IL - Belleville HS student beaten mercilessly on school bus, 2009

[Nova]

AdoraBlue, thank you for your post.

I don't know if I can bear to read any more about the aftermath of Katrina, but let's be clear: I never said that disaster was the fault of people of any particular race. There's plenty of blame to go around (including the President, IMO) and, alas, government corruption isn't exclusive to any one race or even to the state of Louisiana. (I mentioned Katrina only because it's the most recent example of white vigilantism that came to mind.)

But since you like to read history, I suggest you look back a little further. You will find stories about the declines of neighborhoods "when the Irish moved in," "when the Poles arrived," "when the Italians invaded," etc. And you can find similar stories about "Mexicans" or Asians overrunning neighborhoods in other states today.

Many of these tales predate the so-called government entitlement programs that you blame.

What is consistent among the accounts is that when the middle class deserts a neighborhood and abandons it entirely to the poor, decline is inevitable. (In many inner-city neighborhoods, traditional all-black neighborhoods have also declined since the 1960s--because the black middle class also left for the suburbs.)

No one has figured out a magic way to solve this problem, but, yes, more and better-paying jobs are a partial answer. (When you assert that an entire neighborhood consists of people who "don't want to work," then I think you need to examine your sterotypes. I'm not picking on you: we all have moments of stereotypical thinking.)

 

[Nova]

IMO, domestic abuse/murder is the most prevalent under-reported, under-investigated and under-prosecuted "hate" crime but it isn't considered important enough to be covered by hate crime laws. There is something inherently wrong with laws that elevate one victim over another because of race or religion. It's more than ridiculous, it's just plain wrong.

And gender, IIRC, is not included in federal hate crime laws, although some states may include it. If it were, every rape would include an additional hate crime charge because the victim is almost always selected because of his or her gender.

Violence against women is epidemic in this country. I don't believe you will find a post of mine where I have denied that or minimized its impact.

But as far as I know, rape is already deemed a far more serious crime than non-sexual assault in every U.S. jurisdiction. Why is that, I wonder? Used to be, women were treated by the law as the property of their fathers and/or husbands and rape "ruined" the goods, so to speak, but we don't believe that any more, I hope.

So since it is "ridiculous" and "wrong" to "elevate one victim over another," why do we still have rape laws that punish a sexual assault leaving little physical damage more than a non-sexual assault that puts the victim in the hospital for days? Personally, I think it's because we recognize that rape is a problem of such severity in our society that it requires special attention from the law. And that is as it should be.

 

[Fairy1]

AdoraBlue, thank you for your post.

I don't know if I can bear to read any more about the aftermath of Katrina, but let's be clear: I never said that disaster was the fault of people of any particular race. There's plenty of blame to go around (including the President, IMO) and, alas, government corruption isn't exclusive to any one race or even to the state of Louisiana. (I mentioned Katrina only because it's the most recent example of white vigilantism that came to mind.)

But since you like to read history, I suggest you look back a little further. You will find stories about the declines of neighborhoods "when the Irish moved in," "when the Poles arrived," "when the Italians invaded," etc. And you can find similar stories about "Mexicans" or Asians overrunning neighborhoods in other states today.

Many of these tales predate the so-called government entitlement programs that you blame.

What is consistent among the accounts is that when the middle class deserts a neighborhood and abandons it entirely to the poor, decline is inevitable. (In many inner-city neighborhoods, traditional all-black neighborhoods have also declined since the 1960s--because the black middle class also left for the suburbs.)

No one has figured out a magic way to solve this problem, but, yes, more and better-paying jobs are a partial answer. (When you assert that an entire neighborhood consists of people who "don't want to work," then I think you need to examine your sterotypes. I'm not picking on you: we all have moments of stereotypical thinking.)

In all honesty, there is plenty of history to support everyone's perspective, IMO. I will say, the one way NOT to fix the problem is to pretend it doesn't exist. It does, absolutely, and all over the country.

