everyone a racist, there is no distinction between Klan members who murder civil rights activists participating in a voter registration drive and someone who has disdainful words for youths of a color other than their own with their “pants on the ground”.
L. Ross| 4.4.12 @ 10:48AM
I can understand both sides of this issue. Chances are that if you kill or attack and beat up some one, you strongly dislike them at a minimum. Most likely, in the time of passion, you hate and despise them. The vast majority of murders would be "hate crimes" using this criteria.
However, if you have a group of uncivilized savages who go out of their way to attack innocent bystanders who have done nothing wrong, based solely on their religion or skin color, that really does rise to a special level of evil. I do believe it is more evil than killing a dude for taking your wife, for example.
The problem with hate crime law is the difficulty of proving motivation in the assailant, and unequal applicability of hate crime law against all races. Or, hell, the preceived unequal applicability of hate crime law among the races. Blacks think that whites get away with murder. Witness Trevon. Whites think that blacks get away with assault. Witness the attacks at the State Fair last year in Wisconsin, I believe. Whites also feel that blacks get away with murder, but it is never mentioned in the media, just as black on black murder merits no special attention.
Unless we develop some amazing insight into man's motivations and passions, we will never know exactly why someone did what they did. All we can ever truly know is what they did. That is the problem with hate crime legislation.
qrstuv| 4.4.12 @ 11:55AM
He didn't say "coons", "goons", or anything that sounds like that!
That's another media lie.
MOS was 71331| 4.4.12 @ 3:39PM
I agree with Mr alphabet. I watch Al Sharpton interview one of those analysts replay Zimmermann's 911 tape. The analyst claimed he heard Zimmermann say "f...ing Coon" or "f...ing Goon." When the guy played his frequency processed tape, all I heard was a series of uniformly spaced short bursts of noise. The analyst then said, "that's it. "f...ing Coon or Goon."
Sharpton had two sound analysts on his program, and they agreed about what they'd heard. I wonder how many sound analysts Sharpton consulted before he selected those two for his show.
Both sound analysts claimed membership in some sort of professional sound analysis group and that they'd both testified in many civil and criminal trials. I hope the judges and juries got presented more convincing evidence than I saw on Sharpton's show.
MOS was 71331| 4.4.12 @ 3:44PM
Sorry. The second sentence should have been: I watched Al Sharpton interview one of those analysts replaying Zimmermann's 911 tape.
Gary| 4.4.12 @ 12:33PM
I would daresay that almost every human has used derogatory language about other races, religions, cultures unless there are plenty of saints out there and even many of them are reformed sinners. I never did like the hate crime laws. Killing or maiming for racial, personal, monetary, or other reasons are equally bad. All the hate crime classification does is to inject politics into it. The supreme irony is that with all the brouhaha about hate crimes, it is ordinary crime that is killing blacks by the hundreds, but this is off the radar, it's just not juicy like racial hate crimes where all the usual suspects can become outraged, demonstrate, rant, vent, parade, and pretend to care about human life. They are truly sickening and just as bad as people who use ethnic and racial slurs.
Bob| 4.4.12 @ 1:00PM
The FBI and Justice Department, both under Obama, are doing their worst to turn Trayvon's death into a hate crime. Obama is doing his worst to turn the election into a race issue. The "post-racial" President is drumming up the black community into a frenzy in a desperate bid to secure their vote. Obama has not done anything economically for the black community beyond provide them with unlimited food stamps and unemployment compensation, and the black community knows it. Instead of real jobs, they languish in welfare. But since Obama's record here is nonexistent, he's drumming up racial tension to secure votes.
Obama is a despicable man who aims to divide us so he can consolidate power.
Not Special Ops Bill| 4.4.12 @ 1:39PM
Clementi was out of the closet; he was openly gay.
So how did videotaping him kissing another guy drive him to suicide, or otherwise do him any harm sufficient to justify a lawsuit against this Ravi guy?
yikon| 4.5.12 @ 7:12AM
Male gays are not resilient, no core beliefs, thus, no core resilience, inner strength.
Get that? Solid core beliefs = strength. Human inner strength.
If the male gay kid who shouldn't be having a "partner" in his room (even if straight) -- the pervert should be studying just like every other kid OUGHT to be doing -- had any decency, he wouldn't be forcing his gayness on his college dorm roommate.
People who commit suicide are both the perpetrator and victim. Clementi chose what he chose.
This decision against the roommate is a judicial, legal, and moral travesty.
la comedia e finito| 4.5.12 @ 12:41PM
yeah...We all KNOW THAT NO "straight" college kids would EVER have heterosexual sex in their dorm rooms...RIGHT..?
ROTFLMAO...!
