PDA

View Full Version : Alleged torture suspects may face hate crime charges


*JR*
Sep 11th, 2007, 11:48 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/11/woman.tortured/index.html

(CNN) -- Six West Virginians charged with kidnapping, torturing and sexually assaulting a woman for at least a week may also face hate crime charges, Logan County Sheriff's officials said Tuesday.

The victim, 20-year-old Megan Williams, is black; those charged are white. CNN's usual policy is to not report names of sexual assault victims. In this case, the victim agreed to be identified.

The suspects include a mother and son, a mother and daughter, and two men.

According to criminal complaints filed in the county, Williams was sexually assaulted, stabbed in the left leg, choked and beaten.

The victim said one of the suspects cut her ankle with a knife while saying, "That's what we do to [racial slur] around here," police records show.

She also allegedly was forced to eat rat and dog feces, lick up blood and drink from the toilet. The criminal complaints say the suspects threatened to kill the victim if she left the house where she was being held.

Logan County Prosecutor Brian Abraham said he planned to meet with local police, FBI and a federal attorney at 4 p.m. ET to determine whether hate crime charges should be filed.

The six are charged with kidnapping, sexual assault, malicious wounding and battery. Kidnapping is punishable by up to life in prison. The penalty for first-degree sexual assault is 15 to 35 years.

Abraham said the charges could be modified as the investigation continues.

* Woman tortured for at least a week, officials say

Williams was discovered Saturday after sheriff's deputies received an anonymous tip that a woman was being held against her will at a home in Big Creek, West Virginia.

As the deputies spoke with a woman on the front porch, "a female inside the residence limped toward the door with her arms held out, saying 'Help me,' " according to a news release from the Sheriff's Department.

The woman had stab wounds on her left leg and bruises around her eyes, the statement said. Her wounds were determined to be about a week old.

"Deputies found her with two black eyes, part of her hair had been pulled out, she had lacerations on her neck and she had been physically, mentally and sexually abused," said Sheriff W.E. Hunter.

In custody are Frankie Brewster, 49; her son Bobby, 24, both of Pecks Mill, West Virginia; Danny J. Combs, 20, of Harts, West Virginia; and George A. Messer, 27, Karen Burton, 46, and her daughter, Alisha Burton, 23, all of Chapmanville, West Virginia.

"They all have previous records and have been arrested numerous times," Hunter said. "They are familiar to law enforcement."

Serenita
Sep 12th, 2007, 12:26 AM
Damn that's just sick! trow them in jail and trow away the key!!

Infiniti2001
Sep 12th, 2007, 12:33 AM
Fucking sick-- I hope they throw the book at them :fiery: Meanwhile, will this get as much coverage as Michael Vick torturing dogs? :shrug:

Pureracket
Sep 12th, 2007, 12:35 AM
Fucking sick-- I hope they throw the book at them :fiery: Meanwhile, will this get as much coverage as Michael Vick torturing dogs? :shrug:Nah, this victim doesn't have fur and a tail. It won't get half as much coverage.

It's, indeed, an hate crime.

sfselesfan
Sep 12th, 2007, 12:58 AM
My co-worker was talking about this. Totally messed up people. They sound like they're completely brainwashed by racist propaganda or something. Sick f-kers.

SF

*JR*
Sep 12th, 2007, 01:25 AM
My co-worker was talking about this. Totally messed up people. They sound like they're completely brainwashed by racist propaganda or something. Sick f-kers.
SF
Hey, its West Virginia. They're probably inbred. :tape:

mykarma
Sep 12th, 2007, 02:23 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/11/woman.tortured/index.html

(CNN) -- Six West Virginians charged with kidnapping, torturing and sexually assaulting a woman for at least a week may also face hate crime charges, Logan County Sheriff's officials said Tuesday.

The victim, 20-year-old Megan Williams, is black; those charged are white. CNN's usual policy is to not report names of sexual assault victims. In this case, the victim agreed to be identified.

The suspects include a mother and son, a mother and daughter, and two men.

According to criminal complaints filed in the county, Williams was sexually assaulted, stabbed in the left leg, choked and beaten.

The victim said one of the suspects cut her ankle with a knife while saying, "That's what we do to [racial slur] around here," police records show.

She also allegedly was forced to eat rat and dog feces, lick up blood and drink from the toilet. The criminal complaints say the suspects threatened to kill the victim if she left the house where she was being held.

Logan County Prosecutor Brian Abraham said he planned to meet with local police, FBI and a federal attorney at 4 p.m. ET to determine whether hate crime charges should be filed.

The six are charged with kidnapping, sexual assault, malicious wounding and battery. Kidnapping is punishable by up to life in prison. The penalty for first-degree sexual assault is 15 to 35 years.

Abraham said the charges could be modified as the investigation continues.

* Woman tortured for at least a week, officials say

Williams was discovered Saturday after sheriff's deputies received an anonymous tip that a woman was being held against her will at a home in Big Creek, West Virginia.

As the deputies spoke with a woman on the front porch, "a female inside the residence limped toward the door with her arms held out, saying 'Help me,' " according to a news release from the Sheriff's Department.

The woman had stab wounds on her left leg and bruises around her eyes, the statement said. Her wounds were determined to be about a week old.

"Deputies found her with two black eyes, part of her hair had been pulled out, she had lacerations on her neck and she had been physically, mentally and sexually abused," said Sheriff W.E. Hunter.

In custody are Frankie Brewster, 49; her son Bobby, 24, both of Pecks Mill, West Virginia; Danny J. Combs, 20, of Harts, West Virginia; and George A. Messer, 27, Karen Burton, 46, and her daughter, Alisha Burton, 23, all of Chapmanville, West Virginia.

"They all have previous records and have been arrested numerous times," Hunter said. "They are familiar to law enforcement."
Just plain sick and the charges should not be modified. I don't believe in the death penalty but these sickos deserve it. Who knows what would have happened to that woman if a tip hadn't come in. I can't begin to imagine.

kabuki
Sep 12th, 2007, 02:54 AM
Fucking sick-- I hope they throw the book at them :fiery: Meanwhile, will this get as much coverage as Michael Vick torturing dogs? :shrug:

Since not a person involved is a celebrity, I don't think so.

I hope they execute all 6.

CoolDude7
Sep 12th, 2007, 03:25 AM
THIs link is much better http://www.wvgazette.com/section/News/2007091022

It has their pictures and more information. Their bond is only 100,000! ::Shaking my head::: How can that be? They should not have a bond at all , but to top it off only 100,000! I swear, some people can get away with murder.

CoolDude7
Sep 12th, 2007, 03:26 AM
Since not a person involved is a celebrity, I don't think so.

I hope they execute all 6.

try 100,000 bond, it is sickening i know...

venus_rulez
Sep 12th, 2007, 03:30 AM
Why is the hate crime part of it even being debated? Isn't it obvious.

CoolDude7
Sep 12th, 2007, 03:34 AM
Why is the hate crime part of it even being debated? Isn't it obvious.

As am I, but they are giving them the benefit of the doubt for whatever reason. They even mentioned their excuse of,"She came to the house like that"! :help:

CoolDude7
Sep 12th, 2007, 03:44 AM
6 arrested, charged in woman's weeklong torture
Authorities believe racism played role in ordeal



Carmen Williams doesn’t understand why her 20-year-old daughter was tortured, raped and tied up in a shed.

Police tell her that what happened was probably a hate crime, that it happened because Megan Williams is black.

“Every time they stabbed her, they called her ‘******,’” her mother said.

But whatever the reason, Carmen Williams wants people to know what happened to her daughter. She agreed to talk to a reporter from her daughter’s room at Charleston Area Medical Center General Hospital.

She said a man and a woman — who Megan Williams thought were her friends — took her to the house of Frankie Lee Brewster in Pecks Mill, Logan County.

Megan Williams was held in the house for about a week, police said.

According to criminal complaints filed against six people in this case, she was beaten, stabbed, choked, sexually assaulted and threatened with death.

The details are even more horrible. According to the complaints, she was forced to eat dog and rat feces and to lick up blood. She was made to lick parts of Brewster’s body, under the threat of death. Her hair was pulled out. She was made to drink from the toilet. She was sexually assaulted while hot water was poured on her body, and while a man held a knife to her.

A woman allegedly cut Megan Williams’ ankle and said, “That’s what we do to ******s around here.”

Six people had been charged Monday evening, including Brewster, the 49-year-old woman who owns the home where the alleged assault happened. She is charged with sexual assault, kidnapping, malicious wounding and giving false statements to an officer.


Bobby R. Brewster, Frankie Brewster’s 24-year-old son, is charged with kidnapping, sexual assault, malicious wounding and assault during the commission of a felony.

Danny J. Combs, 20, is charged with sexual assault and malicious wounding. George A. Messer, 27, is charged with assault during the commission of a felony and battery.

Karen Burton, 46, is charged with malicious wounding, battery and assault during the commission of a felony. Her daughter, Alisha Burton, 23, is charged with assault during the commission of a felony and battery.

Each was being held Monday at Southwestern Regional Jail on $100,000 bail.

Carmen Williams said the two people who took her daughter to the Pecks Mill house did it so she could be tortured. Police are looking for those people, Logan County Chief Deputy V.K. Dingess said Monday evening.

