Is this a federal hate crime?

mr rosewater

Muse
M
Joined
May 31, 2004
Messages
610
Jeremiah Munsen, 18, and another individual allegedly conspired to intimidate African-American demonstrators at the Sept. 20 rally, crafting two nooses out of extension cords, attaching them to the back of the vehicle and repeatedly driving slowly by a group of marchers waiting at a bus depot to return to Tennessee, officials said.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,325307,00.html

A man was indicted on federal hate crime and conspiracy charges in connection with threatening marchers at a civil rights rally


repeatedly driving slowly by a group of marchers waiting at a bus depot to return to Tennessee, officials said.


These two bits conflict, and the story doesn't say if there was a verbal threat.
 
I know there was a discussion here about someone using the word "lynch" and how it was wrong to necessarily consider that to be racist but in this case I can't see how this can be seen as being anything but threatening. However I do still wish we didn't seem to need to tie laws against this type of behaviour to race/religion/creed/hair-colour and so on.
 
Sounds to me like they were making a racist statement. A political stance to which they have a right. Compare to the KKK's court protected right to march.

I would consider it a form of protected speech since they were not actual committing a violent act. Or was their driving slowly "inciting to commit road rage"?
 
casebro said:
Sounds to me like they were making a racist statement. A political stance to which they have a right. Compare to the KKK's court protected right to march.
Click to expand...
If the KKK marched with noose's in their hands, I doubt they'd continue to enjoy that constitutional protection.
 
casebro said:
Sounds to me like they were making a racist statement. A political stance to which they have a right. Compare to the KKK's court protected right to march.

I would consider it a form of protected speech since they were not actual committing a violent act. Or was their driving slowly "inciting to commit road rage"?
Click to expand...


Driving slowly past the protestors was not just "making a racist statement," it was making a statement to a group of people. The question becomes why the drivers were making a racist statement to a group of protestors waiting for their bus. Now, the drivers can say anything they want about why they were making that statement but the federal prosecutors have their own theory. They believe that the statements were made to intimidate, harass and annoy the protestors. If the prosecutors are right, the drivers are guilty of harrassment.

Now, if they set out to intimidate, harass and annoy the protestors because of their race, the underlying crime of harrassment increases to a hate crime.

Something that is not a crime to begin with cannot become a hate crime.
 
casebro said:
Sounds to me like they were making a racist statement. A political stance to which they have a right. Compare to the KKK's court protected right to march.

I would consider it a form of protected speech since they were not actual committing a violent act. Or was their driving slowly "inciting to commit road rage"?
Click to expand...

If the sight of a noose alone is a threat and a hate crime, why not the sight of a KKK person?
 
Intimidation (making someone change their behavior because of perceived threats) should be illegal.

But what's "harassment"? And certainly merely "annoyance" can't be illegal.
 
Loss Leader said:
Driving slowly past the protesters was not just "making a racist statement," it was making a statement to a group of people. The question becomes why the drivers were making a racist statement to a group of protesters waiting for their bus. Now, the drivers can say anything they want about why they were making that statement but the federal prosecutors have their own theory. They believe that the statements were made to intimidate, harass and annoy the protesters. If the prosecutors are right, the drivers are guilty of harassment.

Now, if they set out to intimidate, harass and annoy the protesters because of their race, the underlying crime of harassment increases to a hate crime.

Something that is not a crime to begin with cannot become a hate crime.
Click to expand...

Nitpic, the protesters had completed their protest, and were at the bus stop to return home, this was not pre protest or during the protest.
 
mr rosewater said:
Just to remind myself and maybe others what stupidity sparked this whole mess.
Click to expand...

Well it seems the stupidity that sparked the incident in the link was a nasty person behaving in a very anti-social way i.e. dragging nooses behind a vehicle in front of a group of people.
 
Darat said:
Well it seems the stupidity that sparked the incident in the link was a nasty person behaving in a very anti-social way i.e. dragging nooses behind a vehicle in front of a group of people.
Click to expand...

I can't disagree, and I think he should have loser tattooed to his forehead.
 
Loss Leader said:
Something that is not a crime to begin with cannot become a hate crime.
Click to expand...
There's a reason for hate crimes laws to be repealed. Crime, harassment or stalking, already is covered.

(I think we batted this back and forth once before, and didn't seem to come to an agreement.)

DR
 
Beerina said:
Intimidation (making someone change their behavior because of perceived threats) should be illegal.

But what's "harassment"? And certainly merely "annoyance" can't be illegal.
Click to expand...


New York's law, which is similar to all such laws, makes a communication illegal when it serves no legitimate purpose other than to harass, annoy or alarm. The less serious the communication, the more it must be repeated for it to be a crime.

You may be annoyed by those credit card offers in the mail but, since they serve some sort of purpose (offering you credit), they're not harassment.

You may be annoyed by seeing a guy in a KKK outfit but since his communication is not directed towards you, it's not harassment.

And you may be annoyed when someone calls you a "j**b*l***m*d," but if it's just done once, it's probably not harassment.
 
A story to ponder on the topic of Nooses, Racism, and Sensitivity:

While I was in the Navy, someone hung a noose from the overhead trusses on the hangar deck. Almost immediately, there was a shipwide stand-down to determine who the racists were and how many were involved in the conspiracy.

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.

Oh, but no! Several crewmembers of African ancestry insisted that there was a Klan conspiracy that put the poor kid up to it, and then intimidated him into concocting a false story to throw investigators off the trail. They cited as 'evidence' the fact that several crewmembers of European descent had shaved their heads just before getting underway. And 'everybody knows' that only members of the Aryan Nations ever shave their heads, right?

So the investigation continued, every crewmember was interviewed, and every personal space (racks, lockers, et cetera) was searched for 'racist' items (Rope? Bedsheets? Crosses?). In the end, the suicidal kid received an administrative discharge from the military, and every crewmember had to attend a 'Cultural Sensitivity Stand-Down'.

During the stand-down, I brought in a copy of "You Might Be A Redneck If..." One of the aforementioned African-Americans objected to the book, calling it a racist teaching tool. The instructor confiscated it (and later returned it), and told be to not use the term 'Redneck' in conversation.

"Sir, does this mean that when I'm shooting hoops with my homies that I can't shout 'Yo! Redneck! Gimme da ball!'?"

"Yes, Petty Officer Fnord, that's exactly what it means. No use of the word 'Redneck' or 'Homies' or the word 'N..."

"WE GET THE POINT!" shouted the leader of the African-American contigent.

And the 'Cultural Sensitivity Stand-down' ended on that note.
 
I take it your point is that the USA Navy can be a bit stupid at times? I think you'll find that is true of most big organisations.
 
Darat said:
I take it your point is that the USA Navy can be a bit stupid at times? I think you'll find that is true of most big organisations.
Click to expand...
No. My point is that the Navy was (over)reacting to the outcry of 'Racist Conspiracy' from the African-American contingent of our crew, when no evidence of any such conspiracy was ever found, and when proof of an alternate explanation was found and presented.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom