Katy Man charged with Hate Crime for Knocking Out Elderly Black Man

Yes, and that is precisely the point DaDakota can't seem to grasp. For example, if someone gets 10 years for assault, they would get 10+ if the hate element is added. In other words, the assaults are treated equally, but the assault based solely on hate has an added penalty.

 

Hate crime laws exist due to the history of white supremacy and anti-gay hatred in this country. Some are historical artifacts that exist because racist judges, juries, and prosecutors at the state level weren't enforcing the law. They were away to allow federal intervention in cases where the people who make up the local government were not treating people equally.

It is funny to see folks wanna be all kumbaya and color blind and not respect that these laws exist for legitimate reasons. Are they misused? Yes. Does it often appears unfair? Yes. But the unfairness of these laws is minuscule compared to the injustice they are designed to address. They are imperfect solutions to problems with no easy solution.

The utilitarian argument is the harm they do to the hegemonic group (whites) comes nowhere near the harm done to minorities in generals no the privileges the dominant class (whites) gets in general.

 

And I think that is wrong - I think that everyone deserves the same protections.

I grasp it fine, I think it is unconstitutional.

DD

 

Everyone DOES have the same protection. If you are beat up by a black guy simply because you are white, the hate element can be added to his charge.

 

What does it matter what color the skin is, isn't the crime simply enough?

Meh - I think it is devicive, and unconstitutional.

Apparently I am in the minority here....it's cool - you guys win.... !

Late.

DD

 

Is it common for the knockout game perps to get hate crime charges against them?

like all those in Chicago?

 

And here comes the expert on all things black.

 

he tried to make some sort of "statement" regarding media coverage.

he beat up an elderly black man, taped it, and bragged about it.

nice statement, Katy guy.


and to answer hypothetical questions, the NYPD is investigating several incidents and have already brought hate crime charges against an assailant in one of the incidents.

 

You're making the typical majority (white, straight) victimhood argument that somehow protections for minorities mean that majorities are discriminated against. That isn't the case especially when it comes to hate crime laws. They are applied to cases where the crime was committed out of particular bias towards that group. SO yes if someone where to target an Indian, Chinese or even White Anglo Saxon person just because they were that background that would constitute a hate crime.

I am not aware of any court rulings that have said that hate crime laws are unconstitutional and since they do apply equally I don't think that there is a basis for finding them so.

 

The hate crime distinction is essentially a description of the motive or circumstances around the crime. Using the logic in this thread that it is unconstitutional then so is the distinction of a "passion" murder vs. premeditated murder.

 

DD its not the principle of equality, its the reality of it. For that reason, a delineation of crimes as "Hate Crimes" needs to exist.

 

The issue is that, since slavery has ended and Jim Crow laws are off the books, discrimination/white supremacy is enforced/reproduced culturally and through informal means. You don't need laws to say give whites the benefit of the doubt or laws that tell security to follow black people as they shop or laws demanding black convicts get harsher sentences. It is in the culture itself; we don't need laws to protect white privilege. That is the unfairness.

It is hard to legislate against cultural practice. I find it disingenuous to nit pick over legislation designed to combat culturally hardened practices that we know exist. But that is the basis of majority victimhood -- argue the point in a vacuum.