“Apparently once they got her there they planned to do this,” Dingess said.

Carmen Williams said she has barely left her daughter’s side since police found her Saturday.

“She wakes up in the middle of the night screaming, ‘Mommy,’” she said. “What’s really bad is that we don’t know everything they did to her. She is crying all the time.”

She said her daughter has been a little better since she learned that the people who hurt her have been arrested.

The FBI has been called in to investigate the incident as a hate crime, Dingess said. All six of the people charged so far are white.


Megan Williams was found Saturday at Brewster’s house. Police, acting on a tip, went to the residence to check on a female who was reportedly being held against her will, according to the criminal complaint filed in Logan County Magistrate Court.

“Frankie was sitting on her front porch with her door open. We asked Frankie who else was at the residence and she stated no one else was here, that she was alone,” according to the complaint. “As she was talking, she got up and stepped toward her door when a female inside the residence limped toward the door with her arms out, saying, ‘help me.’ ”

The woman, Megan Williams, had four stab wounds in her left leg. Her eyes are bruised.

Brewster told police that she didn’t know how that had happened to Williams. She told police she had been away with friends, and that Williams came to her house on Saturday already in that condition.

Megan Williams was taken first to Logan Regional Hospital and then to CAMC General, where she underwent surgery for her leg wounds, Dingess said.

“We have all been praying and asking the Lord to take us through this,” Carmen Williams said. “It’s hard to deal with it. We are very angry. ... She will be scarred for a long time.”

Megan Williams has some “mental issues,” including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, her mother said.

“She was always pretty happy,” she said of her daughter. “She wants to be on her own. She is a good person.”

Carmen Williams said it will take a long time for her daughter to recover.

“People don’t realize that people will call themselves your friends but they are not really your friends,” said Matthew Williams, the woman’s father. “People have to be aware that things like that will happen.”

mykarma
Sep 12th, 2007, 03:44 AM
try 100,000 bond, it is sickening i know...
Typical don't you think.

CoolDude7
Sep 12th, 2007, 03:46 AM
Sorry , that CNN article is very cupcakish!In times like this the public need to hear the truth, without coverups

CoolDude7
Sep 12th, 2007, 03:49 AM
Typical don't you think.

I'm not surprised to be honest:o

miffedmax
Sep 12th, 2007, 05:09 AM
Vile. Indescribably vile.

The only bright side is that these cretins have been caught and all six of them will rot in jail.

meyerpl
Sep 12th, 2007, 05:47 AM
The family looks like the cast from The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. The crime is beyond fucked-up. It makes me sick to think about what that young woman went through. This is one of those cases where there is no justice, nothing can right the wrong. The only reasonable outcome is for the perpetrators to never see the light of day. Race was certainly a factor in the crime. The horror of the crimes overshadows any motive. Invoking hate crime laws adds an aggravating factor. In this case, it's almost like saying, "The driver wasn't wearing his seatbelt when he intentionally mowed-down 12 school children." Fuck it, lock 'em up and throw away the key.

drake3781
Sep 12th, 2007, 07:04 AM
http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/66503c4b-558e-4ad7-bd85-013d08870455_ms.jpeg

In this photo released by the West Virginia Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority Frankie Brewster is shown on Sept. 9, 2007, in Logan, W.Va., after she and five others were arrested for holding a Charleston woman captive in a Big Creek home for at least a week. The FBI is investigating whether the beating and sexual assault of this woman was a hate crime. (AP photo/West Virginia Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority)
http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,5651181,00.jpg

FBI investigation ... Frankie Brewster and her son Bobby are among the six arrested for allegedly torturing a black woman for a week / AP / The Associated Press


Here is the Smoking Gun link, containing the mugshots and the criminal complaint:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0911071logansix1.html

kabuki
Sep 13th, 2007, 02:24 AM
No hate crime according to the feds. Poor girl dated one of the guys, so it wasn't "random." Fortunately the charges against these six carry a lot more weight then the ten years for a hate crime. I'm just mortified by humans sometimes.

mykarma
Sep 13th, 2007, 04:51 PM
http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/66503c4b-558e-4ad7-bd85-013d08870455_ms.jpeg

In this photo released by the West Virginia Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority Frankie Brewster is shown on Sept. 9, 2007, in Logan, W.Va., after she and five others were arrested for holding a Charleston woman captive in a Big Creek home for at least a week. The FBI is investigating whether the beating and sexual assault of this woman was a hate crime. (AP photo/West Virginia Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority)
http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,5651181,00.jpg

FBI investigation ... Frankie Brewster and her son Bobby are among the six arrested for allegedly torturing a black woman for a week / AP / The Associated Press


Here is the Smoking Gun link, containing the mugshots and the criminal complaint:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0911071logansix1.html
Thanks for the link. Those actions were horrifying. It's difficult to imagine that people can even think of doing this type of thing to another person. We'll see what type of sentence they'll receive. I bet some of the charges will be dropped or at least reduced.

mykarma
Sep 13th, 2007, 05:00 PM
No hate crime according to the feds. Poor girl dated one of the guys, so it wasn't "random." Fortunately the charges against these six carry a lot more weight then the ten years for a hate crime. I'm just mortified by humans sometimes.
Do you happen to have a link? Most articles that I've read said she thought they were friends of hers.

More About Those Attackers in the West Virginia Hate Crime Case (http://www.rachelstavern.com/?p=710)

Filed Under Media Praises and Critiques (http://www.rachelstavern.com/?cat=22), Sociology (http://www.rachelstavern.com/?cat=14), Black/African American Issues (http://www.rachelstavern.com/?cat=13), Gender and Sexism (http://www.rachelstavern.com/?cat=3), Race and Racism (http://www.rachelstavern.com/?cat=2) by Rachel

So I guess that some of the people in the West Virginia case have long histories of violence, including killing people. Check this out from the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/12/us/12captive.html?ref=us):The Brewster family and their trailer has a history of violent crime, the police said.
Mr. Brewster killed his stepfather there when he was 12, the authorities said, and served time at a juvenile correction facility.
In July 1994, Mrs. Brewster shot and killed an 84-year-old woman she was looking after, also in the trailer, according to court records.
Mrs. Brewster, who was charged with first-degree murder, pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter and served six years at a state correctional facility. She was paroled in 2000.
In 2005, two men got into a fight outside the trailer, the police said, ending with a fatal stabbing.
In January, the police were again called to the trailer, where they found a man who had been slashed across his abdomen; the man survived, according to court documents, and Mr. Brewster was a witness in that case.
Also being held in the case of the young woman were Danny J. Combs, 20, who was charged with sexual assault and malicious wounding; George A. Messer, 27, who was charged with assault during the commission of a felony and battery; Karen Burton, 46, who was charged with malicious wounding, battery and assault during the commission of a felony; and her daughter, Alisha Burton, 23, who was charged with assault during the commission of a felony and battery. The four were being held in $100,000 bond each.
The Brewsters were being held pending bond hearings.
The authorities said they were still deciding whether to file additional charges, of hate crimes, against the defendants.
“The whole family is shocked,” a sister of the victim said.
Relatives said the victim has mild learning disabilities but graduated from high school. The relatives would not comment on whether the victim was living at home or had a job.

homogenius
Sep 13th, 2007, 05:11 PM
No hate crime according to the feds. Poor girl dated one of the guys, so it wasn't "random." Fortunately the charges against these six carry a lot more weight then the ten years for a hate crime. I'm just mortified by humans sometimes.

I don't know the US laws, but I don't understand something.Even if she was dated one of them, it's still a hate crime, no ? Would have they done all these things to a white girl ?

griffin
Sep 13th, 2007, 05:14 PM
No hate crime according to the feds. Poor girl dated one of the guys, so it wasn't "random." Fortunately the charges against these six carry a lot more weight then the ten years for a hate crime.

From the quotes in today's Boston Globe, it sounded like they chose not go after them for a federal hate crime because the state charges had stiffer penalties, and would be easier to get a conviction - not because the feds didnt think this case qualified :shrug:

samsung101
Sep 13th, 2007, 05:15 PM
In times like these?

This type of crime is the exception to society, not the norm.
That's why we find it so disgusting and sick.

Alleged torture suspects should be facing attempted murder,
rape, assault, battery, kidnapping, emotional distress,
robbery, etc., everything. Who cares about adding on a
hate crime charge? Rape and attempted murder and kidnapping -
those are the main charges. Rail them on that w/all they have.



Fact is we are told of this by multiple sources online and
elsewhere, 24/7. Not like anyone can hide this. But, we also
have to be careful not to reveal anything the victim would prefer
not to. Or that would hinder getting a jury pool together.

Sadly, the creeps who did this can use overhyped media and news
attention to their favor - saying they can't get a fair trial,
blah, blah, blah......



These animals deserve to be punished to the full extent of the
law. They deserve every possible charge they can throw at them
for what was torture and attempted murder and rape.


Hate crime charges are not needed in this case, or any other case.
Murder and assault should be murder and assault whether you're black
or white, gay or straight, brown or yellow. That's putting an unnecessary
charge on top of another. Hate may be a motive, and it should be used
in the trial to prove the case. But, I personally think it is unconstitutional
to charge someone differently based on the race, sexuality, gender, etc., of
the victim or the criminal.

