Join 3,440 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Not a Hate Crime
November 9, 2006 1:30 PM   Subscribe

In Long Beach, CA on Halloween, some twenty-five young men surrounded and attacked three women on the street while yelling racial epithets. The women were hospitalized with "severe injuries." This is not a hate crime. Nor is it newsworthy?
posted by Methylviolet (83 comments total)

 
The story says the prosecutor has not yet filed hate crime charges, but says he will if he can prove them.

BTW, I have a nice, used jumping-to-conclusions mat I can sell you.
posted by dhartung at 1:33 PM on November 9, 2006


I wouldn't classify it as a hate crime. It is, however, a product of hundreds of years of hate crimes, but it was not part of an organized effort. There is a difference.
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 1:39 PM on November 9, 2006


Yah, based on reading the article, it seems like the prosecutor is concentrating on stuff he can prove at the moment.

The idea that we have hate crimes is terrible. Isn't the crime itself bad enough?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:47 PM on November 9, 2006


> It is, however, a product of hundreds of years of
> hate crimes, but it was not part of an organized
> effort. There is a difference.

You mean black rage?
posted by elmwood at 1:49 PM on November 9, 2006


posted by strangeleftydoublethink

You weren't kidding.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 1:49 PM on November 9, 2006


It's my impression that hate crime statutes were created as a tool to use when local law enforcement refuses to act, like a "Mississippi Burning" type scenario. Now it seems that people want to apply it to any situation that arises where a racial slur is involved.

I'm torn, because it's my gut instinct to say "Get the racist!", but it's a troubling path to go down.
posted by 2sheets at 1:50 PM on November 9, 2006


Hate crime legislation comes too close to thought crime legislation.

And it's stupid: attacking me because I look like an easy victim shouldn't be rewarded with a lesser punishment than for attacking me for my ethnicity.
posted by orthogonality at 1:56 PM on November 9, 2006


Yes, 2sheets, that has become the problem with the hate crime classification. If you tell me you're Irish while we're at a bar, and I say, "I hate the Irish," and slug you, that is not a hate crime, even if you are a woman and I'm black.

If I'm part of any organized effort, let's say a group that is trying to keep Jews out of their Catholic neighborhood, and I attack you, then it's a hate crime.

Perhaps, some of these attackers were part of a Nation of Islam type group. Perhaps they spoke to the crowd to work them up to attack the white women. Perhaps then it might fall into the realm of hate crime.

Study history. It helps clarify things.

Yes, Armitage, I'm not kidding.
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 1:58 PM on November 9, 2006


Hate crime legislation comes too close to thought crime legislation.

Ortho wins the prize.
posted by xmutex at 2:00 PM on November 9, 2006


I live in Long Beach, CA. In fact, I live on Linden Ave. I had not heard about this until a friend mentioned it to me this morning.

That for me is the point of interest in this story. Isn't this newsworthy? If the races of the victims and their attackers had been the same, wouldn't you think this would have made the news as a particularly horrifying bit of random mob violence? If the races had been reversed, do you think this would have been a non-story then?
posted by Methylviolet at 2:04 PM on November 9, 2006


orthagonality- there's lots of thoughtcrime that we recognize. The difference between murder and manslaughter is intent. We exonerate the criminally insane and the mentally deficient. We even convict people of conspiracy- whether an actual crime is committed.

The question is whether society has an interest in disproportionately weighting the punishment for this kind of crime based on the attacker's motivations. I'd suggest that there is a need to do this, as racist behavior tends to be extremely destructive to society- more damaging than a simple assault would have been.
posted by jenkinsEar at 2:04 PM on November 9, 2006 [1 favorite]


Nine girls and a boy -- ranging in age between 12 and 17 -- were arraigned Friday on three counts each of felony assault with a deadly weapon with the intent to cause great bodily harm, the Long Beach Press-Telegram reported.

...

some twenty-five young men

Which is it?
posted by maxreax at 2:08 PM on November 9, 2006


Just don't call it "wilding".

Hate crimes are thoughtcrimes because they make criminal what would otherwise be protected speech (or thought, I suppose) under the First Amendment.

While mens rea, or loosely 'intent' is part of the crime, motive is not. Hate crimes render criminal certain motivations for other crimes that are seperately punished. The problem here is that it becomes too easy to prosecute hate crimes when the hate motive is directed one way but not another.
posted by Pastabagel at 2:10 PM on November 9, 2006


Nor is it newsworthy?

Axed and answered.
posted by hal9k at 2:13 PM on November 9, 2006


Whatever you think about hate crime laws, this would certainly seem to fall under them. Not, strangelefty, how hate crime laws perhaps should be, but hate crime laws as they are now.

I am amazed that this debate has not happened in a wider forum than MeFi. When you contrast this incident with other racially-charged mob incidents -- like the Duke University rape case (op-ed) -- the silence is disturbing.
posted by Methylviolet at 2:15 PM on November 9, 2006


Hate crime legislation comes too close to thought crime legislation.

No, it doesn't. Thoughtcrime legislation would directly identify a particular thought as criminal behavior. Hate crime legislation identifies particular criminal behaviors as more morally repugnant than others. Its not a crime to hate someone who is of a different race; it is a special type of crime to assault someone who is of a different race on the basis of that hatred.

And it's stupid: attacking me because I look like an easy victim shouldn't be rewarded with a lesser punishment than for attacking me for my ethnicity.

Well, we make distinctions regarding choice of victims all the time. If you kill a police officer or a child, in some jurisdictions you will suffer a stiffer sentence than if you kill some random adult. We can debate the legitimacy of these distinctions on a case-by-case basis, but there are precedents for doing so.

Plus, what jenkinsEar said.
posted by googly at 2:15 PM on November 9, 2006


What you niggas know about the Dirty South?

See life's a bitch then you figure out
Why you really got dropped in the Dirty South
See in the 3rd grade this is what you told
You was bought, you was sold
Now they sayin' Juice left some heads cracked
I betcha Jedd Clampett want his money back
posted by four panels at 2:19 PM on November 9, 2006


"If the races had been reversed, do you think this would have been a non-story then?"

I think we all know the answer to that. If the races had been reversed there would have been weeks of nationwide coverage,marches/protests and federal prosecutors mauling each other to to be the one to file civil rights charges on top of the state assault and hate crimes charges.

Sad, but true.
posted by MikeMc at 2:19 PM on November 9, 2006


Hate crime legislation was intended to focus on organized action against citizens with protected status. It was a signal to organized hate groups that any crimes they committed would be severly punished.
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 2:22 PM on November 9, 2006


Hate crime laws aren't needed if we get serious prosecutions of violent crimes against already marginalized classes of victims. That seems to be the case here, so I don't feel any outrage at all about the lack of "hate crime" charges.
posted by mediareport at 2:22 PM on November 9, 2006


Hate crime legislation identifies particular criminal behaviors as more morally repugnant than others.

First, you can't legislate morality.

Second, this is as close to the definition of thoughtcrime as you will get in the real world. You're confusing beating someone because they are RaceX with simply beating them. Beating is always morally repugnant. It doesn't matter why you do it.

Now, on a case by cases basis you can adjust sentences one way or the other, but to have a general rule that a crime motivated by race (not hate, but race) is worse than the exact same crime with a different motivation is an injustice, because you are criminalizing the motivation.

It was a signal to organized hate groups that any crimes they committed would be severly punished.
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 5:22 PM EST on November 9


Those crimes would be punished anyway, wouldn't they? But what you are really saying is that hate groups are special and deserve harsher treatment under the law simply because of their beliefs/politics.
posted by Pastabagel at 2:28 PM on November 9, 2006


god yes.

Imagine two crimes which are mechanically identical (means, methods, time, general location etc etc etc) but are different *only* in that it can be proved one was motivated by racism and the other by general or random hate. Somehow one is worse than the other depending on what you're thinking and saying while you commit the crime? Seems like "thought crime" to me....
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 2:35 PM on November 9, 2006


Not simply because of their politics/beliefs but because of actions incurred from those politics beliefs. Again, there is a difference. See also: lynching, Ku Klux Klan, etc. They can believe whatever they want, but when they take action, it isn't a normal crime, it is intended to intimidate an entire class of people.
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 2:35 PM on November 9, 2006


i read ortho's comment and skipped to the end. I just finished reading the rest of the thread and i guess you guys have been over this. ::sheepish:: ill just be taking back my two cents now.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 2:40 PM on November 9, 2006


the problem with hate crime laws is that, like mandatory minimums, they hinder the ability of judges to make decisions based on the facts of the case. Judges have always been free to consider the motivation behind a crime in sentencing.

as for "hate groups," if they conspire to commit crimes against certain groups that is what conspiracy and "RICO" laws are for. Hatred is not legal. It's a short trip from labelling gangs "hate groups" to making it illegal to be in a gang, to suddenly any black male seen on the street wearing the wrong color in the wrong neighborhood goes straight to jail.

also, in my mind, hate crimes are horrible, but a murder committed because of hate is actually MORE excusable than, for example, one committed in cold blood for money.
posted by drjimmy11 at 2:46 PM on November 9, 2006


"hatred is not illegal" that is
posted by drjimmy11 at 2:47 PM on November 9, 2006


Oh, murder and robbery is less than murder. That's logical.
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 2:50 PM on November 9, 2006


You don't have to be part of an organization to be guilty of a hate crime, at least not in Washington State.

