Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime-

Hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, class, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation.

"Hate crime" generally refers to criminal acts which are seen to have been motivated by hatred of one or more of the listed conditions. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters (hate mail).

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-white-supremacist18-2010apr18,0,4043821.story

The National Socialist Movement staged a rally in an attempt to use their 1st Amendment Rights of free speech to rail and rant against minorities and display Nazi symbolism and slogans in front of the LA City Hall. In return, protestors at various times assaulted two offensive and in-your-face apparent Neo-Nazis for attempting to display their social group.

This may sound kind of silly to ask, but do you think that the people who assaulted these Neo-Nazis were committing a hate crime, especially since the people involved as victims obviously belong to a particular social group and being assaulted for said membership fits wikipedia's textbook and initial definition of a hate crime?

Oh my god, what kind of world are we living in when bad people get what they deserve. The horror, the horror..

No.

"assaulted two offensive and in-your-face apparent Neo-Nazis"

If you offend somebody and get in their face, you pretty much provoke backlash. For instance if you got in my face and yelled "I'm going to kick your baby!" I'd be well withen my right to lash out.

If the Nazi was going about his day and got mobbed for no other reason than he is an innocent white guy is hate. Socking an agressive offensive Nazi is just desserts.

Much as I hate to think it, I believe that they were, but I also believe that the people assaulting the Neo-Nazis were completely justified, and they could say they were simply expressing their
1st Ammendment Right.

sexiest_hero wrote:If you offend somebody and get in their face, you pretty much provoke backlash. For instance if you got in my face and yelled "I'm going to kick your baby!" I'd be well withen my right to lash out.

No, you wouldn't be within your right to lash out, I'm pretty sure you could still be charged with assault or something similar. In fairness, he might be charged with something too, but that doesn't make you free to hit him. If he was actually doing something physically harmful, then it'd be a different story.

Neo-Nazis, like many extremists, are idiots and generally unpleasant people, to put it lightly. That doesn't make it legal to beat them at a lawful demonstration.

Do they deserve it? Maybe. Is it legal? No.

sexiest_hero wrote:No.

"assaulted two offensive and in-your-face apparent Neo-Nazis"

If you offend somebody and get in their face, you pretty much provoke backlash. For instance if you got in my face and yelled "I'm going to kick your baby!" I'd be well within my right to lash out.

If the Nazi was going about his day and got mobbed for no other reason than he is an innocent white guy is hate. Socking an aggressive offensive Nazi is just desserts.

Legal (and especially if it was a scheduled and fully permitted) demonstration pretty much shields anything/everything the neo-Nazis did, barring threats, aggressive/violent acts(and no, yelling racial slurs or offensive language don't really qualify under those unless aimed at specific persons--in which case, whoever decked them could claim "fighting words" doctrine), or things of that nature.

If they were getting out of control, however, the cops who are supposed to be on hand to protect the protest itself are also there to shut it down ASAP.

State legislation varies, but California is one of 5 states that lists political affiliation as a characteristic which can motivate hate crimes.

Whether or not these particular individuals were subject to a hate crime will depend on the extent to which their political affiliation can be considered to be the motivation behind their assault.

"I'm going to kick your baby"



That's mental. That is the funniest threat I've ever heard.

I aim to please.

Possibly, as stated earlier it depends on how in your face they were. However this isn't the first time something like this has happened. I recall hearing a story where a redneck was beaten up by a bunch of gays and they were charged with hate crimes.

Basically if you walked up to a gay person and said "I think homosexuality is a disgusting and a moral practice and I will do everything in my legal power to stop you from committing it" and the gay guy hit you it would be a hate crime. Same principle applies here.

I think it would largely depend on whether or not the expression of political thought counts as a part of political affiliation. Of course if it doesn't, then by that logic skinheads can attack people for displaying stereotypically black mannerisms rather than attacking them because of their race per se, and that wouldn't be a hate crime.

