Is this a federal hate crime?

[mr rosewater]

There are two differences.

First, in order to be a crime, harassing speech must be directed at the listener. One must intend that the listener hear the statement. In the case of flag burning, it would generally not be directed at anybody in particular. If I go to a rally and burn a flag, I generally don't do so with the intention of harassing you as you sit at home watching the rally on TV.

In this case, the authorities believe (and will have to prove) that the display of the nooses was directed at the individuals waiting for the bus. Just driving around with a noose probably isn't illegal. Driving back and forth so that these particular people saw the noose probably is.

There may be a case where flag burning is not protected speech. Imagine I know that you are deathly afraid of fire and that you are terrified of being set on fire. I come to your house, knock on your door and, when you open it, I set a flag on fire. Chances are I'm doing it with the intent that you view the act. This would probably make it a crime.

The second reason is that harassing speech must have no legitimate purpose. A person burning a flag at a rally probably does have a legitimate purpose for doing so. He may want to communicate the idea that the concept of freedom is more important even than the symbols of that freedom. That's an important social and political point (even if you disagree with it). Since the flag burning has the purpose of making a political statement, it is protected speech.

In the case of displaying a noose, there probably are many times where it is protected speech. "Black people should up and leave" is a political point of view, albeit a stupid one. However, in this case the authorities believe (and will have to prove) that the display of the nooses was meant for no purpose other than to alarm the people waiting for the bus. If so, it is not protected speech.

The same is true with me burning to flag on your porch. In that case, I don't really care about political freedoms, I only care about scaring you. That is a crime.

Yes had they gone on a protesters porch rang the bell and decorated nooses, hate crime aside what crimes would they have committed?
I really don't care for these two people but a good number of charges already exist, it would be nice if the judge could mete out some kind of creative justice, something that might really change their behaviour they are still rather young.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It turned out to have been one of the newly-transferred non-rates who was despondent over being dumped by his girlfriend in a 'Dear John' letter. He tied the noose up there to hang himself, but lost his nerve, thinking that he could come back later and either take it down or hang himself when he got his nerve back.

But think about the extent of the racist conspiracy if he had hanged himself?

 

[Dancing David]

If the sight of a noose alone is a threat and a hate crime, why not the sight of a KKK person?

Because a noose is a potential threat to hang someone, wearing white robes and silly handshakes are not.

The specific intent of a noose is different than the specific intent of a white robe.

 

[Dancing David]

And that's the crux of the matter. The drivers could have some other explanation but the reasonable presumption is that their intent was, in fact, to harass individuals because of their race.

And considering the history of dragging peole behind cars it has two implied threats.

 

[Dancing David]

That's the question, did he have hate on his mind, or is he an obnoxious fool who just wanted to irritate the protesters.

Not imporatant, if i threaten someone because I am stupid, it doesn't matter.

 

[Dancing David]

If it is just a matter of the noose how is that not protected speech (however offensive) in exactly the same way that flag burning is protected speech? I'm sure there are many who find flag burning just as deeply offensive. Just as I would defend anyone's right to burn THEIR flag. I would depend anyone's right to display THEIR noosed rope. Is that how it works - just how deeply offensive YOU OR I find their display that determines whether or not it is protected speech?

You are not free to threaten other people or intimidate other people.

 

[Dancing David]

WARNING: Strawmen examples follow.

So, a white man plans and carries out an assassination against another white man and it's "Murder in the First Degree." Plea bargaining gets it knocked down to "Murder in the Second Degree," and he gets paroled in less than 20 years.

Let a white man plan and carry out an assassination against a black man and not only is it "Murder in the First Degree," but the "Special Circumstance" of being a "Hate Crime" is added on, and the white man gets the maximum possible sentence.

A black man plans and carries out an assassination against a white man and it's plea-bargained down to "Murder in the Second Degree," or maybe his lawyer presents enough of a reasonable doubt that the murder was anything other than pre-emptive self-defense or a form of temporary insanity and he gets an acquittal or a severely reduced sentence (probation, anyone?).

...

I keep wondering things like, "Why did my cousin's murderer not get charged with a 'Hate Crime'?" My cousin was white, and his murderer was black. The murderer even had a tattoo that read "KILL WHITEY" on his bicep. He served 3 years on a lesser conviction, plus a "weapons violation," then skipped parole to live in another state.

Yet, a white guy waving a noose at a crowd of black people is charged with a 'Hate Crime' even though no one was physically hurt (Who said "Emotional duress"? Puh-leez ... gimme a break!)

(BTW: My cousin's murderer died of a speedball overdose.)

Sounds like the usual crap that happens in court. Pleas and barganing. What i hate is when they just sentence someone to go back on parole or incarcertae them on a probation violation.

Some people need to be tried on the cases against them, despite the cost to society and the court. Many perps commit serious offenses and then get out of them because they get sent back to 'finish' another sentence.

But back to the not really a straw man.

Gangsters can be charged with conspiracy for very minor things if the intent to is to indimidate or extort. Not all people get charged with a hate crime. let us also remeber the not so distant past, where local official had to be reminded of thier duty to all thier citizens.

Is spraying grafitti on a synagogue really that bad?