When I lived in Olympia (I think it was 1995), a young gay man was severely beaten by a Fort Lewis soldier just outside of Thekla, an alternative dance club with a largely gay clientele. The victim and assailant had never met; the assailant assualted the victim because he was coming out of a "gay bar". The soldier, who frequently harrassed people leaving Thekla, was charged with a hate crime, which resulted in a mandatory minimum sentence, resulting in his discharge for going AWOL.
posted by owhydididoit at 2:51 PM on November 9, 2006


Whoops. Got that backward. You weren't saying that. Sorry, drjimmy11.
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 2:52 PM on November 9, 2006


ill just be taking back my two cents now.

Nice try, too bad there's a one cent charge just for playing.
posted by Hicksu at 2:52 PM on November 9, 2006


Hate crime legislation comes too close to thought crime legislation.

It's no diffrent then treating hommicide and manslaughter diffrently. If a person kills another, should it matter if it was an accident or a pre-planned murder?
posted by Paris Hilton at 2:53 PM on November 9, 2006


googly : "No, it doesn't. Thoughtcrime legislation would directly identify a particular thought as criminal behavior. Hate crime legislation identifies particular criminal behaviors as more morally repugnant than others."

Yes and no. If person A punches person B for no reason, they will receive sentence C. If they punch person B for their ethnicity/et al, they will receive sentence C plus alpha. Their thought is not itself criminal behaviour. However, the criminal behaviour is the same in both cases: punching someone. It is not a different behaviour because it has a different motivation, so it's fairer to say that hate crime legislation identifies criminal behaviours based on particular thoughts as more morally repugnant than identical criminal behaviours not based on particular thoughts.

Similar thing with buying poppies, AFAIK. It's legal to buy poppies if you don't know that opium and heroin can be made from them, but if you are aware that it can be made from them, even if you don't intend to make them, it's a crime. Actually knowing where heroin comes from is not, in itself, a crime. And buying poppies is not, in itself, a crime. But combining the two becomes a crime.
posted by Bugbread at 2:54 PM on November 9, 2006


Hate crimes are thoughtcrimes because they make criminal what would otherwise be protected speech (or thought, I suppose) under the First Amendment.

Were it not for Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, you might be right.
posted by anotherpanacea at 2:55 PM on November 9, 2006


"Nine girls and a boy -- ranging in age between 12 and 17 -- were arraigned Friday on three counts each of felony assault with a deadly weapon with the intent to cause great bodily harm, the Long Beach Press-Telegram reported.

...

some twenty-five young men

Which is it?
"

The girls who were attacked said other suspects were still at large; there's no reason both statements couldn't be true.

And, in the race to, well, make this about race, I hope this isn't overlooked:

A passerby -- who was also black -- went into the mob and drew the attackers off of the girls, the Press-Telegram reported.

"He went in there and started taking people off the dog pile," Long Beach police Sgt. David Cannan told the Los Angeles Times. "That guy was able to go in and do something others couldn't do. He stepped in. I hope he gets some recognition."

posted by availablelight at 2:57 PM on November 9, 2006


I've never understood why people get so up in arms about hate crimes but the tortured logic is by far the most curious.

Imagine two crimes which are mechanically identical (means, methods, time, general location etc etc etc) but are different *only* in that it can be proved one was motivated by racism and the other by general or random hate. Somehow one is worse than the other depending on what you're thinking and saying while you commit the crime? .

Same two crimes and circumstances, except one is planned for months, and the other comes from a fit of rage. Why is the former murder and the latter voluntary manslaughter? Are we not punishing people for "what they are thinking and saying" before they commit the crime?

If one is opposed to hate crime legislation, why not also be opposed to all legislative grading of intentional crimes?
posted by allen.spaulding at 3:02 PM on November 9, 2006


First, you can't legislate morality.

A phrase coined by anti-segregationists, by the way.

Second, this is as close to the definition of thoughtcrime as you will get in the real world.

Try living in North Korea.

Somehow one is worse than the other depending on what you're thinking and saying while you commit the crime? Seems like "thought crime" to me....