Charge them with rape, assault, attempted murder, kidnapping, torture,
sodomy, everything they have. That's enough to most of them in jail for life.


It isn't being hidden in the media. NO more than that sick crime against the
black mother and her son, by that gang of pigs in Florida who raped her, beat
her, and forced the son to assault the mom after tortuing him w/chemicals. All
were black, will they be charged with a hate crime? A hate crime against
a woman? A hate crime against a black of Caribbean ethnicity? No, they won't.
Rape and assault and attempted murder will do those thugs for years in jail.

mykarma
Sep 13th, 2007, 06:28 PM
From the quotes in today's Boston Globe, it sounded like they chose not go after them for a federal hate crime because the state charges had stiffer penalties, and would be easier to get a conviction - not because the feds didnt think this case qualified :shrug:
Why can't they just add it on as another count? I still can't believe that they on only on $100,000 bond. IMO, they should not have been allowed to post bond at all.

Sam L
Sep 13th, 2007, 06:33 PM
Fucking sick-- I hope they throw the book at them :fiery: Meanwhile, will this get as much coverage as Michael Vick torturing dogs? :shrug:

Nah, this victim doesn't have fur and a tail. It won't get half as much coverage.

It's, indeed, an hate crime.

How dare you? :mad: Why do you have to bring up a case that's totally and completely irrelevant to the one being discussed here?

And someone said it best that case got the publicity because it involved a celebrity. Does this case involve a celebrity? Even a child could've figured this out.

Sorry you two need to get help.

Sam L
Sep 13th, 2007, 06:35 PM
Why can't they just add it on as another count? I still can't believe that they on only on $100,000 bond. IMO, they should not have been allowed to post bond at all.

I agree but whatever works to put them away.

Sam L
Sep 13th, 2007, 06:37 PM
Fucking sick-- I hope they throw the book at them :fiery: Meanwhile, will this get as much coverage as Michael Vick torturing dogs? :shrug:

Nah, this victim doesn't have fur and a tail. It won't get half as much coverage.

It's, indeed, an hate crime.

Tell me do you think Vick should've gotten away with it all? You're sick. :fiery:

Pureracket
Sep 13th, 2007, 06:40 PM
How dare you? :mad: Why do you have to bring up a case that's totally and completely irrelevant to the one being discussed here?

And someone said it best that case got the publicity because it involved a celebrity. Does this case involve a celebrity? Even a child could've figured this out.

Sorry you two need to get help.I think if you lived in America you'd see what our complaint was.

Vick should've been punished behind those animals, but certainly you're not suggesting that people who complain about the lack of treatment for an actual human being are actually sick are you?

The focus is on the victim and the heinous nature of the crime. It's not on the person who committed the crime. Yeah, I'm hoping a child should figure that out too.

Pureracket
Sep 13th, 2007, 06:40 PM
Tell me do you think Vick should've gotten away with it all? You're sick. :fiery:
What in your silly little mind would make you say that I would expect Vick to get away with what he did?

samsung101
Sep 13th, 2007, 06:43 PM
Yes, the state and local laws will likely be more than enough to put them
away for a long, long time, if not forever.

The feds may step in later, nothing precludes a civil case either.



People, not white or black or brown, people all over are outraged by this crime.
It's just sick. It is not acceptable, and people are not going to let it go away.
They are going to be tried, and likely convicted. Good.



Vick was hit by the feds first because the locals were not doing enough, nor could
they go after all of the ring. As the feds did. Vick may still face other charges
down the line from the state and county.



But, I'm still against the Hate Crime laws, I think they are by federal standards,
unconstitutional - 1st and 10th Amendment. We presume they are used only for cases
like this. Where it is obviously a heinous crime, and race seems to be a factor. We're
not sure yet. It could have been drugs, she could have been the easiest target, we
don't know. But, the hate crime laws also entail other speech, and that is iffy,
it steps on freedom of speech where a violent crime is not involved. Is saying something
a hate crime? That's one of the reasons I'm against them.

mykarma
Sep 13th, 2007, 06:48 PM
In times like these?

This type of crime is the exception to society, not the norm.
That's why we find it so disgusting and sick.

Alleged torture suspects should be facing attempted murder,
rape, assault, battery, kidnapping, emotional distress,
robbery, etc., everything. Who cares about adding on a
hate crime charge? Rape and attempted murder and kidnapping -
those are the main charges. Rail them on that w/all they have.



Fact is we are told of this by multiple sources online and
elsewhere, 24/7. Not like anyone can hide this. But, we also
have to be careful not to reveal anything the victim would prefer
not to. Or that would hinder getting a jury pool together.

Sadly, the creeps who did this can use overhyped media and news
attention to their favor - saying they can't get a fair trial,
blah, blah, blah......



These animals deserve to be punished to the full extent of the
law. They deserve every possible charge they can throw at them
for what was torture and attempted murder and rape.


Hate crime charges are not needed in this case, or any other case.
Murder and assault should be murder and assault whether you're black
or white, gay or straight, brown or yellow. That's putting an unnecessary
charge on top of another. Hate may be a motive, and it should be used
in the trial to prove the case. But, I personally think it is unconstitutional
to charge someone differently based on the race, sexuality, gender, etc., of
the victim or the criminal.

Charge them with rape, assault, attempted murder, kidnapping, torture,
sodomy, everything they have. That's enough to most of them in jail for life.


It isn't being hidden in the media. NO more than that sick crime against the
black mother and her son, by that gang of pigs in Florida who raped her, beat
her, and forced the son to assault the mom after tortuing him w/chemicals. All
were black, will they be charged with a hate crime? A hate crime against
a woman? A hate crime against a black of Caribbean ethnicity? No, they won't.
Rape and assault and attempted murder will do those thugs for years in jail.
The difference is that this lady was tortured because she was black. They need to charge them with every thing that they can find to insure that they never get out of jail again. If their bail is any indication of the sentence they'll get it won't be long before they're on the street again terrorizing someone else.

Go back and read their rap sheets, they've been in jail for murder, attempted murder, assault and they'll still on the street to torture someone else. I'm sure that if someone hadn't dropped a dime on them this girl would also be dead.

Sam L
Sep 13th, 2007, 06:56 PM
I think if you lived in America you'd see what our complaint was.

Vick should've been punished behind those animals, but certainly you're not suggesting that people who complain about the lack of treatment for an actual human being are actually sick are you?

The focus is on the victim and the heinous nature of the crime. It's not on the person who committed the crime. Yeah, I'm hoping a child should figure that out too.

Did you or did you not respond to a post that used the word COVERAGE in which case we're talking about media. Not about the law. :rolleyes: It's obviously why Vick got more coverage and that post should not have been posted in the first place. This has nothing to do with how the law treats the perpetrators. :rolleyes:

Stop twisting it.

mykarma
Sep 13th, 2007, 06:58 PM
Yes, the state and local laws will likely be more than enough to put them
away for a long, long time, if not forever.

The feds may step in later, nothing precludes a civil case either.



People, not white or black or brown, people all over are outraged by this crime.
It's just sick. It is not acceptable, and people are not going to let it go away.
They are going to be tried, and likely convicted. Good.



Vick was hit by the feds first because the locals were not doing enough, nor could
they go after all of the ring. As the feds did. Vick may still face other charges
down the line from the state and county.



But, I'm still against the Hate Crime laws, I think they are by federal standards,
unconstitutional - 1st and 10th Amendment. We presume they are used only for cases
like this. Where it is obviously a heinous crime, and race seems to be a factor. We're
not sure yet. It could have been drugs, she could have been the easiest target, we
don't know. But, the hate crime laws also entail other speech, and that is iffy,
it steps on freedom of speech where a violent crime is not involved. Is saying something
a hate crime? That's one of the reasons I'm against them.
Why are you never sure when it has to do with black people being victimized? You said the same thing about the Jena 6 but with the Duke LaCrosse trial that was being tried by an overzealous DA got your attention everyday.
What in the world does this crime have to do with freedom of speech?

Pureracket
Sep 13th, 2007, 07:06 PM
Did you or did you not respond to a post that used the word COVERAGE in which case we're talking about media. Not about the law. :rolleyes: It's obviously why Vick got more coverage and that post should not have been posted in the first place. This has nothing to do with how the law treats the perpetrators. :rolleyes:

Stop twisting it.Sam,
You're being a victim of your own internal feelings and prejudices. You're right about the media's coverage and about Vick's celebrity influencing it, but you're totally wrong in assuming how I felt about Vick's guilt.

Regardless of what you think, media coverage affects the outcome/outcry of cases. Yes, the media did what it had to do in covering Vick, but hate crimes that deal with torture and rape should get @ least equal COVERAGE(I put mine in bold face and caps too). Don't you think?

*JR*
Sep 13th, 2007, 08:31 PM
The difference is that this lady was tortured because she was black. They need to charge them with every thing that they can find to insure that they never get out of jail again. If their bail is any indication of the sentence they'll get it won't be long before they're on the street again terrorizing someone else.

Go back and read their rap sheets, they've been in jail for murder, attempted murder, assault and they'll still on the street to torture someone else. I'm sure that if someone hadn't dropped a dime on them this girl would also be dead.
OK, why weren't they put away for ages for what they did B4? Sorry, but hating isn't a crime, repugnant as it may be. You posted ITT I started about the neo-Nazi's in Germany and Russia, I believe. And in GER its been illegal to have Nazi stuff, do a Hitler salute, deny the Holocaust, etc. for decades, to no avail.

If a judge or jury wants to hand out the maximum sentence for a crime because hate is involved (thus countering whatever "mitigating circumstances") I guess that's OK. But samsung is basically right: crime X is crime X, regardless of motive. (In the case of a battered spouse, that's a mitigating circumstance, and in fact the crime is often pleaded down to a lesser charge).

Point is that "thought policing" is ineffective in dealing with crime, and in a free society, one has the right 2B wrong. (I have no problem with the teaching of hatred being a factor in custody battles, though).

harloo
Sep 13th, 2007, 10:34 PM
Fucking sick-- I hope they throw the book at them :fiery: Meanwhile, will this get as much coverage as Michael Vick torturing dogs? :shrug:

I wonder is Robert Byrd going to call these people "barbaric" on the Senate floor considering this vile act was committed in his home state. He sure didn't hold back his personal feelings on Vick.;)

I hope Megan comes out of this traumatic experience with flying colors. I can only imagine how much pain she endured for those 7 days of her life. The thought actually makes me sick to my stomach.:sad:

mykarma
Sep 14th, 2007, 02:58 AM
OK, why weren't they put away for ages for what they did B4? Sorry, but hating isn't a crime, repugnant as it may be. You posted ITT I started about the neo-Nazi's in Germany and Russia, I believe. And in GER its been illegal to have Nazi stuff, do a Hitler salute, deny the Holocaust, etc. for decades, to no avail.

If a judge or jury wants to hand out the maximum sentence for a crime because hate is involved (thus countering whatever "mitigating circumstances") I guess that's OK. But samsung is basically right: crime X is crime X, regardless of motive. (In the case of a battered spouse, that's a mitigating circumstance, and in fact the crime is often pleaded down to a lesser charge).

Point is that "thought policing" is ineffective in dealing with crime, and in a free society, one has the right 2B wrong. (I have no problem with the teaching of hatred being a factor in custody battles, though).
Sorry JR, you post was to confusing and I don't have the time to figure out X this and X that. I never said nor implied that hate in itself was a crime. If it was there wouldn't be enough jails in this country. A hate crime has nothing to do with whether a person is hated or not it has to do with whether they were physically hurt because of that hate. Just as the gay guy that was beat and tied to a post out west was dubbed a hate crime because he would have never been assaulted if he wasn't gay. Anyhow, you and Samsung are entitled to your opinions as I am to mine.

mykarma
Sep 14th, 2007, 03:02 AM
OK, why weren't they put away for ages for what they did B4? Sorry, but hating isn't a crime, repugnant as it may be. You posted ITT I started about the neo-Nazi's in Germany and Russia, I believe. And in GER its been illegal to have Nazi stuff, do a Hitler salute, deny the Holocaust, etc. for decades, to no avail.

If a judge or jury wants to hand out the maximum sentence for a crime because hate is involved (thus countering whatever "mitigating circumstances") I guess that's OK. But samsung is basically right: crime X is crime X, regardless of motive. (In the case of a battered spouse, that's a mitigating circumstance, and in fact the crime is often pleaded down to a lesser charge).

Point is that "thought policing" is ineffective in dealing with crime, and in a free society, one has the right 2B wrong. (I have no problem with the teaching of hatred being a factor in custody battles, though).
If you're correct, why don't your same rules apply?

meyerpl
Sep 14th, 2007, 03:20 AM
I think if you lived in America you'd see what our complaint was.

Vick should've been punished behind those animals, but certainly you're not suggesting that people who complain about the lack of treatment for an actual human being are actually sick are you?

The focus is on the victim and the heinous nature of the crime. It's not on the person who committed the crime. Yeah, I'm hoping a child should figure that out too.
What? I can't even figure out what the hell you're trying to say.

meyerpl
Sep 14th, 2007, 03:37 AM
Race played a relatively small role in motivating these crimes. I know the perpetrators used racial slurs, nonetheless; considering the nature of the crimes, there was a hell of a lot more than racism driving the behavior. Sadism and sexually devient proclivities are much more evident than race hatred. Stating that these misfits wouldn't have done what they did to a white woman is pure speculation. The hate crime element would be difficult to prove and the charges are serious enough not to need any penalty enhancer. The perpetrators should never see the light of day. My heart goes out to the victim.

*JR*
Sep 14th, 2007, 12:34 PM
Sorry JR, you post was to confusing and I don't have the time to figure out X this and X that. I never said nor implied that hate in itself was a crime. If it was there wouldn't be enough jails in this country. A hate crime has nothing to do with whether a person is hated or not it has to do with whether they were physically hurt because of that hate. Just as the gay guy that was beat and tied to a post out west was dubbed a hate crime because he would have never been assaulted if he wasn't gay. Anyhow, you and Samsung are entitled to your opinions as I am to mine.

If you're correct, why don't your same rules apply?
Let me answer both. All X meant was "whatever crime was involved". That (for example) James Byrd having been dragged to death behind a pickup truck was premeditated murder committed in a terribly sadistic way already, and that to "add" a charge of it having been motivated by racial hatred is irrelevant. It would have been totally repugnant anyhow.

Incidentally, I'm not opposed to the Federal government having tried those ppl it did in the south (like Byron De La Beckwith, for the murder of civil rights leader Medgar Evers) under Federal law based on "denying his civil rights" as they'd originally been let off by all white juries in state courts that didn't care if they were guilty or not. (As OJ Simpson probably was by a mostly black one years later, with Fuhrman's racism etc. having been "cover" for that).

But the point I was making (as did samsung) was that the motive for a crime is irrelevant. (Though again, I think its OK to consider this in whether there were "mitigating circumstances" in the sentencing phase. For example, a battered wife who "snaps" and kills her abusive husband even though not fending off an attack in progress properly has that considered, and may even get a lesser charge depending on "how long and how bad" the abuse was).

Regarding custody battles, that's civil law, and a matter where the first responsibility of the judge is to protect the best interests of the child. So to say that being raised to hate other groups is bad for the kid does not require charging someone with a "thought crime". Whereas saying that a violent crime motivated by hate should be a "more serious" crime as a result is being like "thought police".

Pureracket
Sep 14th, 2007, 02:32 PM
What? I can't even figure out what the hell you're trying to say.Well, let's hope the person to whom I was talking does. :wavey:

mykarma
Sep 14th, 2007, 02:48 PM
Race played a relatively small role in motivating these crimes. I know the perpetrators used racial slurs, nonetheless; considering the nature of the crimes, there was a hell of a lot more than racism driving the behavior. Sadism and sexually devient proclivities are much more evident than race hatred. Stating that these misfits wouldn't have done what they did to a white woman is pure speculation. The hate crime element would be difficult to prove and the charges are serious enough not to need any penalty enhancer. The perpetrators should never see the light of day. My heart goes out to the victim.
Based on their prior history that shouldn't have been out of prison anyhow so who knows how much time they'll actually serve. It is also speculation that they would have done the same thing to a white victim. No human being no matter what their race should have to endure this type of terror. My point had nothing to do with the victims race but IMO, just throw the freaking book at these perverts what ever charges can be used.

mykarma
Sep 14th, 2007, 03:00 PM
Let me answer both. All X meant was "whatever crime was involved". That (for example) James Byrd having been dragged to death behind a pickup truck was premeditated murder committed in a terribly sadistic way already, and that to "add" a charge of it having been motivated by racial hatred is irrelevant. It would have been totally repugnant anyhow.

Incidentally, I'm not opposed to the Federal government having tried those ppl it did in the south (like Byron De La Beckwith, for the murder of civil rights leader Medgar Evers) under Federal law based on "denying his civil rights" as they'd originally been let off by all white juries in state courts that didn't care if they were guilty or not. (As OJ Simpson probably was by a mostly black one years later, with Fuhrman's racism etc. having been "cover" for that).

But the point I was making (as did samsung) was that the motive for a crime is irrelevant. (Though again, I think its OK to consider this in whether there were "mitigating circumstances" in the sentencing phase. For example, a battered wife who "snaps" and kills her abusive husband even though not fending off an attack in progress properly has that considered, and may even get a lesser charge depending on "how long and how bad" the abuse was).

Regarding custody battles, that's civil law, and a matter where the first responsibility of the judge is to protect the best interests of the child. So to say that being raised to hate other groups is bad for the kid does not require charging someone with a "thought crime". Whereas saying that a violent crime motivated by hate should be a "more serious" crime as a result is being like "thought police".
Are you're saying that hate crimes are thought crimes? I also think that why a crime is committed is absolutely relevant, especially in the sentencing stage. What's really irrelevant to me is what they're charged with as long as the sentence fits the crime. Lastly, I'm not so arrogant as to say that I'm right and you and Samsung are wrong, it's a difference of opinion.