Poverty does not equal racism. But the very term "entitlement," IMO, is so un-American. This is the land of equal opportunity. Life is what you make it. There have been plenty of successful people - of all races - who have lifted themselves up from the dregs of society. There are so many more who choose to use their circumstances as an excuse to be trash. Boo hoo.

The victim in this case was a minority on that bus. It doesn't really matter what color he was; he was outnumbered. Had this happened to an AA kid on a mostly white bus, the AA people of the community would be totally up in arms - as they have been in the Cracker Barrel case. To pretend otherwise would be dishonest and totally unproductive.

And...IMO...it's pointless to refer to the Katrina victims in reference to this case. This was an isolated incident with a specific target. Those kids were on a public school bus FGS. Are you insinuating that two wrongs make a right?

 

[Nova]

In all honesty, there is plenty of history to support everyone's perspective, IMO. I will say, the one way NOT to fix the problem is to pretend it doesn't exist. It does, absolutely, and all over the country.

Poverty does not equal racism. But the very term "entitlement," IMO, is so un-American. This is the land of equal opportunity. Life is what you make it. There have been plenty of successful people - of all races - who have lifted themselves up from the dregs of society. There are so many more who choose to use their circumstances as an excuse to be trash. Boo hoo.

The victim in this case was a minority on that bus. It doesn't really matter what color he was; he was outnumbered. Had this happened to an AA kid on a mostly white bus, the AA people of the community would be totally up in arms - as they have been in the Cracker Barrel case. To pretend otherwise would be dishonest and totally unproductive.

And...IMO...it's pointless to refer to the Katrina victims in reference to this case. This was an isolated incident with a specific target. Those kids were on a public school bus FGS. Are you insinuating that two wrongs make a right?

I have never defended the attackers in this case. Nor have I suggested that our history of racial discrimination somehow excuses or mitigates their actions. Nor did I suggest this incident was somehow similar or directly related to events that followed Katrina.

I think if one follows the train of posts I was rather clear.

It was asserted that if the races had been reversed in the video, many people would assume the attack was motivated by racial prejudice.

I agree and so do you.

What I added was that while such an assumption would be premature, it would be understandable, given our history of racial assaults on African Americans. I mentioned the post-Katrina incidents only as a relatively recent example that I could recall off the top of my head. I could have gone into lynchings, the KKK, etc., but I assume everyone knows about those things. White vigilantism in New Orleans merely demonstrates that such attacks are not relics of the distant past.

You see, history does matter, even if, as you imply, reasonable people may disagree as to the impact of specific historical events. Or, if the past has no relation to the present, then all of our logical precepts are irrelevant and I don't know why we are having any discussion at all.

 

[AdoraBlue]

AdoraBlue, thank you for your post.

I don't know if I can bear to read any more about the aftermath of Katrina, but let's be clear: I never said that disaster was the fault of people of any particular race. There's plenty of blame to go around (including the President, IMO) and, alas, government corruption isn't exclusive to any one race or even to the state of Louisiana. (I mentioned Katrina only because it's the most recent example of white vigilantism that came to mind.)

AB here: Of course, a natural disaster is not the "fault" of any humans, only Mother Nature. I respectfully disagree with you regarding what you term "white vigilantism" that occurred after Katrina. Governor Blanco played politics and failed to allow the federal authorities to be staged in place along with our state resources. She and Ray Nagin publicly admitted before the fact this was the "big one" and they failed miserably when they did not evacuate the city to fullest extent possible. If "white" property owners stayed behind or returned surreptitiously to protect their property, property they had worked their entire lives for, proprty that provided their living and shelter, what is wrong with that? In Louisiana, it is no crime to "shoot the burglar." I personally know people who volunteered and some who were commandeered to help quell the violence and looting, rescue stranded people and restore law and order. I heard firsthand quite a few stories and second- and thirdhand many, many more of numerous African-American citizens looting all the bling, electronics, liquor and anything else they could carry, destroying and defacing all the property they could, threatening many people protecting their property, and we all know about the "vigilantes" shooting at the rescuers and LE. And I am also aware that many of the African-American citizens were simply trying to get to the higher ground and await rescue. All of these citizens had been told repeatedly over many years to store water, nonperishable food and other necessities in case of a major storm. But did they do it? It would appear not; they simply turned to the only source of caretaking they knew: The government.