...I DO NOT RECALL HEARING , IN ANY REPORT, THAT ANYONE WAS "FORCED" TO WITNESS..OR ENGAGE IN, GAY SEX....
Pat| 4.4.12 @ 1:48PM
Poor George Zimmerman – if only he was a government employee working for the Justice Dept. because then his legal problems would be over. Recently, Forbes ran an a well-researched analysis of the Fast and Furious gunrunning operation. And, not surprisingly, when the government investigates itself for crimes it swears it didn’t commit, there is none of this hasty rush to judgment as in Zimmerman’s case. An appropriate subtitle for the Forbes article might have been “How to Investigate Your Fellow Employees and Find Them All Innocent”. In fact, poor George Zimmerman can only wish he was being investigated with the same diligence our government employs to investigate itself – he’ll be hooked up to heart monitors in a long term senior citizen facility before our government returns its expected “failure to indict due to lack of evidence” ruling.
You’ve probably heard about Fast and Furious - our government got lots of Mexican nationals killed plus a handful of American citizens but we’re not talking a hate crime like in Zimmerman’s case so the facts must be slowly and painstakingly gathered. And according to the Forbes article you won’t be hearing much about the investigation because Congress has invoked little known evidence gathering rules and relies on the Witness Protection Program to aid in their investigations. But when Congress investigates the federal government, the Witness Protection Program works to prevent witnesses from implicating government employees in a crime.
Wasting no time in dilly dallying, Congress issued subpoenas to Arizona gun shop owners to keep them from talking to the media about the Fast and Furious gun sales to drug lords and the ATF’s letters directing gun shop owners to make such illegal sales. This time around even the mainstream media folks tried to learn the truth but Congress moved too quickly for them by flinging their keep quiet subpoenas in every direction – the Congressional version of Witness Protection keeps government employees from being indicted while the witnesses are allowed to keep their real names and don’t have to move to Montana – everyone wins.
How long has this investigation gone on? Well, the illegal gunrunning project started in 2009 shortly before the string of related murders occurred and the government has been investigating itself ever since. Whistleblowers have been interviewed about what the ATF did. What did they say? We’re not allowed to know what they said – yeah, you guessed it, Congress got there first.
We do know that heads of government agencies, the ATF, the FBI and high level members of the Justice Dept., held conference calls around the time Fast and Furious was beginning to surface as a major candidate for a cover-up. What was said in the conference calls? Unfortunately, spokespersons in the Justice Dept. can’t divulge that – they won’t comment on ongoing investigations – sorry about that.
Since there is no reason to believe Atty. General Eric Holder hates Mexicans enough to warrant hate crime charges, Congress took him at his word regarding his involvement, he wasn’t sworn in before he testified. Should some fool who can’t read his "keep quiet" subpoena later claim Holder actually knew much more than he said he did, perjury charges won’t be filed, he didn’t testify under oath, funny how that oversight occurred.
Congress is feeling a little heat from the general public about when their investigation will be concluded and they have designated Rep. Issa as the official Rodeo Clown to distract us. Issa’s job is to rush around loudly demanding the truth so the angry bull in the form of the public won’t attack the helpless bull rider lying on the ground. So far, Rep. Issa has put on a convincing act but no one has been indicted, no indictments are in sight, no crimes will be charged and potential jail time for government employees is considered about as likely to happen as Obama divorcing his wife to marry Lady Gaga.
So, poor George Zimmerman has already been found guilty by the Justice Dept., they’re just waiting for some evidence to surface. But hard evidence in the Fast and Furious investigation is proving very elusive. When the FBI investigates the ATF and the Justice Dept. runs their investigation, there is little incentive to get the goods on fellow co-conspirators. No one in the Justice Dept. will ever face justice but Congress is putting on a good show for us just the same. So, immunity from prosecution along with a great health benefits and a fat pension – it’s good to be a government employee, right George?
la comedia e finito| 4.4.12 @ 2:36PM
As an unabashed LIBERAL , I must admit to some very un-easy feelings about the way that the Hate-Crimes standard has the potential to be , and has been, abused.
As a Gay person.. I think the recent tragic situation in New Jersey spotlights my concerns, all too well--a crime (invasion of privacy) was committed--but, I am not convinced it rose to the level of a "Hate-Crime" per se.
In THEORY , i can very much sympathize with the principals and reasons for having such Laws on the books-- more so, perhaps ( and HOPEFULLY..) , to act as a DETERRENT for such actions to occur...BUT.. in practice, I am more times then not, dismayed to see how the Law is actually used in individual cases.
BUT..
for those who "wonder" if the legislation has been used AGAINST crimes committed by non-white people..well--YES IT HAS...