Sam L
Sep 14th, 2007, 04:16 PM
Sam,
You're being a victim of your own internal feelings and prejudices. You're right about the media's coverage and about Vick's celebrity influencing it, but you're totally wrong in assuming how I felt about Vick's guilt.

Regardless of what you think, media coverage affects the outcome/outcry of cases. Yes, the media did what it had to do in covering Vick, but hate crimes that deal with torture and rape should get @ least equal COVERAGE(I put mine in bold face and caps too). Don't you think?

It doesn't because your country has an obsession with CELEBRITY. Why do you think that Paris Hilton getting out of jail was headline news for so long? :rolleyes:

Okay, you have a problem with the media and what they cover. FINE! You know what I agree too! No need to bring up Vick and especially use it as a comparison.

If that post had gone along something like, "why doesn't this get more media coverage?" Then you might actually elicit some sympathy from me but as it is all you've done is made me angry. A simple, tactful approach would've been nice.

*JR*
Sep 14th, 2007, 04:31 PM
Are you're saying that hate crimes are thought crimes? I also think that why a crime is committed is absolutely relevant, especially in the sentencing stage. What's really irrelevant to me is what they're charged with as long as the sentence fits the crime. Lastly, I'm not so arrogant as to say that I'm right and you and Samsung are wrong, it's a difference of opinion.
I wan't aware that disagreeing with someone (which means you think they're wrong, I guess) :confused: is arrogant. Anyhow, I never said the thought was the crime (like wishing someone would be killed, but not acting on the wish, for example). What I did say was that repugnant thoughts don't change what an actual crime was.

Regarding the sentencing phase, I'm kind of divided: yes, if the err, "bad karma" is only used to offset claimed mitigating circumstances that are cited to try to reduce the penalty. But not to "layer on" more punishment (which would be treating evil thoughts like they were a separate crime).

griffin
Sep 14th, 2007, 04:45 PM
"hate crimes" aren't meant to punish "thought" but rather "intent"

As in, did you intend to just terrorize ME by burning that cross on my lawn? Or were you trying to terrorize an entire group of people....as others have noted, intent and impact are taken into account when prosecuting and sentencing people on a fairly regular basis. Hate-crimes legislation (badly named, imo) basically formalize that.

(that said, I'm personally undecided on the value of the laws themselves)

mykarma
Sep 14th, 2007, 04:56 PM
"hate crimes" aren't meant to punish "thought" but rather "intent"

As in, did you intend to just terrorize ME by burning that cross on my lawn? Or were you trying to terrorize an entire group of people....as others have noted, intent and impact are taken into account when prosecuting and sentencing people on a fairly regular basis. Hate-crimes legislation (badly named, imo) basically formalize that.

(that said, I'm personally undecided on the value of the laws themselves)
I think you covered it.

Pureracket
Sep 14th, 2007, 06:13 PM
It doesn't because your country has an obsession with CELEBRITY. Why do you think that Paris Hilton getting out of jail was headline news for so long? :rolleyes:

Okay, you have a problem with the media and what they cover. FINE! You know what I agree too! No need to bring up Vick and especially use it as a comparison.

If that post had gone along something like, "why doesn't this get more media coverage?" Then you might actually elicit some sympathy from me but as it is all you've done is made me angry. A simple, tactful approach would've been nice.:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: I'm in a good mood, so I apologize.

griffin
Sep 14th, 2007, 06:28 PM
It doesn't because your country has an obsession with CELEBRITY. Why do you think that Paris Hilton getting out of jail was headline news for so long? :rolleyes:

sorry, OT but - Sam, I was in New Zealand last February. The "Who's Anna Nicole Smith's Baby Daddy" show was a regular feature on the nightly news.

I don't think my country is the only one with a celebrity fetish ;)

*JR*
Sep 14th, 2007, 06:32 PM
"hate crimes" aren't meant to punish "thought" but rather "intent"

As in, did you intend to just terrorize ME by burning that cross on my lawn? Or were you trying to terrorize an entire group of people....as others have noted, intent and impact are taken into account when prosecuting and sentencing people on a fairly regular basis. Hate-crimes legislation (badly named, imo) basically formalize that.

(that said, I'm personally undecided on the value of the laws themselves)
Nice to read a post taking a position I disagree with that doesn't have the usual PC crap in essence saying "but that's how I feel about the issue". :yeah: Anyhow, the issue IMO isn't as much whether such laws work (again, GER is a pretty good example that they don't very well) but the following:

If a gang burns a cross on the lawn of a black family, they may very well intend to say: "N******* out of this neighborhood". But to prosecute them for an inferred crime against others seems like though policing. What's next, banning Klan marches?

Keep in mind that the ACLU itself once defended in court the neo-Nazi's right to march in heavily Jewish Skokie, IL with their swastika's, etc. And the scumbags still do here and there on occasion (heavily outnumbered by both the counter-demonstrators and the police).

Isn't there a famous quote that the First Amendment guarantee of free speech is there to defend unpopular speech, as that which isn't doesn't by definition need protection?

Regarding victim impact statements, even that's problematic. It means that the killer or assailant of someone very popular may get a harsher penalty than someone with an identical record who committed an identical crime against someone who isn't.

And intent is really treading on unequal justice. That it may be one case, but the defendant is in effect on trial for both (let's say) mugging somebody, and (if the victim is a member of a defacto protected group) "sending a message" to others in the group. If that's not also about thought (as well as intent) what is? :confused:

griffin
Sep 14th, 2007, 06:47 PM
Apples and oranges.

Marching/parades are legal activities.

Burning a cross on someone else's property is NOT legal. And the law makes perfectly legal, perfectly constitutional distinctions based on intent ALL THE TIME.

If you kill me, after all, what you are charged with will very much depend on what your intent was. Did you plan to kill me? Did you plan to rob me, but kill me in the process? Or were you just ranting about John Fucking Kerry again, and accidentally severed my carotid artery waving your arms about ( j/k ;) )

And you and I - and the ACLU - all know that there are limits on what constitutes protected "free speech" One of the brightest lines that gets drawn is where harm results.

Pureracket
Sep 14th, 2007, 06:54 PM
Apples and oranges.

Marching/parades are legal activities.

Burning a cross on someone else's property is NOT legal. And the law makes perfectly legal, perfectly constitutional distinctions based on intent ALL THE TIME.

If you kill me, after all, what you are charged with will very much depend on what your intent was. Did you plan to kill me? Did you plan to rob me, but kill me in the process? Or were you just ranting about John Fucking Kerry again, and accidentally severed my carotid artery waving your arms about ( j/k ;) )

And you and I - and the ACLU - all know that there are limits on what constitutes protected "free speech" One of the brightest lines that gets drawn is where harm results.My Diet Coke came through my nose while I was laughing because I didn't expect this.:sad:

mykarma
Sep 14th, 2007, 07:03 PM
Apples and oranges.

Marching/parades are legal activities.

Burning a cross on someone else's property is NOT legal. And the law makes perfectly legal, perfectly constitutional distinctions based on intent ALL THE TIME.

If you kill me, after all, what you are charged with will very much depend on what your intent was. Did you plan to kill me? Did you plan to rob me, but kill me in the process? Or were you just ranting about John Fucking Kerry again, and accidentally severed my carotid artery waving your arms about ( j/k ;) )

And you and I - and the ACLU - all know that there are limits on what constitutes protected "free speech" One of the brightest lines that gets drawn is where harm results.
You must spread reps around ...:worship::worship::worship:

Apoleb
Sep 14th, 2007, 07:48 PM
You must spread reps around ...:worship::worship::worship:

:worship: :worship: :worship:

*JR*
Sep 14th, 2007, 08:31 PM
Apples and oranges.

Marching/parades are legal activities.

Burning a cross on someone else's property is NOT legal. And the law makes perfectly legal, perfectly constitutional distinctions based on intent ALL THE TIME.
Correct. And I'm all for prosecuting the cross burners (for menacing, etc.) Sorry, but where's the disagreement on that? :confused: Seems that its only on whether other members of the targeted group are judged 2B victims. And the fact that one interpretation of the law may be "perfectly legal and constitutional" doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

If you kill me, after all, what you are charged with will very much depend on what your intent was. Did you plan to kill me? Did you plan to rob me, but kill me in the process? Or were you just ranting about John Fucking Kerry again, and accidentally severed my carotid artery waving your arms about ( j/k ;) )

And you and I - and the ACLU - all know that there are limits on what constitutes protected "free speech" One of the brightest lines that gets drawn is where harm results.
Come now, you know quite well that your quoted words I put in bold go to premeditated murder vs. negligent homicide vs. manslaughter. And would regardless of WHAT groups PC fucktards might "assign" us to. Besides, if anyone killed you, the other Adminimods would commit suicide ova having to deal with the trolls without you. ;)

griffin
Sep 14th, 2007, 08:53 PM
Come now, you know quite well that your quoted words I put in bold go to premeditated murder vs. negligent homicide vs. manslaughter.

I do - but the difference between them is based on...intent. Even if my death is an accident, the law will take into consideration whether you we po'd for being oppressed by the board's chief PC fucktard and lashing out with INTENT to cause harm. Intent matters. Motive matters.

