Teen in Staten Island repeatedly beaten for being Muslim

[Scotteq]

Remember Colin Ferguson, the man who sat around chanting about all the black people killing all the white people, who said he was going to go kill him some white people, who then went out and murdered six white people for no other reason than being white? Remember his hate crimes trial? Yeah, me neither.

He was convicted of mass murder, attempted mass murder, and sent to prison. Though not, as you point out, specifically for a Hate crime.

His original defense team set up a strategy centered around the concept of "Black Rage" creating a form of temporary insanity in an effort to (at least) get his sentence reduced. Mr. Ferguson rejected that claim, fired his council in order to defend himself, and proceeded to show in the Courts and on evening TV just what a whack job he really was. Better yet: He had to petition for a retrial based on "Incompetent Council".... Yeah - you got that right: Himself.


You may have missed it - But I assure you, in the New York area this clown's courtroom antics were the source of great amusement. Just that OJ Simpson was bigger news at the time.

 

[Fern]

Fern, no Sir, as to my knowledge (5 minutes on Google search), I could not come up with any such information. I would be delighted to be educated further.

I was thinking of the monthly 'allowance' Holocaust survivors are paid. Germany paid/pays for that. If that has stopped, I'm unaware of it.

Fern

 

[woolfe9999]

Odd, the left has been arguing since 9/11 that terrorism isn't a different crime from murder.

Straw man. The "left's" argument has actually been that terrorism should be treated as crime, not as acts of war that allow the government to circumvent Constitutional rights. Last I heard, libertarians (real ones), have been arguing the same. I haven't heard anyone argue that terrorism should not be treated as a distinct category of crime. You have a quote?

- wolf

 

[Throckmorton]

Only if 16.8% or less of all hate crimes are because the victims are white. If the percentage of crime is greater than the percentage of prosecution (i.e. recognition of a hate crime, apparently as opposed to a "love" crime or an "indifference" crime), then my point still stands. If prosecutions for hate crimes are more likely if the victim also falls into a defined protected minority group - even if that was not the principle factor driving the criminal - then my point still stands. So far you've shown no data to support those contentions. To be fair, I'm not sure those numbers could be codified, but I think that subjectively by far the majority of people would agree that a criminal with a white victim is far less likely to be charged with a hate crime than is a criminal with a non-white victim.

Remember Colin Ferguson, the man who sat around chanting about all the black people killing all the white people, who said he was going to go kill him some white people, who then went out and murdered six white people for no other reason than being white? Remember his hate crimes trial? Yeah, me neither.

Your point doesn't stand. You said that only hate crimes against protected classes are classified as hate crimes.

Even if you want to change your argument to "classification as hate crime is less likely when the motivation is the victim's whiteness", you have no evidence that the actual ratio of hate crimes to classified hate crimes is different from what it is for any other race. "The majority of people would agree" doesn't count as evidence.

Edit: From the beat whitey thread

Of course. It merely requires that the white person be gay, or female, or Jewish, or Muslim, or some other protected group. Of course, the MOST protected group would be the friends and family of those in power. (Undeniable rule of life - anyone put in power to help others will first help themselves.)