Who cares? It's obvious that it's not what Orwell was thinking of in 1984. In the book thoughtcrime was a crime based only on what one thought. Hate Crime laws punish people for the combination of their thoughts and the actions motivated by those thoughts.
posted by Paris Hilton at 3:09 PM on November 9, 2006


I'm totally with ortho on this one. Following up on Pastabagel's intent/motive distinction, however, I could see a justification for hate crime prosecutions in the narrowly-defined instances where the criminal action was determined to have been intended to threaten or intimidate other members of the victim's subpopulation.

Thus e.g., burning a cross in someone's yard would be a felony hate crime, not just a misdemeanor destruction of property, but the fact that someone happened to be expressing a (repugnant, bigoted, ignorant) constitutionally-protected opinion while they were committing a crime wouldn't open them up to larger penalties than if they'd just kept their dumb yapper shut.
posted by Doofus Magoo at 3:16 PM on November 9, 2006


“"Everyone should be outraged, regardless of race," she said. “

I suppose then the “thoughtcrime” element depends on who you aim the outrage at.
The hate crime thing seems more akin to the RICO laws - in that they are geared to target organizational violence, injustice, etc.
Of course, how that plays out socially is a different story.
I mean who should be the target of the outrage? Who gets the payback? All black people? Just these morans? My outrage is leaning toward the poor police response time (so they just patrol with helicopters or what?), such that some good samaritan has to get involved. It’s a block party on Halloween, with a haunted house, with teenagers all over the place. There’s no one on that beat?
posted by Smedleyman at 3:29 PM on November 9, 2006 [1 favorite]


Good distinction, bugbread. I stand corrected.

Also, I don't agree with the rather strange suggestion that someone who assaults someone because of their race is "expressing their opinion," and thus shouldn't be penalized because such speech is protected.

Seems like a specious argument to me. By this logic, someone who rapes a nine-year-old could argue that they are "expressing the opinion" that its ok to have sex with children. Someone who assassinates a political leader is "expressing the opinion" that they disagree with that person's policies. And so forth, ad nauseum.

Saying "I hate race X" is expressing an opinion. Writing it in an editorial is expressing an opinion. Marching down Main Street carrying posters saying so is expressing an opinion. All should be constitutionally protected forms of speech.

Arbitrarily killing someone of race X as a result of this opinion has moved it into the realm of action, not opinion.
posted by googly at 3:44 PM on November 9, 2006


Hate crime legislation comes too close to thought crime legislation.

I really wish people who don't know what hate crime legislation is would stop being so angry at it.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 4:10 PM on November 9, 2006


I cannot fathom how white people ever managed to survive in such an unfair society.
posted by srboisvert at 4:27 PM on November 9, 2006 [2 favorites]


Is anyone saying anything like that, srboisvert?
posted by Snyder at 4:36 PM on November 9, 2006


allen.spaulding : Same two crimes and circumstances, except one is planned for months, and the other comes from a fit of rage. Why is the former murder and the latter voluntary manslaughter? Are we not punishing people for "what they are thinking and saying" before they commit the crime?

I don't disagree with you, but my question is why do we need the additional modifier for assaults? A racially motivated preplanned homicide is still first degree murder regardless of the color of the participants. A guy taking a swing at another because he is a different color is still battery. For crimes where bodily harm is done, make the penalties high enough that it doesn't matter if it's a hate or non hate related crime.

On the other hand, a place where I think hate crime legislation does have a good use, is for modifying something that wouldn't normally carry a high penalty.

I'll use Doofus Magoo's example of burning a cross. Without hate crime laws this would be tresspassing and maybe lighting a fire without a permit. A really dedicated prosecutor might be able to get attempted arson.

But clearly a burning cross is meant to convey something special. It's intimidation combined with the force multiplier of a symbol that has a very specific history. White people hanging black people for the crime of being black.

If I, as a white guy light a tire on fire and toss it on my black neighbors lawn, I'm clearly an asshole. But not an asshole who through the use of clearly defined symbolism is saying "given half a chance, I'd lynch you". This is where a hate crime law is useful. It is able to address things that are clearly threats, but not in and of themselves criminal.
posted by quin at 4:46 PM on November 9, 2006


I cannot fathom how white people ever managed to survive in such an unfair society.

Is anyone saying anything like that, srboisvert?

Well, Methylviolet seems to be hung up on a few points. First, that Methylviolet's local media have been remiss in not bringing this incident to Methylviolet's attention. Second, that there is something intentional and noteworthy about the prosecutor -- who has stated he will do so if he can prove it -- not immediately charging the individuals with hate-crime intensifiers on top of the felony assault charges. Third, that there is a "disturbing silence" about this crime and others like it in contrast to the Duke rape case and others like it. We're supposed to intuit, of course, that Methylviolet is concerned we only apply hate crime laws against whites -- the reason we must intuit this is that Methylviolet could never come out and say this directly.