You say you don't object to laws banning cross-burning (and I knew you didn't I was trying to make a point and clearly missed), and mention "menacing" - what is menacing but a kind of intent?

To respond to something you said earlier, it isn't (or shouldn't be) about "inferred" crime. The burning crosses and lynching of black men, the destruction of Jewish property and live on Kristallnacht - these were not "inferred" crimes, they were real acts of terrorism committed with motives and intentions that went beyond their effect on specific individuals.

*JR*
Sep 14th, 2007, 09:40 PM
To respond to something you said earlier, it isn't (or shouldn't be) about "inferred" crime. The burning crosses and lynching of black men, the destruction of Jewish property and lives on Kristallnacht - these were not "inferred" crimes, they were real acts of terrorism committed with motives and intentions that went beyond their effect on specific individuals.
Absolutely. So lets take some recent cases of terrorism. I think we'd agree that al-Qaeda are pretty bad ppl. Who weren't just out to kill 3,000 ppl on 9/11, but terrorize the US. (Same with 7/7 re. the Brits, the Madrid train bombings re. Spain, and Bali re. the Ozzies). And if its leaders were captured alive somehow, all any sane justice system would prosecute them for would be their role in those deaths, not whatever corollary effects on those 4 countries they intended.

BTW, I won't name anyone in the interests of peace here :angel: but UR not a PC fucktard. Sure you're PC and we disagree on a lot of this, but you bother to think critically B4 posting. PC fucktards essentially post kneejerk reactions. They "read from scripts" so well that Helen Lawson ought to hook them up with Hollywood directors. :o

griffin
Sep 14th, 2007, 09:42 PM
YOu don't think al-Qaeda and other 9/11 suspects are treated differently based on the crime they committed?

I'll let you call a mulligan on that one and pick a different example.

*JR*
Sep 14th, 2007, 10:11 PM
YOu don't think al-Qaeda and other 9/11 suspects are treated differently based on the crime they committed?

I'll let you call a mulligan on that one and pick a different example.
Where do we disagree? :confused: Of course they're treated in a unique way, but its because they did kill a lot of ppl, not that they did because they hate the West. (Timothy McVeigh considered himself 2B saving the original intent of America's Founding Fathers, and he still got the death penalty, for example).

griffin
Sep 14th, 2007, 10:22 PM
You don't think our reaction to those deaths was influenced by the fact that they were trying to attack us as a nation?

*JR*
Sep 14th, 2007, 11:09 PM
You don't think our reaction to those deaths was influenced by the fact that they were trying to attack us as a nation?
Sure, re. Gitmo. But if bin Laden, Zawahiri, etc. were ever captured alive, they'd be tried for what they did, not why they did it.

Black Mamba.
Sep 15th, 2007, 05:40 AM
Fucking sick-- I hope they throw the book at them :fiery: Meanwhile, will this get as much coverage as Michael Vick torturing dogs? :shrug:

You deserve this:




http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a213/naughtywon/theclapgy0wl5.gif




In the Mike Vick post I said that many people in society value their animals over people. I was attacked but look. This act was just as or more heinous than what happened to those dogs but I've heard less outrage and this involves people. Not just that there was a White couple in a separate incident that were brutalized as well and that got little coverage as well.

venus_rulez
Sep 15th, 2007, 06:03 AM
I'm all for hate crime laws. To me it's as simple as some people are likelier targets of crime because of their race, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, etc. and the law takes that reality into consideration when a crime is a committed. As someone said, it's all about intent. Did you assault that person because they were the first person who walked down the dark street alone? or did you assault that person because they were black? And I strongly disagree with whoever said that hate crime laws are like thought policing. The first amendment gives you the right to hate whoever you want. The issue becomes when you violate another's 1st amendment right to co exist peacefully simply because of the group they belong to. I think that's more than deserving of a harsher penalty.

venus_rulez
Sep 15th, 2007, 06:04 AM
I'm all for hate crime laws. To me it's as simple as some people are likelier targets of crime because of their race, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, etc. and the law takes that reality into consideration when a crime is a committed. As someone said, it's all about intent. Did you assault that person because they were the first person who walked down the dark street alone? or did you assault that person because they were black? And I strongly disagree with whoever said that hate crime laws are like thought policing. The first amendment gives you the right to hate whoever you want. The issue becomes when you violate another's 1st amendment right to co exist peacefully simply because of the group they belong to. I think that's more than deserving of a harsher penalty.

*JR*
Sep 15th, 2007, 02:02 PM
And I strongly disagree with whoever said that hate crime laws are like thought policing. The first amendment gives you the right to hate whoever you want. The issue becomes when you violate another's 1st amendment right to co exist peacefully simply because of the group they belong to.
Actually, the right you refer to is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, regarding the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". (The first Amendment is about various forms of expression, like free speech and freedom of religion).

Anyhow, I most certainly support the right to co-exist peacefully. But one is just as dead if killed by a racist SOB or a local gangbanger. And the reality of modern America is that the latter exact a far higher toll.

Even Jesse Jackson recognized this in a speech to black ministers in Washington, DC about a decade ago. (And no, I'm not implying that he speaks for all blacks, just that he was correct here).

Rev. Jackson (who nobody would confuse with a black conservative like Bill Cosby) said in his "trademark" catchy prose: "If you're hurt on the way home tonight, its far more likely to be by the BBB - the Bad Black Brother - than by the KKK".

The way the some post on this board though, it seems worse to them if a moron like Imus (who I said indeed deserved 2B fired) hurts black ppl's feelings than if one black person kills another, depriving the victim of the very right you mention to peacefully co-exist.

(Unless of course the victim was either famous or related to someone who is, like the late Yetunde Price for example).

venus_rulez
Sep 15th, 2007, 07:21 PM
Actually, the right you refer to is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, regarding the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". (The first Amendment is about various forms of expression, like free speech and freedom of religion).

Anyhow, I most certainly support the right to co-exist peacefully. But one is just as dead if killed by a racist SOB or a local gangbanger. And the reality of modern America is that the latter exact a far higher toll.

Even Jesse Jackson recognized this in a speech to black ministers in Washington, DC about a decade ago. (And no, I'm not implying that he speaks for all blacks, just that he was correct here).

Rev. Jackson (who nobody would confuse with a black conservative like Bill Cosby) said in his "trademark" catchy prose: "If you're hurt on the way home tonight, its far more likely to be by the BBB - the Bad Black Brother - than by the KKK".

The way the some post on this board though, it seems worse to them if a moron like Imus (who I said indeed deserved 2B fired) hurts black ppl's feelings than if one black person kills another, depriving the victim of the very right you mention to peacefully co-exist.

(Unless of course the victim was either famous or related to someone who is, like the late Yetunde Price for example).

Part of co existing peacefully is that everyone is given the right to express themselves how they see fit, hence why I used the first amendment. And of course the person is just as dead, however, I'd argue that laws aren't made for victims. They're made for criminals and those who might commit the crimes as a way for the government to say, they knew it was wrong, the punishment was outlined and they still chose to do it. Laws basically highlight the choice factor in commiting a crime.

Plus in the end all laws, intepretations of the law etc are based on an agreement. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is considered an inalienable right. However, the citizens of the U.S. enter an agreement (however willingly or not) that you are allowed to express yourself however you feel in exchange for not violating another person's constitutional rights. If you break that agreement, the government then holds the right to take that "inalienable" freedom away from you. It's the same with hate crimes in my opinion. I don't think it's thought policing, but so what if it is. Let's not pretend that all societies and people don't have some sort of agenda and a specific end point they want to reach.

Back to the point, I'd argue that with hate laws, THe U.S. says you have the right to hate anyone you want as long as you don't threaten or attempt to stop said members from living safely and peacefully.
However, once you violate their rights first and IF it is specifically because they exist in a said group, you've broken "the contract" and now the government has the right to thought police.

Again this is all hypothetical and I'm speaking in an ideal manner about how the laws should be interpreted. That doesn't mean they are interpreted or excercised this way in practice.

*JR*
Sep 15th, 2007, 09:25 PM
Part of co existing peacefully is that everyone is given the right to express themselves how they see fit, hence why I used the first amendment. And of course the person is just as dead, however, I'd argue that laws aren't made for victims. They're made for criminals and those who might commit the crimes as a way for the government to say, they knew it was wrong, the punishment was outlined and they still chose to do it. Laws basically highlight the choice factor in committing a crime.

...
Thanks for the interesting reply. The main problem is in your words that I highlighted in bold. Ones I agree with 100% BTW. The thing is that they apply every bit as much to a gangbanger as to a Klansman. In fact, to deny that "the typical Crip or Blood" knew that killing someone was wrong, but chose to do so anyhow ironically fits with a rather racist stereotype (though of course that's not your intent). One a Klan type might express by saying something like: "N****** are just a bunch of animals, of course they're gonna kill eachother".

venus_rulez
Sep 15th, 2007, 09:42 PM
This is an interesting conversation and it's nice to be able to debate something in a respectful manner. I think what it comes down to you is murder is a horrible horrible despicable crime and murdering one person isn't more heinous or more deserving of punishment in and of itself. However, I think from the government's perspective, singling out a specific person solely because they belong to a group isn't just simply murder it seeks to undermine the very tenants that the United States stands for (again this is the ideal of these laws not what they might represent in practice) A murder's target in this case isn't just an individual person, it's technically to challenge the Constitution's assertion that people have the right to live how they choose to. If I haven't made it clear, that's not to say everytime a Black person gets murdered by a white person or a gay person gets attacked that it's a hate crime.

You know I wonder if most of the people who have an issue with hate crimes are people in dominant positions to begin with (generally speaking which would be white people and men) I think this might be because even though I do believe that hate crimes can be committed against anyone, the way the laws are interpreted here they seem to cover minorities, loosely defined. (I'm not sure if the laws cover specific groups of people or if hate in general is covered) As silly as it sounds I think these people feel left out and so it manifests itself as oh so Blacks or gays or women are more important than me? Just throwing that out there.

*JR*
Sep 15th, 2007, 10:54 PM
This is an interesting conversation and it's nice to be able to debate something in a respectful manner. I think what it comes down to you is murder is a horrible horrible despicable crime and murdering one person isn't more heinous or more deserving of punishment in and of itself. However, I think from the government's perspective, singling out a specific person solely because they belong to a group isn't just simply murder it seeks to undermine the very tenants that the United States stands for (again this is the ideal of these laws not what they might represent in practice) A murder's target in this case isn't just an individual person, it's technically to challenge the Constitution's assertion that people have the right to live how they choose to. If I haven't made it clear, that's not to say everytime a Black person gets murdered by a white person or a gay person gets attacked that it's a hate crime.

You know I wonder if most of the people who have an issue with hate crimes are people in dominant positions to begin with (generally speaking which would be white people and men) I think this might be because even though I do believe that hate crimes can be committed against anyone, the way the laws are interpreted here they seem to cover minorities, loosely defined. (I'm not sure if the laws cover specific groups of people or if hate in general is covered) As silly as it sounds I think these people feel left out and so it manifests itself as oh so Blacks or gays or women are more important than me? Just throwing that out there.
I also find it thought provoking to discuss this with someone who (like myself) would rather try to formulate answers than merely parrot those of others. :) Anyhow, let's take the following premise:

While most African-Americans aren't gangbangers, most Anglo-Americans aren't skinheads, etc. and most Italian-Americans aren't members of the Mafia, some of each group are. And seek to in effect control territory and other resources by virtue of that.

So does the fact that the Mafia and the gangbangers mainly seek to control things mostly related to those of their own ethnic groups make them less evil than the Klan types, whose main targets are those from other groups they consider inferior?

One point to bear in mind is that the first 2 groups named in the last paragraph are more "proactive" in terms of wanting to coerce others (mostly from their own ethnic groups) into surrendering resources, through extortion and actual violence.

Without @ all defending the kind of white racists this thread is about, its more common that such misfits want more to simply exclude groups they consider undesirable from their areas. (Even from under a tree, as in that school story from Jena, LA).

So one could theoretically say that while both the mostly "introverted" sociopaths and the generally "extroverted" ones are bad, its harder for the innocent victims of the Mafia and the gangbangers to "steer clear of them".

I realize that there are white racists who go looking for black victims, homophobes who seek out gay ones, etc. I'm only saying that most folks who hate another group simply want to avoid all but minimal contact with them, whereas most who in effect "cannibalize" their own communities aren't as readily avoided.

venus_rulez
Sep 15th, 2007, 11:57 PM
I also find it thought provoking to discuss this with someone who (like myself) would rather try to formulate answers than merely parrot those of others. :) Anyhow, let's take the following premise:

While most African-Americans aren't gangbangers, most Anglo-Americans aren't skinheads, etc. and most Italian-Americans aren't members of the Mafia, some of each group are. And seek to in effect control territory and other resources by virtue of that.

So does the fact that the Mafia and the gangbangers mainly seek to control things mostly related to those of their own ethnic groups make them less evil than the Klan types, whose main targets are those from other groups they consider inferior?

One point to bear in mind is that the first 2 groups named in the last paragraph are more "proactive" in terms of wanting to coerce others (mostly from their own ethnic groups) into surrendering resources, through extortion and actual violence.

Without @ all defending the kind of white racists this thread is about, its more common that such misfits want more to simply exclude groups they consider undesirable from their areas. (Even from under a tree, as in that school story from Jena, LA).

So one could theoretically say that while both the mostly "introverted" sociopaths and the generally "extroverted" ones are bad, its harder for the innocent victims of the Mafia and the gangbangers to "steer clear of them".

I realize that there are white racists who go looking for black victims, homophobes who seek out gay ones, etc. I'm only saying that most folks who hate another group simply want to avoid all but minimal contact with them, whereas most who in effect "cannibalize" their own communities aren't as readily avoided.

Hmmm...I'm not sure that we're talking about the same thing anymore. I would still argue that killing someone over territory or controlling resources is "not as bad" as singling someone out from a specific group out, regardless of race or any other distinction because most crimes are for individual gain(whether it something tangible or to get revenge) it doesn't seek to undermine a group of people, which undermines the ideal form of what our laws supposedly stand for.

I think that someone in the mafia or a gangbanger would eliminate ANYONE who posed a threat to them or whatever they controlled. It wouldn't matter if the person was white, black, gay or straight, of the same race or not, it's about them protecting their interests. Most of the time hate crimes result in a singling out of a victim. Granted, probably most criminals do this to some extent, but it's not to challenge a group's standing, it's oh that person's alone or they're smaller than me or whatever the case may be.

Personally, while I'm for hate laws, it's kind of an easy way out. I think the reasons we need these hate laws to begin with is because the government hasn't done it's job in leveling the starting point for groups. Let's take gays for examples. There's no way you can have the leader of the free world go on tv and say that he's in favor of changing the law of the land to not allow gays to marry and then say that they are just as equal and deserving of respect and liberty as everyone else. Uh what? There's no way you can have a society where the least amount of funding goes to schools that just also happen to be the areas that a majority of minorities live and then be surprised that there are people who believe Blacks and Mexicans are inferior to them and don't deserve to share the same air space.

Really how do we expect our citizens to "respect" and allow others they disagree with to live freely and have equal opportunities, when the government itself doesn't?

Look at our justice system? Maybe hate crime laws are needed because as of right now gay, Black, and other minority victims can't get the same justice that dominant groups can and do.

*JR*
Sep 16th, 2007, 12:34 AM
(Your words in italics to simplify quoting & replying)

(QUOTE=venus_rulez) Hmmm...I'm not sure that we're talking about the same thing anymore. I would still argue that killing someone over territory or controlling resources is "not as bad" as singling someone out from a specific group out, regardless of race or any other distinction because most crimes are for individual gain(whether it something tangible or to get revenge) it doesn't seek to undermine a group of people, which undermines the ideal form of what our laws supposedly stand for.

I don't think criminal laws should be used for other purposes (however noble) than protecting the population from becoming victims, and punishing the victimizers. The late Johnny Cochran got away with a really underhanded line in his closing argument on behalf of OJ. He said to the jury re. the LAPD in part: "Who polices the police? You do with your verdict". (Sorry, there are ways of doing that in places like LA, and racist Chief Darryl Gates was retired already, replaced by black Philly Chief Willie Williams).

I think that someone in the mafia or a gangbanger would eliminate ANYONE who posed a threat to them or whatever they controlled. It wouldn't matter if the person was white, black, gay or straight, of the same race or not, it's about them protecting their interests. Most of the time hate crimes result in a singling out of a victim. Granted, probably most criminals do this to some extent, but it's not to challenge a group's standing, it's oh that person's alone or they're smaller than me or whatever the case may be.

True. Its mainly geographic proximity, making these "crimes of opportunity". Which doesn't do some underpaid black housekeeper who can't afford to move out of "the ghetto" (a term that's an abomination in that they still exist in a wealthy country) much good when her son gets mugged, etc.

Personally, while I'm for hate laws, it's kind of an easy way out. I think the reasons we need these hate laws to begin with is because the government hasn't done it's job in leveling the starting point for groups. Let's take gays for examples. There's no way you can have the leader of the free world go on tv and say that he's in favor of changing the law of the land to not allow gays to marry and then say that they are just as equal and deserving of respect and liberty as everyone else. Uh what? There's no way you can have a society where the least amount of funding goes to schools that just also happen to be the areas that a majority of minorities live and then be surprised that there are people who believe Blacks and Mexicans are inferior to them and don't deserve to share the same air space. Really how do we expect our citizens to "respect" and allow others they disagree with to live freely and have equal opportunities, when the government itself doesn't?

I completely agree that funding schools with local property taxes is a devious way keeping ppl down.

Look at our justice system? Maybe hate crime laws are needed because as of right now gay, Black, and other minority victims can't get the same justice that dominant groups can and do.

You're correct that the lives of (non-famous) members of minority groups aren't given equal priority when they're crime victims. But as (most of the time) the criminal is from the same ethnic group, I'm afraid that hate crime laws wouldn't help where we're talking about ethnic minorities. But hey, they'd make certain posters here who aren't nearly as analytical as UR feel good. ;)

venus_rulez
Sep 16th, 2007, 12:40 AM
You're correct that the lives of (non-famous) members of minority groups aren't given equal priority when they're crime victims. But as (most of the time) the criminal is from the same ethnic group, I'm afraid that hate crime laws wouldn't help where we're talking about ethnic minorities. But hey, they'd make certain posters here who aren't nearly as analytical as UR feel good. ;)


But see I think it does and will help in some way. The whole point is their hatred comes from a place that says these people don't deserve to have these rights or breathe same air I breathe. As I said earlier, these aren't crimes of opportunity, most of the time they are crimes simply because the person exists in a given group. No matter how hypocritical it seems given my points earlier about the lack of government responsibility with these issues, hate laws do attempt to make the citizens who are or might be targeted simply because they belong to a group, on an equal playing field. The very fact that they are targeted because of their race, sexual orientation, does play to the fact that society as a whole already sees them as inferior and second class.

*JR*
Sep 16th, 2007, 01:18 AM
But see I think it does and will help in some way. The whole point is their hatred comes from a place that says these people don't deserve to have these rights or breathe same air I breathe. As I said earlier, these aren't crimes of opportunity, most of the time they are crimes simply because the person exists in a given group. No matter how hypocritical it seems given my points earlier about the lack of government responsibility with these issues, hate laws do attempt to make the citizens who are or might be targeted simply because they belong to a group, on an equal playing field. The very fact that they are targeted because of their race, sexual orientation, does play to the fact that society as a whole already sees them as inferior and second class.
We're talking about two different things. You're addressing the tiny minority of serious crimes against members of minority groups where hate crime laws apply (or would where they don't now exist). I'm much more pissed that so many of them are economically trapped in areas where they're sitting ducks.

Let me give you a true story, from Chicago around 20 years ago. There were 2 huge housing projects that were totally ovarun by drug gangs, where mothers often had their kids sleep in the bathtubs :fiery: to reduce the chance of being killed by a stray bullet.

So the Chicago Housing Authority persuaded a well off black developer named Vince Lane to take a big pay cut and run the CHA. Mr. Lane crafted a plan for a combined Federal-State-County-City strike force to quarantine the two projects on random nights and hunt down the gangbangers inside. (@ least leading to a lot of guns and drugs being seized, plus hoods with outstanding warrants).

So the mostly white liberal PC fucktards of the local ACLU went to Federal Court, and got the plan declared unconstitutional. (Most of said fucktards lived on upscale Lake Shore Drive, etc. I guarantee you that if their kids had to sleep in bathtubs to avoid being shot, they'd have called out the fucking National Guard).

And something else (IMO). In my native NYC, Rudy Giuliani was an SOB as the Mayor, and had poor relations with the black community. But while the murder of Amidou Diallo and the broomstick rape of Abner Louima (both black, both by the police, both atrocities with zero justification) got national coverage as they should have, far more blacks were saved from violent death and assault by the big drop in crime during his 8 years in office.

As I've said in other discussions (and Bobby Kennedy reportedly did in the 1968 Presidential race, though it pissed off a lot of liberals) you can't enjoy other liberties if you're dead.

venus_rulez
Sep 16th, 2007, 01:41 AM
Yes, I think we are talking about two different things, but yeah I mean there's a lot of underlying issues of why we even need to have hate crime legislation to begin with. There is no simple answer or solution to it, but we certainly could be doing better than we are.

Fingon
Sep 16th, 2007, 03:21 AM
I don't have an opinion on the value or not of the hate crime charge.

I do have an opinion on the value of bail, parole, computing double the days criminals spend without trial and the likes.

Some of the assholes have a history of violence, why the fuck were they free?

why is there a bail? 100,000, 1 billion dollars? I don't care, no bail, end of story.

If you get 25 years, you fucking serve 25 years, even if you are canonized for your good behaviour in prisson.

the only doubt in my mind is that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, fair enough.

But if they were the authors of this, they must be burned in an electric chair, preferably having they look how the others are being executed and then they will know what to expect.

I've even heard they wanted to stop killing criminals with lethal injection because it was too painful, my ass, they didn't care if it was to painful for that girl (actually, they did).

Williamsser
Oct 22nd, 2009, 06:08 AM
BOMBSHELL: "Victim" recants story of rape and torture

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/22/us/22abuse.html

COLUMBUS, Ohio — The young woman found in 2007 in a backwoods trailer in West Virginia, where she said she had been held captive and raped, recanted her story on Wednesday.

“Megan Williams was 20 years old in September 2007 when she reported that she had been kidnapped, raped and tortured in an allegedly racist attack,” Byron L. Potts, Ms. Williams’s lawyer, said Wednesday in a brief statement. “Megan Williams is now recanting her story.”

The turn of events represents a striking reversal in a racially charged case that led to the conviction of seven people, all but one of whom are serving lengthy prison sentences. It also raises questions about whether the prosecutor, who resisted strong pressure to pursue hate-crime charges based on race, should have gone further in checking Ms. Williams’s credibility.

But Brian Abraham, the former prosecutor for Logan County who handled the cases, said the seven people charged with the crimes relating to Ms. Williams’s abuse had been convicted based on physical evidence and their own corroborating statements, not on Ms. Williams’s testimony.

“The ironic part of this whole thing is that we were criticized by Ms. Williams and her supporters for allowing the defendants to take plea agreements,” Mr. Abraham said, adding that the reason he offered plea agreements was that he was skeptical of Ms. Williams’s testimony.

At an early-evening news conference at his office here, Mr. Potts added that Ms. Williams had made up the story to reap revenge on a boyfriend who had beaten her up. Ms. Williams is coming forward because she no longer wants to live a lie, Mr. Potts said.

The recantation builds on an interview Ms. Williams gave in January to The Call and Post, a newspaper in Cleveland, in which she said she had indeed been abused in the trailer. But she said her mother, whom she feared, had made her embellish the story for financial gain. Ms. Williams’s mother, Carmen Williams, died in June.

Mr. Abraham said that Ms. Williams’s initial police report corresponded with the physical evidence and crime scene. “But then,” he said, “Ms. Williams began talking to the media, and her story grew and changed, and that is when we stopped relying on anything she said.”

Ms. Williams, who is black, had said the beatings sometimes involved racial epithets. Many civil rights leaders were critical of the prosecutor’s offer of plea agreements to the defendants, all of whom are white, and his pursuit of hate-crime charges against only one of them.

The Rev. Al Sharpton addressed a 2007 rally against hate crimes in Charleston and gave $1,000 to Ms. Williams’s family as a Christmas gift.

Mr. Sharpton said Wednesday that he had sent a letter to the current Logan County prosecutor, John Bennett, asking him to look into Ms. Williams’s new statement. “If the prosecution depended on something Ms. Williams said that she is now saying is false, the prosecutor needs to reopen this case,” Mr. Sharpton said. “And I told Ms. Williams exactly that.”

Those charged with the crimes against Ms. Williams, who now lives in Columbus, may have been easy targets for such accusations because they had a history of violent crime.

At the time of the alleged assaults, Ms. Williams was staying at a ramshackle trailer owned by Bobby Brewster and his mother, Frankie Brewster, in Logan County, about 50 miles from Charleston. Mr. Brewster had killed his stepfather at the trailer when he was 12, the authorities said, and served time at a juvenile facility. In July 1994, Mrs. Brewster shot and killed an 84-year-old woman she was looking after, also in the trailer, according to court records. She served six years at a state correctional facility and was paroled in 2000.

The police discovered Ms. Williams at the trailer in September 2007 after receiving an anonymous tip that she was being held captive. Ms. Williams later told the police she had been stabbed, sexually assaulted, beaten with sticks, forced to eat human feces and doused with hot water.

But in correspondence with The New York Times starting in February 2008, one of the accused offered a more complicated picture of life at the trailer.

In a letter in March 2008, that person, Alisha Burton, wrote that Ms. Williams had been held captive but only after a romantic relationship with Mr. Brewster took a turn for the worse.

“At the end, Frankie and her son, Bobby, would take turns pushing the chair by the door and sleeping there at night,” Ms. Burton wrote. “They made sure she wouldn’t go get the help she needed when she was cut by Bobby. She was held there for a week after she was cut by Bobby and Frankie B. b/c they was scared someone would get the law.”

Ms. Burton confirmed that Mr. Brewster had beaten Ms. Williams, but rejected the notion that the abuse was a hate crime, since Ms. Williams and Mr. Brewster had dated for months.

*JR*
Oct 22nd, 2009, 04:06 PM
BOMBSHELL: "Victim" recants story of rape and torture

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/22/us/22abuse.html

COLUMBUS, Ohio...

The Rev. Al Sharpton addressed a 2007 rally against hate crimes in Charleston and gave $1,000 to Ms. Williams’s family as a Christmas gift.

Mr. Sharpton said Wednesday that he had sent a letter to the current Logan County prosecutor, John Bennett, asking him to look into Ms. Williams’s new statement. “If the prosecution depended on something Ms. Williams said that she is now saying is false, the prosecutor needs to reopen this case,” Mr. Sharpton said. “And I told Ms. Williams exactly that.”
Thanks Rev, now maybe you can get Tawana Brawley to own up to her deception too.