This seems like a case of backfiring legislation,as I recall (and my recolection may be a bit flawed),when these "hate crime"laws were first institutded they seemed to be directed at racist skinheads,KKK and the like.
However,over the years all races are being tried under "hate laws" (fair enough if the law exist),and white supremacist can now be "victiams" of a "hate crime".

FITZZ wrote: However,over the years all races are being tried under "hate laws" (fair enough if the law exist),and white supremacist can now be "victiams" of a "hate crime".

Can you point me to a story of black on white violence prosecuted as a hate crime? I've never seen it myself.

Vladigar wrote:

FITZZ wrote: However,over the years all races are being tried under "hate laws" (fair enough if the law exist),and white supremacist can now be "victiams" of a "hate crime".

Can you point me to a story of black on white violence prosecuted as a hate crime? I've never seen it myself.

While not necessarily pointing out "Black on white violence prosecuted as a hate crime" the following article does state that African Americans make up 20 percent of "hate crime offenders".

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-070610hatecrime-story,0,7700301.story

FITZZ wrote: This seems like a case of backfiring legislation,as I recall (and my recollection may be a bit flawed),when these "hate crime"laws were first instituted they seemed to be directed at racist skinheads,KKK and the like.
However,over the years all races are being tried under "hate laws" (fair enough if the law exist),and white supremacist can now be "victims" of a "hate crime".

Uh, so what?

They're espousing a viewpoint. It may be a fairly outlandish and churlish one, but so what?
They're not going around harming people. They're not trying to force it down your throat. They're having their voice, and putting it out there.

Of course, if a person is attacked for an apolitical viewpoint, they're under no such protection. Which is odd.

Kanluwen wrote:

FITZZ wrote: This seems like a case of backfiring legislation,as I recall (and my recollection may be a bit flawed),when these "hate crime"laws were first instituted they seemed to be directed at racist skinheads,KKK and the like.
However,over the years all races are being tried under "hate laws" (fair enough if the law exist),and white supremacist can now be "victims" of a "hate crime".

Uh, so what?

They're espousing a viewpoint. It may be a fairly outlandish and churlish one, but so what?
They're not going around harming people. They're not trying to force it down your throat. They're having their voice, and putting it out there.

Umm...I don't advocate censoring people (even those I disagree with),so I'm not quite sure what your on about.

I'm fairly sure that most states also don't recognize gender or sexual preferences as motivations for hate crimes also.

Which is even more ridiculous given the propensity for violence against homosexuals.

I guess technically it could be a hate crime. Getting the gak kicked out of you because of your beliefs could be argued as a hate crime. If the shoe was on the other foot and the Neo-Nazi had beat up someone at a Gay Rights demonstration we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Having said that I'd like to qualify my statement by saying that Neo-Nazis are fething scum.

Kanluwen wrote:I'm fairly sure that most states also don't recognize gender or sexual preferences as motivations for hate crimes also.

Oh, I think you're pretty incorrect on that one.

[url]
http://calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/calbar_generic.jsp?sImagePath=Hate_Crimes.gif&sCategoryPath=/Home/Public%20Services/Consumer%20Information/Pamphlets&sHeading=Hate%20Crimes&sFileType=HTML&sCatHtmlPath=html/Pamphlets_Hate-Crimes.html[/url]

FITZZ wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

FITZZ wrote: This seems like a case of backfiring legislation,as I recall (and my recollection may be a bit flawed),when these "hate crime"laws were first instituted they seemed to be directed at racist skinheads,KKK and the like.
However,over the years all races are being tried under "hate laws" (fair enough if the law exist),and white supremacist can now be "victims" of a "hate crime".

Uh, so what?

They're espousing a viewpoint. It may be a fairly outlandish and churlish one, but so what?
They're not going around harming people. They're not trying to force it down your throat. They're having their voice, and putting it out there.

Umm...I don't advocate censoring people (even those I disagree with),so I'm not quite sure what your on about.

Misread the tone of it then. It seemed to me that you were saying that because a group advocates hate that they can't be victims of "hate crimes".

Kanluwen wrote:I'm fairly sure that most states also don't recognize gender or sexual preferences as motivations for hate crimes also.

