Is this a federal hate crime?

[madurobob]

A story to ponder on the topic of Nooses, Racism, and Sensitivity:...

An entirely believable story - I've heard similar. But, surely you are not suggesting that the guy repeatedly driving past the protesters while displaying a noose was actually crying for help and was suicidal...?

Do you suppose he really had some other intent than displaying a known symbol of hate to those who would be most offended?

 

[Darat]

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.

How is that not being "a bit stupid"?

 

[Loss Leader]

Do you suppose he really had some other intent than displaying a known symbol of hate to those who would be most offended?

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.

 

[mr rosewater]

An entirely believable story - I've heard similar. But, surely you are not suggesting that the guy repeatedly driving past the protesters while displaying a noose was actually crying for help and was suicidal...?

Do you suppose he really had some other intent than displaying a known symbol of hate to those who would be most offended?

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

 

[Fnord]

An entirely believable story - I've heard similar.

Yeah, it was quite a stink, and still makes the rounds.

But, surely you are not suggesting that the guy repeatedly driving past the protesters while displaying a noose was actually crying for help and was suicidal...?

No. (And stop calling me "Shirley"!)

Do you suppose he really had some other intent than displaying a known symbol of hate to those who would be most offended?

A "Hate Crime"? No. More like "Neener-neener-neener" on the one hand, and "We haven't received enough attention, so here's our opportunity" on the other. On the gripping hand, it is only a noose - a knotted rope. That some are threatened by it is laughable. That others would exploit this fear is inexcusable. No one was actually hurt, unless you count 'emotional duress' as a real injury.

Otherwise, why should anyone make an issue of it?

 

[Fnord]

How is that not being "a bit stupid"?

In the military, it's standard operating procedure - assume that any unexplained activity is a potential threat, and react accordingly.

When any other group does so, they're usually called "Nutcases" or "Conspiracy Theorists". In this case, they were members of an 'oppressed minority', and solely because of this were their claims given credibility.

IMHO: Much Ado About (nearly) Nothing.

 

[madurobob]

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.

Thats certainly my presumption. But, what bugs me about all this is that I don't know what to think! Should we really expend federal resources prosecuting things like this? My gut feeling is yes, but I'm not sure why. I agree they guy deserves punishment, but my reasoning always leads into some scary stifling-freedom-of-speech areas.

This looks to me like a case of an idiot acting like an idiot in waiving his noose under the noses of protesters, and a group of protesters so consumed with ideas of racial bias and political correctness that they simply can't ignore it. Part of me wants to say "if thine eye offends the, pluck it out" (yep, using that totally out of context). Wouldn't it be more powerful to simply ignore the fool and let him know that his silly little noose doesn't scare anyone?

 

[strimmer]

I remember watching TV when they got busted....

I also remember that CNN (or whatever station i was watching) said that one of the teens had links to a white supremacist group, but i haven't heard that recently....

 

[mr rosewater]

I remember watching TV when they got busted....

I also remember that CNN (or whatever station i was watching) said that one of the teens had links to a white supremacist group, but i haven't heard that recently....

Well that would be good to know, it would go to intent, if true.

 

[Fnord]

Follow THIS LINK to the police report.

For all we know, the kid could be playing a 'wannabe' game to impress / intimidate his friends, or he's the Imperial Grand Dragon himself.

The truth probably lies somewhere in between, more closely to the former than the latter.

 

[billydkid]

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.

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?

 

[JoeEllison]

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 realize that there is a difference between "offensive" and "threatening", right?

 

[mr rosewater]

Follow THIS LINK to the police report.

For all we know, the kid could be playing a 'wannabe' game to impress / intimidate his friends, or he's the Imperial Grand Dragon himself.

The truth probably lies somewhere in between, more closely to the former than the latter.

Thanks Fnord, agreed.

 

[casebro]

Have any hate crimes made their way through the courts, to be upheld by the SCOTUS?

 

[mr rosewater]

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?

I have a real problem with this hate crime thing, that said they have him for DWI, an unloaded gun, and brass knuckles the feds came looking for a hate crime and this dope is a poster child.

Did you read the thread?

 

[mr rosewater]

Have any hate crimes made their way through the courts, to be upheld by the SCOTUS?

Is this a trick question? Help me!

 

[332nd]

I would say no to hate crime (Granted I'm against "hate crime" laws in general) but the kid does need to have his ass whupped.

 

[mr rosewater]

I would say no to hate crime (Granted I'm against "hate crime" laws in general) but the kid does need to have his ass whupped.

Agreed!


ETA, and the passenger!

 

[Fnord]

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.)

 

[Loss Leader]

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?

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.