In fact, Methylviolet is sounding quite a bit like a white nationalist troll. I would hope there is a better explanation for this. But it's very much in tune with the whine that somehow minority criminals get a free ride in our wonderful system, despite all statistics demonstrating conclusively otherwise.
posted by dhartung at 5:15 PM on November 9, 2006


If you’ve got a problem with race X, you’ve got a problem with me
posted by Smedleyman at 5:24 PM on November 9, 2006


The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

The swing in the 90's towards addressing hate crime was and is part of the affirmative action brigade.

The truth is that the public increasingly feels a discord with the truth and the "truth" about racial and other "hate' violence.

When you don't hold, such as in this case, blacks accountable for their actions, another equally testosterone driven group of white males (or latino, asian, etc) will go and seek revenge against innocents that share the same skin color as the original attackers.

By not holding these black males accountable for their actions in the same way that any other racial group would be held accountable actually devalues blacks in general - it encourages a line of reasoning that makes blacks out to be simply testosterone driven neandratols.

My honest initial reaction was extreme anger. Next, extreme anger at society for letting our retarded utopian ideals get in the way of real justice, education and tolerance.

We aren't EVER going to all get along. It will NEVER happen. Never. Using real world facts, and straying away from college campus B.S. is the only true way that we can be pragmatic about the truth behind racial and lifestyle devides.

For instance, white girls *should* be scared of walking around in sexy outfits around large groups of non-homogonous groups. Hell, they should be scared even around groups of white guys - but they should FEAR FOR THEIR LIVES when they are around 25 black testosterone driven males.

Is that racist for me to say? I don't think so.
posted by Milliken at 5:35 PM on November 9, 2006


The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

The swing in the 90's towards addressing hate crime was and is part of the affirmative action brigade.

The truth is that the public increasingly feels a discord with the truth and the "truth" about racial and other "hate' violence.

When you don't hold, such as in this case, blacks accountable for their actions, another equally testosterone driven group of white males (or latino, asian, etc) will go and seek revenge against innocents that share the same skin color as the original attackers.

By not holding these black males accountable for their actions in the same way that any other racial group would be held accountable actually devalues blacks in general - it encourages a line of reasoning that makes blacks out to be simply testosterone driven neandratols.

My honest initial reaction was extreme anger. Next, extreme anger at society for letting our retarded utopian ideals get in the way of real justice, education and tolerance.

We aren't EVER going to all get along. It will NEVER happen. Never. Using real world facts, and straying away from college campus B.S. is the only true way that we can be pragmatic about the truth behind racial and lifestyle devides.

For instance, white girls *should* be scared of walking around in sexy outfits around large groups of non-homogonous groups. Hell, they should be scared even around groups of white guys - but they should FEAR FOR THEIR LIVES when they are around 25 black testosterone driven males.

Is that racist for me to say? I don't think so.
posted by Milliken at 5:36 PM on November 9, 2006


also, why are you all so pedantic in these types of discussions? instead of talking aobut the elephant in the room, you all argue about whether the linens are indian cotton or not.
posted by Milliken at 5:41 PM on November 9, 2006


It seems a woolly mammoth just walked in.
posted by fish tick at 6:04 PM on November 9, 2006


OH NOES! The affirmative action brigade done it again! won't anyone stop their evil crusade for racial equality?!?
posted by anotherpanacea at 6:24 PM on November 9, 2006


(less pedantic, amirite?)
posted by anotherpanacea at 6:25 PM on November 9, 2006


Yes! Ding ding ding! Dhartung almost has it. I'm a violet supremacist troll.

Apparently there is considerable debate about whether hate crime is a valid concept. That's not why I thought this incident was FPP-worthy.

I thought it was significant that this didn't get wider coverage, that even I, someone who lives on that street, did not hear about it until now. Am I really supposed to conclude that the beating of innocent women (racially-motivated or not) by a mob is not unusual enough to make the news? I won't believe it. Why then should something like the Duke rape case elicit a huge outcry -- racism bad! -- but this be a non-story?

Rationally we all know it is human nature to form in-groups and out-groups. No one can say he is free of prejudice, he can only keep working to overcome it. We know that, right? It appears to me inescapable that the reason this incident was not more widely publicized, as it would have been if race were not in it, is that black racism is just impossible to discuss. Why?

I don't know. If you do, tell me.
posted by Methylviolet at 6:28 PM on November 9, 2006


Is that racist for me to say?

Probably. Would you also say that black girls walking around in sexy outfits should FEAR FOR THEIR LIVES when they are around 25 white testosterone driven males?
posted by owhydididoit at 6:35 PM on November 9, 2006


anotherpanacea:

hopefully. it has done nothing to heal the racial divide - it has only encouraged catering to halfwits simply because they are of a particular racial or cultural upbrininging.

humans are very poor at making socially constructive decisions. we base our policy on emotional response rather than rational detailed analysis of the facts.

your comment unmasks your ignorance of the facts, anotherpanacea, and does nothing to address the backlash that we are (and will see more of in the future) seeing starting to begin in the white, black, asian and latino communities.

affirmative actions had its heart in the right place. just like communism, is doesn't work in the real world.
posted by Milliken at 6:35 PM on November 9, 2006


ohwhydididoit:

actually, i would fear for the safety of the 25 white males to be honest.
posted by Milliken at 6:37 PM on November 9, 2006


your comment unmasks your ignorance of the facts...

Please tell me more! Do you have a newsletter that I can subscribe to?
posted by anotherpanacea at 6:38 PM on November 9, 2006


anotherpanacea:

well, you are quite astute! a simpsons reference is the equivalent of gold in my mind.

and yes, you may subscribe to my newsletter.

just tell me your address and name, i'll be sure to get it out to you.
posted by Milliken at 6:41 PM on November 9, 2006


The swing in the 90's towards addressing hate crime was and is part of the affirmative action brigade.

Oh, you poor poor opressed white people!

When you don't hold, such as in this case, blacks accountable for their actions, another equally testosterone driven group of white males (or latino, asian, etc) will go and seek revenge against innocents that share the same skin color as the original attackers.

Not held accountable? Wtf are you on? This just happened a day ago, and in order to prosecute under the hate crime laws you have to prove that they were racially motivated, not that someone threw in a few race-based insults while committing some other crime.

We aren't EVER going to all get along. It will NEVER happen. Never. Using real world facts, and straying away from college campus B.S. is the only true way that we can be pragmatic about the truth behind racial and lifestyle devides.

Yeah! For example, black men love to rape white women, right? Is that the kind of "lifestyle devide[sic]" you're talking about?

Is that racist for me to say? I don't think so.

It's totally racist.

affirmative actions had its heart in the right place. just like communism, is doesn't work in the real world.

Idiot.
posted by Paris Hilton at 6:44 PM on November 9, 2006


Paris Hilton:

tell it to your gay black disabled college professor.

im classist, not racist.

oh, and just to piss you off a little bit more:

i have lots of black friends!
posted by Milliken at 6:48 PM on November 9, 2006


Paris:

your tactics scream of ignorance. you think you know it all, eh? if only there was a pill that everybody could take, and we could all just get along, right?

there is a silent majority who bend to your types of tactics - name calling and insults work on most. not me.

nothing that i have said is outside of the bounds of reasonable, intelligent discourse.

rather than discuss, point for point (with examples) you decide to poop in your hand, take aim and toss your shit at my face.

take the time to consider that your background heavily influences your emotional response to comments such as mine, and you have made the great human error of mistaking a rational response (yours) with a highly charged, very ignorant emotionally charged poop tossing contest.
posted by Milliken at 6:53 PM on November 9, 2006


Paris:

Also, if the tables were turned, and 25 whites attacked 3 black women, the whites males would already have been charged with hate crimes, even without the "proof" that the DA says that it is seeking.

Hate Crime charges have not been brought against these males yet because of politics and public safety. if charges arent brought (hate charges) it will likely be because of fear of reprisal from the black community.
posted by Milliken at 6:57 PM on November 9, 2006


Paris Hilton:

Also, your pedantic meanderings into pointing out a typo inside of what you consider to be a dated term does nothing but highlight my earlier comment regarding those damn linens.

IM SORRY I MISPLLED! PWND!
posted by Milliken at 7:06 PM on November 9, 2006


Tangental thought, but I think it will come back around:
What exactly does one yell at a complete stranger once you start beating the ever-loving snot out of them? I mean, assuming that this particular assault was truly spur-of-the-moment and that the assailants knew absolutely nothing about the victims, including socio-economic status, school or sports team affiliation, etc...

Hmm. Something like, "Take that!! You, whose racial or ethnic identity I will not infer based on physical characteristics or generally reinforced stereotypes! How you like this stompin' on your possibly rich-or-poor ass, whose color I choose not to disclose?!"