But since you like to read history, I suggest you look back a little further. You will find stories about the declines of neighborhoods "when the Irish moved in," "when the Poles arrived," "when the Italians invaded," etc. And you can find similar stories about "Mexicans" or Asians overrunning neighborhoods in other states today.

Many of these tales predate the so-called government entitlement programs that you blame.

AB here: I am a student of history, much farther back than American history, and I thank you for making my point precisely. Aside from the modern problem of illegal immigration of mainly Latino peoples, the examples of immigrant groups you cite came to this country with hopes for a better future and worked hard to support their families, and as I far as I know, embraced the American values of self-sufficiency and hard work.

What is consistent among the accounts is that when the middle class deserts a neighborhood and abandons it entirely to the poor, decline is inevitable. (In many inner-city neighborhoods, traditional all-black neighborhoods have also declined since the 1960s--because the black middle class also left for the suburbs.)

AB here: I can agree with that, there is also some "black flight," but that is much rarer here in Louisiana, IMO.

No one has figured out a magic way to solve this problem, but, yes, more and better-paying jobs are a partial answer. (When you assert that an entire neighborhood consists of people who "don't want to work," then I think you need to examine your sterotypes. I'm not picking on you: we all have moments of stereotypical thinking.)

AB here: The only response I can make to your disagreement to my statement that some people "don't want to work," I am not stereotyping; this is the rule, not the exception. If you are skeptical about my opinion regarding this, I would suggest you randomly visit some small Louisiana towns and just look around. I know that I may sound like a racist, but as I often like to say, "I'm not a racist, I'm a realist."

Again, none of this is meant to offend anyone and is all my opinions only. This will end my comments regarding this subject (at least on Websleuths) and I thank for your civil discourse.

And now comments can get back OT, so to speak.

 

[Nova]

AB, perhaps I misunderstood, but here is part of your original post:

...To make this long story shorter, I will end by saying that the entitlement programs created and mandated by the federal government have resulted in a large underclass of African-Americans who seemingly have no will to pay their own way, no moral mandate to take care of their children, an overwhelming propensity to violence toward one another and other races, addictions run rampant, thievery is openly accepted, the school is a place of violence and inferior academic achievement, and baby mommas and baby daddies abound. And even worse, to me, these trends have spread to some Caucasian-Americans....

(To everyone else, this is only a small excerpt. Please see AB's comprehensive post above.)

Not only do you generalize on the motives of a large group of people, you suggest these are "African-American" values that have now "spread to some Caucasian-Americans."

This is why I referenced other, historical, non-African "underclasses" who were previously accused of the same things. The indifference of some poor people to middle-class values (including a strong work ethic) didn't start with African-Americans, no more than it is exclusive to them now.

And, yes, many, probably most, individuals from those previous groups eventually assimilated economically and culturally. And millions of African-Americans have done the same thing.

But assimilation takes time. In the case of immigrants from abroad, it was often their children or grandchildren who eventually went to college and joined the middle class. In the South and elsewhere, most African-Americans were treated by law and custom as virtual slaves until the 1960s and even later.

And assimilation today isn't what it was in the 1890s: one can't just move west (as many European immigrants did) and displace Native Americans to set up a homestead. And while "White Flight" wasn't exactly invented in the 1970s, for various reasons (including technology, i.e., the automobile) it occurred on a previously unknown scale.