--------
(as per wikipedia....)
"Classification of crimes committed against white people
Donald Altschiller, librarian at Boston University, asserts that hate crimes against white people are hate crimes as much as any other. "Hate crime laws are colorblind.", he states. Although there are fewer hate crimes directed against white people than against other groups, they do occur and are prosecuted.[16] In fact, the case in which the Supreme Court upheld hate crimes legislation against First Amendment attack, Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993), involved a white victim. Hate crime statistics published in 2002, gathered by the FBI under the auspices of the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990, documented over 7,000 hate crime incidents, in roughly one-fifth of which the victims were white people.[17] However, these statistics have caused dispute. The FBI's hate crimes statistics for 1993, which similarly reported 20% of all hate crimes to be committed against white people, prompted Jill Tregor, executive director of Intergroup Clearinghouse, to decry it as "an abuse of what the hate crime laws were intended to cover", stating that the white victims of these crimes were employing hate crime laws as a means to further penalize minorities.[18]
James B. Jacobs and Kimberly Potter note that white people, including those who may be sympathetic to the plight of those who are victims of hate crimes by white people, bristle at the notion that hate crimes against whites are somehow inferior to, and less worthy than, hate crimes against other groups. They observe that while, as stated by Altschiller, no hate crime law makes any such distinction, the proposition has been argued by "a number of writers in prominent publications", who have advocated the removal of hate crimes against whites from the category of hate crime, on the grounds that hate crime laws, in their view, are intended to be affirmative action for "protected groups". Jacobs and Potter opine that such a move seems to them to be "fraught with potential for social conflict and constitutional concerns".[18]
Analysis of the 1999 FBI statistics by John Perazzo in 2001 found that white violence against black people was 28 times more likely (1 in 45 incidents) to be labelled as a hate crime than black violence against white people (1 in 1254 incidents).[1"
Dave Williams| 4.4.12 @ 3:39PM
Congratulations twice to you, sir, once for visiting this decidedly non-liberal site and taking the content seriously, and twice for your civility. We probably would disagree on any number of issues, but on this one, I'm right with ya: the very concept of a "hate crime" is moronic, and leads right to 1984. I will, however, respectfully point out that such laws have always been put into place by....true fact....LIBERALS! Again, respectfully -- does this not want to make you reconsider the assumptions of your belief system just a tad?
la comedia e finito| 4.4.12 @ 3:54PM
It doesn't make me question MY belief system, as much as it makes me question the cynicism of the political hacks ( and i am more then willing to concede there are some on both sides of the aisle..) that set up such legislation, without much guide-lines for how they should be practiced.
And...I respectfully disagree concerning hate-crimes,( as a very real threat), being a "moronic concept"-- I have no doubt they exist.. just the way the law has been set up to make it all too easy to abuse the term.
I have NO problem, being "civil", with those diametrically in opposition to my own view-points and attitudes...and expect nothing but the same, in return....
Mike Jones| 4.4.12 @ 6:59PM
A hate crime dosen't punish 'thoughts', because until a person acts omn those thoughts there is nothing any one can do about them. When someone delibratly engages in attempts to harrass another for a reason that targets a particular group, as is evidenced by the use of language that suggests and presents as the reason for such harrassment, this individual is engaging in behavior that, if found to be in full control of ones mental and psychological faculties, this individual knows will lead to intimidation and a similiar reaction from others deemed to fall into that group. 'hate crimes' is not about actual hate; it is the use of hate as a weapon, such as a bat or gun. this law is in fact perfect in its design: it targets the use of intimidation only, feelings are not the point, as having to prove that one individual 'hated' the other for whatever reason or another as a standard to convict and a jury to sentence. Zimmerman chased down Martin and claimed that Martin appeared suspcious. Zimmerman than shot and killed Martin. Zimmerman had no authority to pursue Martin. Zimmerman gave the reason for firing on Martin as Martin assualting him. Zimmerman, however followed Martin, and if Martin fought back, he was entitled to; Zimmerman was the instigator. so, even if Zimmerman is the friend of hundreds of African Americans, it doesn't matter: Zimmerman acted with malcious intent that appears to be based on him acting on and thus carrying out a crime based on hate of Martin. in the clementi trial, again Ravi acted in a way that manifested, in words and actions, hostility toward Clementi and gays- his attitude and casualness about his prank constituted a callous assualt. so what if Clementi killed himself for another reason? the law doesn't work that way; Ravi created a hostile environment and acted upon attitudes that Ravi, a college student certaintly could expect would have negative and possibly dangerous consequenses for Clementi. Just because Ravi did not intend to, or Clementi was unaffected by those consequences, Ravi's actions could contribute to such a senario: invading someone's privacy in the way that Ravi did has very real damage. in truth hate crimes have very high standards; had clementi not commited suicide, or Zimmerman not fired upon Martin (despite harrasing him by following even when told not to) no one would be charged with any such crimes. even though both made use of hate to harm another, it is only when such grevious consequences such as large amount of people being offended or harrased or someone comitting suicide, or a young man being shot does anything take place.
Mark in LA| 4.4.12 @ 10:18PM
Nonsense, this like all federal laws is purely at the discretion of the US attorney's office and when race is involved, they routinely go overboard based on the type of baseless speculation you are using here. You speculate about a "hostile environment" yet there is no proof that any such thing occurred. You also make the assumption that Zimmerman was following someone out of hate but have no evidence other than your assertion that it most be so.
I remembera few years ago when a black and a white were in some fight which may have been started by the black. They white guy yelled Ni**er during the fight and they were adding on hate crime charges because some guy in the middle of a fist fight says something derogatory, imagine that. I believe the black also used offensive language but his use wasn't "hate" based. We are at this level of nonsense with this stuff.
Mark in LA| 4.4.12 @ 10:36PM
One other thing, you assume the "hate" of Zimmerman and blame him, what about the hate that Trevon had for Zimmerman? Why did he hit Zimmerman? Surely, that must be because of his hate for Mexicans? Why didn't he call the cops and request they stop this suspicious guy in the neighborhood?
Stan Redmond| 4.4.12 @ 7:40PM
Mr. Allott,
You REALLY have to WANT to hear "coon" when listening to the 911 playback to actually perceive "coon" being said.
Listen again and he says "punks."
Brubaker| 4.4.12 @ 9:44PM
The whole notion of "hate crimes" is preposterous. Our legal system has always punished actions (i.e., theft, assault, murder, etc.), not thoughts. What possible difference does it make what a murderer was thinking as he killed his victim?
yikon| 4.5.12 @ 7:16AM
Thank you. Let's not get into thought processes. Just the black and white of what was either done or not done. Deeds, actions, only, please.
We never can get inside another's head. Never will. And we have no place being there.
Our legal system has enough to do just based on tangible, real nuts and bolts, evidenciary crimes.
Abu Nudnik| 4.4.12 @ 9:49PM
"They always get away" is the operative part of the sentence.
I agree we are moving closer to thought crime but this is a bad example: as bad as you could have picked.
yikon| 4.5.12 @ 7:30AM
I truly dislike that hardly any posts above deal with the main case cited here, the NJ college case of Ravi on trial for a very pathetic Clementi.
The author wrote, "Ravi was wrong to record Clementi without his knowledge."
How so?
That's Ravi's room.
It could be that Clementi is stealing from Ravi. Or Clementi is hosting bong parties there. Or dealing in meth. Or meeting with a campus subversive group. Or pulling useless but harmful pranks on Ravi.
Even if none of that is occuring, Ravi can film in his own room whatever he wants to film.
Just as Clementi could film what he wants to film.
Or maybe you want to tell your wife that she cannot film in your house? (Note spouses are doing this all the time on each other right now -- like wives hiring tech guys to set it up and then catching husbands doing web porn.)
Is it creepy? Yeah. Is it desirable? No way.
If you have good relationship of mutual trust and real friendship with your roommate or spouse, then nobody is bothering to film. Nobody is going to waste time and effort.
There was surely a breakdown of trust here between Ravi and Clementi.
Or would you have enjoyed coming back to your college dorm room (desperately needing to sleep, peace and quiet, intense study time, a shower, a personal phone call home, etc.) only to find your roommate once more in the middle of an amorous set of acts with his new squeeze?
How awkward is that? I'd be kicking the ass of a chick out too. Why? Because my dorm room is where I live.
Please clarify and seek to defend "Ravi was wrong to record Clementi without his knowledge." I don't believe you can.
Liam| 4.5.12 @ 3:09PM
Lots of hyperbole but no food.
Lets see, the 14th Amendment's equal protection prohibits state level hate crime legislation. There is no allowance for making ANY groups in state statutes.
The federal government has no constitutional authority to make anything a crime EXCEPT for:
1) counterfeiting
2) piracy on the HIGH SEAS
3) felonies on the HIGH SEAS
4) offenses against the law of nations
5) to secure copyright and patent
and
last
6) punishment for treason.
There is no more and never has been. So we argue over the issue without learning that the laws are no legitimate. Yes, the governments have the bigger guns and can enforce the laws against us. BUT everyone of us should know and understand the truth and use that knowledge to rid ourselves of the corrupt among us who do not follow OUR laws, the Constitution.