Anyways. Guess what I'm saying it's not unusual to have to yell something whilst handing out samples of knuckle sammich. They obviously used adjectives that were easily available to describe the subject of their physically abusive sentence. I'm definitely not defending them or what they did, but really, anything that the mouth vomits out in the heat of the moment, I don't believe, should be treated as an indication of the true motivation. But because of the way this was reported, that's what is being floated as "evidence" in the (hate?) crime which we are now debating.

We don't know enough right now whether this truly was racially motivated. But now, since those violent idiots did say those things, all they've done is give investigators an excuse to rummage through their closets and myspace accounts, and now any little details that start forming into patterns are going to add up to, hopefully, harsher repercussions.

And on preview: the elephant is getting emotional. Whee.
posted by krippledkonscious at 7:18 PM on November 9, 2006 [1 favorite]


this is what a hate crime is or means.

Crime of aggravated assault, arson, burglary, criminal homicide, motor vehicle theft, robbery, sex offenses, and/or crime involving bodily injury in which the victim was intentionally selected because of the victims' actual or perceived race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or disability.
posted by jessmode at 7:36 PM on November 9, 2006


By not holding these black males accountable for their actions in the same way that any other racial group would be held accountable actually devalues blacks in general.

The judicial system is ALL ABOUT treating black males in the same way as other racial groups so this is a great point. That's sarcasm.

Also, if the tables were turned, and 25 whites attacked 3 black women, the whites males would already have been charged with hate crimes, even without the "proof" that the DA says that it is seeking.

It must be awesome to have the ability to know, and with such certainty, the outcome of hypothetical situations. Also sarcasm.

For instance, white girls *should* be scared of walking around in sexy outfits around large groups of non-homogonous groups. Hell, they should be scared even around groups of white guys - but they should FEAR FOR THEIR LIVES when they are around 25 black testosterone driven males.

You're an idiot.

What makes a hate crime a hate crime is whether the crime was motivated by hatred of the victim's "membership" in a group. I'm assuming that the prosecutor is trying to determine if they attacked the girls because of their whiteness. For some reason, getting proof of a crime before charging people with it is standard practice.
posted by eunoia at 7:51 PM on November 9, 2006


eunoia:

so it's racist to point out racism?

white women *should* be scared of 25 black males. sorry, it's true. would you tell your daughter to be "tolerant" and not be scared of a situation like this?

fine. so be it - your daughter can live in a la-la land.

in the narrow definition of this particular law, no - blacks and minorities are *not* treated equally under the law, they are given the judicial equivalent of affirmative action, whereas whites under the same statutes are guilty until proven innocent.

a little talked about phenomena that has been going on for a long time now is the "reverse racism" (just racism) that exists in the black and latino communities.

you want to tell me that it's safe for a white to walk in a black neighborhood? sure - a black might get the cops called on him / her, but guess what? they aren't likely to end up bruised and beaten (or worse).

to start addressing the double standards that exist on both sides of the issue, you have to first address your own intrenched bias one way or the other.

impoverished and uneducated black men more likely to commit violent crimes. dispute this. sure, there are some of you who will say that this is because they cant afford lawyers, that it's sanctioned racism because the rich white guy can buy his way out of trouble. well, so can rich blacks.

the problem isn't the color of their skin, it's that they unify based on the color of their skin and keep their own communities down, regardless of outside help.

as long as we sit arguing the details (linens) we will *never* get to the straight dope of it all: the victim mentality will always create more victims.

also, these guys deserve to be put away for the rest of their lives.
posted by Milliken at 8:47 PM on November 9, 2006


I don't have a daughter, but I would advise my niece to comport herself thoughtfully whenever sexily clad and vastly outnumbered by men of any "race".
posted by owhydididoit at 9:43 PM on November 9, 2006


I did not mean to in any way construe that the victims of the crime mentioned in the post itself were in any way complicit in their own assault. My point was that this argument is racist.
posted by owhydididoit at 9:47 PM on November 9, 2006



actually, i would fear for the safety of the 25 white males to be honest.


So, to recap: white girls around large groups of black men should fear for their lives, but black girls can totally defend themselves against large groups of men, and in fact would threaten them instead?

You say you're not racist, but when you make such stupid and offensive generalizations, it's hard to believe you.
posted by Oobidaius at 9:52 PM on November 9, 2006


Stupid. Offensive. Racist. Nice bait, Milliken.
posted by mrgrimm at 10:19 PM on November 9, 2006


Milliken : "also, why are you all so pedantic in these types of discussions?"