Nevertheless I am NOT saying that African-Americans as individuals are mere puppets of history. You and I would probably agree that we liberals did noboby any favors by suggesting anyone should be supported by society in perpetuity as recompense for the injustices of the past. (I don't think all aid to the poor comes from that idea, but I'll admit informal "reparation" was a common and unfortunate notion, at least in the 1960s.)

But before we talk about how African-Americans have ruined the neighborhood, let's recognize that every.characteristic you mention is common to poor people everywhere. It's simply a result of our history that poor people in America tend to have darker skin.

(I'm not ignoring your Katrina remarks, but I agree this isn't the thread to rehash that. I will say I was referring to specific acts of vigilantism targeting people for their skin color, not the general effort to restore order after the disaster. These were not people in their own homes shooting burglars.)

 

[gxm]

Violence against women is epidemic in this country. I don't believe you will find a post of mine where I have denied that or minimized its impact.

But as far as I know, rape is already deemed a far more serious crime than non-sexual assault in every U.S. jurisdiction. Why is that, I wonder? Used to be, women were treated by the law as the property of their fathers and/or husbands and rape "ruined" the goods, so to speak, but we don't believe that any more, I hope.

So since it is "ridiculous" and "wrong" to "elevate one victim over another," why do we still have rape laws that punish a sexual assault leaving little physical damage more than a non-sexual assault that puts the victim in the hospital for days? Personally, I think it's because we recognize that rape is a problem of such severity in our society that it requires special attention from the law. And that is as it should be.

With all due respect, I don't agree with your premise and I doubt we'll find much middle ground. I do not believe that rape is dealt with seriously in this country. Of the three rapes that I have intimate knowledge of only one was prosecuted. My friend had to crawl naked and bleeding to a neighbor for help. She required, IIRC, 20 stitches to her genital area. AND her rapist was acquitted because the defense painted her as promiscuous (she was, gasp!, a sexually active adult).

One of the other cases involved a woman who was kidnapped by three men and gang raped for three days. I'm not sure why you are under the impression that rape doesn't include physical as well as emotional damage. But no need to explain. I don't think there's much common ground for us on this subject.

 

[gxm]

The fact is that a black person is more likely to be the victim of another black person. Likewise, a white person is more likely to be the victim of another white person. Etc., etc. I don't understand why some view such crimes as less heinous than mixed race crimes. It makes no sense to me. I was once on a jury where one man blurted out: I don't care what they do as long as they keep it among themselves. The crime was a home invasion where a gun was put to a baby's head. I thought I was going to throw up. Somehow he felt the crime didn't matter because "they" were keeping it within race.

 

[Nova]

With all due respect, I don't agree with your premise and I doubt we'll find much middle ground. I do not believe that rape is dealt with seriously in this country. Of the three rapes that I have intimate knowledge of only one was prosecuted. My friend had to crawl naked and bleeding to a neighbor for help. She required, IIRC, 20 stitches to her genital area. AND her rapist was acquitted because the defense painted her as promiscuous (she was, gasp!, a sexually active adult).

One of the other cases involved a woman who was kidnapped by three men and gang raped for three days. I'm not sure why you are under the impression that rape doesn't include physical as well as emotional damage. But no need to explain. I don't think there's much common ground for us on this subject.

You misunderstood my post. Probably my fault.

I never said rape is adequately addressed by our judicial system.

I never said that rapes don't cause physical as well as emotional and psychological damage.

What I said was that as a matter of law, the crime of rape already carries enhanced penalities over non-sexual assaults that do the same or greater physical damage. In that sense alone, it might be compared to a bias-crime law in that it considers motive of the attacker and other social and psychological factors. And your complaint that rape isn't usually considered a "hate crime" makes no sense to me.

The fact that some laws recognize some biases as special circumstances does NOT make rape a less serious offense.

I am as outraged as you are that the crimes you detail weren't prosecuted. But bias-crime legislation wasn't the reason those cases failed to go forward.

 

[Nova]

The fact is that a black person is more likely to be the victim of another black person. Likewise, a white person is more likely to be the victim of another white person. Etc., etc. I don't understand why some view such crimes as less heinous than mixed race crimes. It makes no sense to me. I was once on a jury where one man blurted out: I don't care what they do as long as they keep it among themselves. The crime was a home invasion where a gun was put to a baby's head. I thought I was going to throw up. Somehow he felt the crime didn't matter because "they" were keeping it within race.

As far as I know, you are correct that most violent crime is intraracial.

But bias-crime laws are not intended to convey a message that other attacks is somehow "less heinous."

Rather, they are intended to address types of attacks that have traditionally been under-reported, under-prosecuted, etc. because there was a general sense that those types of attacks were somehow socially acceptable. Bias-crime laws attempt to make it clear to judges, cops, DAs as well as the public that attacks that were once overlooked will be dealt with more vigorously in the future.

I agree this isn't a perfect solution. I just haven't heard of a better one.

 

[WholeLottaRosie]

Saturday some white supremacist group is planning to protest at our courthouse. I am happy to say I will be joining the counter protest.

 

[sadyjade]

I just gotta chime in and say how much I admire this kind of debate!

Fisrt and foremost ... it's the "lawyering" and not the "meat" of the law, that disturbs me. I would like to think the term "hate crimes" came from well meaning, law abiding citizens (like many laws), however .... (and I will eventually digress), this "term" and many others, have been desinged by lawyers, trying to deliver an "appropriate" number of "punative" dollars to the victim and or plantiff, equal to the "appropriate level of pain.

As if ............... we need a new formula, IMHO

 

[Fairy1]

I have never defended the attackers in this case. Nor have I suggested that our history of racial discrimination somehow excuses or mitigates their actions. Nor did I suggest this incident was somehow similar or directly related to events that followed Katrina.

I think if one follows the train of posts I was rather clear.

It was asserted that if the races had been reversed in the video, many people would assume the attack was motivated by racial prejudice.

I agree and so do you.

What I added was that while such an assumption would be premature, it would be understandable, given our history of racial assaults on African Americans. I mentioned the post-Katrina incidents only as a relatively recent example that I could recall off the top of my head. I could have gone into lynchings, the KKK, etc., but I assume everyone knows about those things. White vigilantism in New Orleans merely demonstrates that such attacks are not relics of the distant past.

You see, history does matter, even if, as you imply, reasonable people may disagree as to the impact of specific historical events. Or, if the past has no relation to the present, then all of our logical precepts are irrelevant and I don't know why we are having any discussion at all.

Actually, I find your posts to be clear as mud....

That being said, yes, history does matter - ALL of it, not just that which is selectively chosen in order to make a point.

It does no good to gloss over the truth or to be "politically correct" in situations such as this one. I sincerely doubt the boy who was brutally beaten ever took part in a lynching nor were the boys who beat him ever owned as slaves. By all accounts, the victim was looking for a seat on the bus. Irony aside, I really don't interpret that as a racial or disrespectful act. Do you?

You were the poster that brought up Katrina - one side of it at that. It's apples and oranges in relation to this particular case as far as I'm concerned. I doubt anyone here wants to go head-to-head on sighting recent racially motivated crimes across the USA. Perhaps we can just agree that they do exist.

IN THIS CASE, a single white kid was brutally beaten by two African American boys while the rest of the kids on the bus - primarily African American - laughed and cheered on the beaters.

While I certainly believe the "hate" laws are overly broad and tragically lacking, they are what we have right now. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it is a duck.

My opinions only.....

 

[Nova]

Actually, I find your posts to be clear as mud....

That being said, yes, history does matter - ALL of it, not just that which is selectively chosen in order to make a point.

It does no good to gloss over the truth or to be "politically correct" in situations such as this one. I sincerely doubt the boy who was brutally beaten ever took part in a lynching nor were the boys who beat him ever owned as slaves. By all accounts, the victim was looking for a seat on the bus. Irony aside, I really don't interpret that as a racial or disrespectful act. Do you?

You were the poster that brought up Katrina - one side of it at that. It's apples and oranges in relation to this particular case as far as I'm concerned. I doubt anyone here wants to go head-to-head on sighting recent racially motivated crimes across the USA. Perhaps we can just agree that they do exist.

IN THIS CASE, a single white kid was brutally beaten by two African American boys while the rest of the kids on the bus - primarily African American - laughed and cheered on the beaters.

While I certainly believe the "hate" laws are overly broad and tragically lacking, they are what we have right now. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it is a duck.

My opinions only.....

So now I'm supposed to recount all of human history every time I make a point? You know that's ridiculous. Of course, like everyone, I cite those examples that strike me as relevant to what I am saying.

As for what you call mud, yes, I see there's a problem:

I never said the victim in this case was to blame.

I never said the violence should be excused because of the actions of others.

I agreed that an event hypothesized by other posters would be perceived a certain way and said that perception would be a result of commonly known history.

I also said that a hate crime cannot be presumed until we have evidence of what motivated the crime; differing skin color or ethnicity isn't enough.

And since we're through being polite, I'll say this now: your insistence on blaming the disaster that followed Katrina on members of one political party, and mostly members of one race, speaks for itself.

 

[Nova]

All the laws I can find that you refer to as "bias crime laws" and that are generally referred to, by name and by their proponents, as "hate crime laws", are not in fact new laws addressing acts that were previously legal. Instead, they all fall into two categories:

1) Punishment enhancements added to the punishment for the underlying criminal act;
2) Provision for additional civil liability from the underlying criminal act

In every case the underlying criminal act - battery, rape, murder, etc. - is already punished under the law. Under the hate crime statutes, if a finding is made that the extrinsic characteristics of the offender and victim (such as race, gender, etc) fall into a specified pattern then an additional penalty and/or additional civil liability are added on to the punishment levelled against the offender.

As this means that certain crimes will be punished to a greater extent based on these extrinsic characteristics, it follows that the remaining crimes will receive less punishment than the crimes that receive the greater punishment.

No crime is acceptable. But under these statutes some will be punished less based on their race, gender, etc. for doing the exact same acts as others. I suppose that's what equality under the law means today.

In my knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing world, I need to use simple examples because I'm not real bright. Suppose someone walks up to a guy on the street, says "I don't like your shirt", and breaks his arm - he gets 5 years. Someone else walks up the guy standing next to him, says "I don't like your skin color", and breaks his arm - he gets 10 years because it's considered a "hate crime". In my view, if we are willing to give people 10 years for breaking someone's arm without provocation both should get 10 years.

If the argument is that enhanced penalties cause people to commit less crime, which these provisions clearly assume, that's great - enhance them across the board. And I assume the people that support this have no trouble with the Death Penalty, as that should be one hell of a deterrent using the same logic.

So I guess I'm full of hate.

, I can't help but note that while you often call me out on my use of figurative speech, you don't mind when the figurative speech is yours. I don't believe anyone here has ever suggested you are anything but very bright.

Yes, "bias crime" is an enhancement and as a rule does not make new acts illegal.

But bias-crime enhancement aside, broken arms are not all created equal under the law. That isn't what "equality under the law" means.

The law already treats the breaking of an arm differently depending on whether the breaking was accidental, negligent or deliberate; whether it was calculated in advance or done in the heat of the moment; whether it was done during the commission of other crimes; whether the violence was provoked by the victim's misbehavior, etc.

(Edited to add 12 hours later: a broken arm will probably be punished much more harshly if the perp has prior offenses. Is that unfair to the person whose arm is broken by a novice? Does it mean some broken arms are not as painful as others?

Of course not. It's a recognition of a persisting threat to society and an attempt to lessen that threat through enhanced penalties.

In a similar way, bias crimes recognize that such offenses tend to embolden others with similar prejudices. The ensuing enhancement is an imperfect attempt to rectify the situation.)