Which is even more ridiculous given the propensity for violence against homosexuals.

IIRC violence against homosexuals does fall under hate crime laws.

Monster Rain wrote:I guess technically it could be a hate crime. Getting the gak kicked out of you because of your beliefs could be argued as a hate crime. If the shoe was on the other foot and the Neo-Nazi had beat up someone at a Gay Rights demonstration we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Having said that I'd like to qualify my statement by saying that Neo-Nazis are fething scum.

If a Neo-Nazi had beat up someone at a gay rights demonstration that was lawfully organized and had permits, etc?

Then no, we wouldn't be. We'd be discussing the fact that police failed to provide adequate protection for a demonstration.

Hey, speaking of...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FITZZ wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:I'm fairly sure that most states also don't recognize gender or sexual preferences as motivations for hate crimes also.

Which is even more ridiculous given the propensity for violence against homosexuals.

IIRC violence against homosexuals does fall under hate crime laws.

It depends on the state and in most cases it has to be proven that the attacker had prior knowledge of the victim's orientation.

Kanluwen wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

FITZZ wrote: This seems like a case of backfiring legislation,as I recall (and my recollection may be a bit flawed),when these "hate crime"laws were first instituted they seemed to be directed at racist skinheads,KKK and the like.
However,over the years all races are being tried under "hate laws" (fair enough if the law exist),and white supremacist can now be "victims" of a "hate crime".

Uh, so what?

They're espousing a viewpoint. It may be a fairly outlandish and churlish one, but so what?
They're not going around harming people. They're not trying to force it down your throat. They're having their voice, and putting it out there.

Umm...I don't advocate censoring people (even those I disagree with),so I'm not quite sure what your on about.

Misread the tone of it then. It seemed to me that you were saying that because a group advocates hate that they can't be victims of "hate crimes".

Oh, ok ...no, I just thought it was a bit ironic,but of course they can be victims of "hate" crimes.

Kanluwen wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I guess technically it could be a hate crime. Getting the gak kicked out of you because of your beliefs could be argued as a hate crime. If the shoe was on the other foot and the Neo-Nazi had beat up someone at a Gay Rights demonstration we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Having said that I'd like to qualify my statement by saying that Neo-Nazis are fething scum.

If a Neo-Nazi had beat up someone at a gay rights demonstration that was lawfully organized and had permits, etc?

Then no, we wouldn't be. We'd be discussing the fact that police failed to provide adequate protection for a demonstration.

Which then allowed a "Hate Crime" to take place, yes.

Hate the haters, it's double negative!

Anyhow, they can throw those people off a bridge for all I care. When's the last time you heard of a neo-nazi doing something good?

WarOne wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime-

Hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, class, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation.

"Hate crime" generally refers to criminal acts which are seen to have been motivated by hatred of one or more of the listed conditions. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters (hate mail).

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-white-supremacist18-2010apr18,0,4043821.story

The National Socialist Movement staged a rally in an attempt to use their 1st Amendment Rights of free speech to rail and rant against minorities and display Nazi symbolism and slogans in front of the LA City Hall. In return, protestors at various times assaulted two offensive and in-your-face apparent Neo-Nazis for attempting to display their social group.

This may sound kind of silly to ask, but do you think that the people who assaulted these Neo-Nazis were committing a hate crime, especially since the people involved as victims obviously belong to a particular social group and being assaulted for said membership fits wikipedia's textbook and initial definition of a hate crime?

Do you think that someone who shouts fire in a crowded theatre is exercising his first amendment right? Law is not a black and white affair (puns!) and this issue exists inside the grey area. White supremacists are unlikely to fall under a group typically protected by hate crime laws.

Am I the only one who cringes everytime someone points out he/she's made a pun?

You want a cookie for being oh so witty?

Soladrin wrote:Am I the only one who cringes everytime someone points out he/she's made a pun?

You want a cookie for being oh so witty?

Yes.

Soladrin wrote:

Get nurglecookie out of here.