That's the way I'm built. It's like saying "Why do you humans breath using your lungs instead of gills?"
posted by Bugbread at 10:40 PM on November 9, 2006


back to maxreax's point, it is significant that 90% of those arrested for this attack were female and under the age of 17.

granted, there are three adult males who are still at large and being sought, and from the sounds of it there were other males involved... but again, 90% of those arrested were, essentially, girls... that gives the attack a somewhat different tenor than is suggested by milliken and methylviolet. i'm curious why their posts are framed that way, specifically.

as for whether it's a hate crime, paris hilton makes an excellent point -- intent is a significant element of any crime, as any first year law student can tell you. why shouldn't intent be considered in these or other hate-based attacks? this is not thoughtcrime, but rather crime that has an intent factor that aggravates its seriousness.
posted by Hat Maui at 10:51 PM on November 9, 2006


actually, second-year law students are better able to tell you that, since criminal law is usually taught then.
posted by Hat Maui at 10:53 PM on November 9, 2006


I'm getting criminal law in my first semester at law school, so this is good practice, I guess. I wonder when I learn the myriad of ways that the legal system is biased against whites, because I can't wait. One day I aspire to be see past the honkey linens, Milliken, give me time.
posted by allen.spaulding at 11:08 PM on November 9, 2006


er, to be able to see
posted by allen.spaulding at 11:08 PM on November 9, 2006


haha.

it's clear that 90% of the occupants of this plane are high on the university ether that is the university lifestyle.

when you are in the real world, please get back to all of us who have practical experience with it.

i am friends with plenty of older new england liberals and, while tolerant, their experience (by far) has been disappointment with the solutions laid out in the civil rights movement of the 60's.

we have a real problem! this attack is the tip of the iceburg. if you all want to clamor to point out the inequity of the "discriminated against white man" with severe sarcasm, you can also move yourselves forward to a time when, as you shall soon find out, the pendulum will swing back the other way, and racial violence and epithets are part of the norm.

after all, whites are *still* the majority, and any majority that gets pushed to its breaking point is not going to tolerate antiquated social policy for long.

instead of discussing the table linens, start talking about how it's *ok* to point out that blacks are being held back by the same institutions that held them back in the pre-civil rights era. lets talk about how blacks are pushed into a gangsta / thug lifestyle. lets discuss the high rate of criminality among those of the black persuasion.

oh, you don't want to? ok. lets talk about the evil white man.

i think those of you that call me ignorant need to take a look in the mirror.

when i bait you, i bait you to expose your programmic and emotional responses, you have an unwavering inability to see the forest for the trees, and whether you like it or not, the evil forces that you *think* you are fighting have homogonized your cause and used you against yourselves.

bitches.
posted by Milliken at 11:31 PM on November 9, 2006


Does this count as a flameout? Am I still only seeing the linens?
posted by allen.spaulding at 11:34 PM on November 9, 2006


man, it's too bad that milliken won't be with us for long. i'm really enjoying his pointed (hat) palaver.
posted by Hat Maui at 11:35 PM on November 9, 2006


God, I have such a desire to quote Blazing Saddles right now. Offensive? Sure. Racist? You bet. But this thread just screams out for it.

"Hey, where the white wimmin at?"

To paraphrase Milliken: I have lots of Mongo friends!

Metafilter: Just pawn in game of life.
posted by tzikeh at 11:48 PM on November 9, 2006


MeTa
posted by Methylviolet at 12:49 AM on November 10, 2006


I was told I could get some linens here?
posted by Swandive at 7:21 AM on November 10, 2006


white women *should* be scared of 25 black males. sorry, it's true. would you tell your daughter to be "tolerant" and not be scared of a situation like this?

Well, my daughter would be black, or at least mixed, taking my dating history into account, so I'm not qualified to answer this question.

to start addressing the double standards that exist on both sides of the issue, you have to first address your own intrenched bias one way or the other.

The only bias I have is against racist asshats who try to hide their racism under "debate." Oh, and maybe SUV drivers. I'm sorry, but it's true. I see someone behind the wheel of an SUV and, immediately, I sort of hate them. Unless they live in the mountains, of course. I'll try and be more tolerant. I promise.

These & the rest of your statements prove what I said earlier: You're an idiot.
posted by eunoia at 7:29 AM on November 10, 2006


Milliken - actually, i would fear for the safety of the 25 white males to be honest.

Other dude
-So, to recap: white girls around large groups of black men should fear for their lives, but black girls can totally defend themselves against large groups of men, and in fact would threaten them instead?
Me-
Black girls have the strength of 10 men, long claws, a poisonous bite, and gigantic asses with which to defend themselves you stupid racist fucks!
posted by Mister_A at 11:04 AM on November 10, 2006


« Older Why, God, Why?...  |  Steve McQueen, Steve McQueen, ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments