2 Charged With Hate Crime Against White Film Crew Members
POSTED: 4:31 pm CDT August 8, 2005
UPDATED: 4:53 pm CDT August 8, 2005
LAKE CHARLES, La. -- Lake Charles police have arrested two black people on a hate crime charge, accusing them of beating a movie's producer and assistant producer because they were white.
Investigators said Janice Denise Davis, 31, and Christopher Desmond Jones, 19, were booked with armed robbery and second-degree robbery, as well as the hate crime charge, which adds five years to any sentence.
The robbery and beating occurred July 22 in downtown Lake Charles.
Police said a group of at least eight black men and women saw the two white men and demanded money. According to police, when they refused, one was hit with a 6-foot-long wooden stick, and the other was hit in the face.
http://www.theneworleanschannel.com/news/4824262/detail.html
At at least the suspects were also charged with armed robbery.
But basically, I wanted to post this to show some people's consistency on their criticisms of hate crime laws. So why the need for hate crime laws? Why not just admit that they're only feel-good laws? :)
Here's the simple points.
If someone commits murder, charge him with murder.
If someone commits assault, charge him with assault.
two black people? I thought the media always use African American or black men.
kvrdave
08-09-05, 01:27 AM
Does this mark the first time Black on White crime has ever been racially motivated? We have reached a milestone, boys.
Ranger
08-09-05, 01:30 AM
two black people? I thought the media always use African American or black men.
Did you notice that one of the suspects is a woman? :)
DVD Polizei
08-09-05, 04:53 AM
I'm still anti-Hate Crime legislation, even Whitie gets hurt. It's redundant law. Simply charge these two idiots with the appropriate crime.
natevines
08-09-05, 06:11 AM
Yeah, this is silly. I feel a little better knowing that hate crime legislation is applied consistently (I'd never heard of non-whites being charged for a hate crime against whites), but they still should not exist.
nemein
08-09-05, 06:46 AM
:jawdrop:
I'll be more impressed if it actually sticks though. Personally I agree w/ the OP and think HCL is misguided and a step in the direction of accusing people of thoughtcrime.
grundle
08-09-05, 06:21 PM
I am against thought crime laws.
Red Dog
08-09-05, 06:24 PM
Hey, Whitey. You've come a long way, baby!
Thor Simpson
08-09-05, 08:02 PM
[waits for the NAACP to back the white guys]
...
Josh H
08-09-05, 08:24 PM
Hate crime laws aren't just feel good laws. There laws to add penalty to more severe crimes.
White guy beats up a black guy because he was banging his girlfriend. Charge him with assault.
White guy beats up a black guy he doesn't even know simply because he hates blacks. Assault with extra hate crime penalty.
The second scenario is a worse crime as it's designed to spread a message of hate and intimidate all blacks. Where as the first scenario was 100% limited to those involved.
Hate crimes are hurt more than just the direct victim.
That's the part of the reasoning for them that most people either don't consider or for whatever reason simply feel doesn't warrant extra punishment.
Ranger
08-09-05, 08:44 PM
I appreciate the response.
Still...
White guy beats up a black guy because he was banging his girlfriend. Charge him with assault.
A white guy beating up a black guy who was banging his white girlfriend?
Yeah, nobody would accuse the white guy of hate crime. -ohbfrank-
White guy beats up a black guy he doesn't even know simply because he hates blacks. Assault with extra hate crime penalty.
What about that sniper guy? Wasn't all of his victims white and random?
I believe that all of Derrick Todd Lee (Baton Rouge serial killer)'s victims were white women.
Would it really make any difference if he was also tried for hate crimes - he was black and killed whites? What about gender hate crimes? he was a man who killed women.
Josh H
08-09-05, 09:39 PM
You wouldn't get the hate crime charge in the wife banging case as the defense could prove he beat the guy up because he was banging his wife NOT because he was black.
As for the sniper, you'd have to prove he was doing it because of racial reasons. And it's a moot point as not all the victims were white.
But the thing is you have to prove that the crime was committed SOLEY, because of the victim's race.
It's not just any crime with an offender and victim of different races. It's a crime where the person was victimized simply becuase the offender is racist and picked out someone to assault or whatever to send a message.
That's why you don't see tons of hate crime cases, it's tough to prove that racial intent. However, in case where it can be proven the extra penalties are 100% warranted.
At any rate, enough talking about criminology issues. Don't like to talk work after hours. :D
Ranger
08-09-05, 11:21 PM
And there's a reason why hate crimes are difficult to prove - because it requires mind-reading. Besides that, hate crime laws were simply created by idiot politicians to give a sense of false security to the local chumps. And those local chumps definitely have a double standard. For example, a city could have 300 murders, 299 of them would have been black-on-black murders and the community is silent. But if a white bouncer killed a black guy in a club fight, the community would be outraged and scream hate crime. The hypocrisy really is that apparent.
Plus, I don't see why should an armed robbery not send the same, if not worse, kind of message to the community than a hate crime. What can you read from this incident? That a bunch of poor blacks robbed and beat some rich whites? Even if there was no racism involved, doesn't the robbery send a message to the "rich" people? So with that in mind, why should they serve less time in jail if it was not proven that they wanted to "send a message to the whites", but they obviously sent a message to the "rich" people?
Isn't that what most robbers think? "I'm poor, so I hate all rich people. That guy's driving a Honda. He must be rich so I'm going to carjack him."
GreenMonkey
08-10-05, 12:01 AM
Hate crime laws aren't just feel good laws. There laws to add penalty to more severe crimes.
White guy beats up a black guy because he was banging his girlfriend. Charge him with assault.
White guy beats up a black guy he doesn't even know simply because he hates blacks. Assault with extra hate crime penalty.
The second scenario is a worse crime as it's designed to spread a message of hate and intimidate all blacks. Where as the first scenario was 100% limited to those involved.
Hate crimes are hurt more than just the direct victim.
That's the part of the reasoning for them that most people either don't consider or for whatever reason simply feel doesn't warrant extra punishment.
Good concise explanation. I understand it better now, thanks.
Glad to see the law being equally applied to some black morons like it is to the white morons :thumbsup:
Josh H
08-10-05, 12:26 PM
And there's a reason why hate crimes are difficult to prove - because it requires mind-reading.
It doesn't require mind reading, it requires evidence of racial bias in the crime or in the offenders history.
i.e. a witness heard him call the black victim a n***er or other racial slur during the commission of the crime. Or the offender is shown to be in a hate group, be sending hate e-mails etc. AND there was no other clear motive in the crime turned up in the investigation. i.e. it appears sheerly random, and the guy has a hate history, it's pretty clear why the crime was committed.
As for robbery, it can intimidate the entire community. But that's not as bad, IMO, as targeting an entire racial segment of a community for hate reasons.
Plus saying robbers hate the rich and rob them because of that is BS for most cases. Most robberies are simply someone without any cash, needing money for drugs, alcohol or whatever else. So getting cash in the main motivation, not terrorizing the rich.
But it sounds like we'll have to agree to disagree here. And like I said I don't like to spend much time on criminology related stuff since I spend like 10 hours a day on it as is on my research job and Ph D studies. :D
Article on some recent hate crimes in maryland, gives you an idea of how they can be seperated from non-hate crimes.
classicman2
08-10-05, 01:04 PM
Hate crime legislation is feel good legislation for minorities.
Unfortunately, as with a lot of feel good legislation, it has serious consequences.
Ranger
08-10-05, 02:05 PM
It doesn't require mind reading, it requires evidence of racial bias in the crime or in the offenders history.
i.e. a witness heard him call the black victim a n***er or other racial slur during the commission of the crime. Or...
Do you really believe that using a racial slur is worthy of extra prison time? If some rapist called his random victim a bitch, does that mean he should serve more time than a rapist who did not use that word?
... the offender is shown to be in a hate group
but hate groups aren't illegal, so that should be moot. Like the character assassination - ex. the DA saying Scott Peterson looked at porn (so what?).
... be sending hate e-mails etc. AND there was no other clear motive in the crime turned up in the investigation. i.e. it appears sheerly random, and the guy has a hate history, it's pretty clear why the crime was committed.
There are laws on threats and stalking. They certainly do need to be stricter and have harsher punishments.
As for robbery, it can intimidate the entire community. But that's not as bad, IMO, as targeting an entire racial segment of a community for hate reasons.
Robbery indeed can intimidate the entire community - MORE people feel threatened and it has a BIGGER social-economic impact. But a scale shouldn't be used on that anyway because the law has to view things equally.
JasonF
08-10-05, 02:14 PM
Do you really believe there is no qualitative difference between spray-painting "Killroy was here" on the side of a synagogue and spray-painting "Kikes go home" on the side of a synagogue?
Ranger
08-10-05, 02:23 PM
Do you really believe there is no qualitative difference between spray-painting "Killroy was here" on the side of a synagogue and spray-painting "Kikes go home" on the side of a synagogue?
:shrug:
They're both cases of vandalism, aren't they? Does some punk kid deserve five more years in jail for the second case?
Josh H
08-10-05, 05:12 PM
We'll just have to agree to disagree as I said above. We're legions apart on this issue.
You think it's the same. I think "kikes go home" is much worse as it will affect the targeted people much more than random grafitti on their synagogue. It may make the fearful of future attacks, cause them to lose sleep etc. "Killroy was here" will do nothing but piss them off that some dumbass vandalised the building.
Ranger
08-10-05, 05:42 PM
People certainly have lost sleep when their home was vandalized, even when the message was not threatening. If the message was threatening (While "Go home" may be racist, it still is not a threat), then it wouldn't just be vandalism. Plus, how can we be sure that the first case was not motivated by racism?
Hate crime is also supposed to protect people of a cetain gender from hate. So why haven't rapists who called their victim a bitch or other sexist slurs been tried for a hate crime?
God does give people rights and men give themselves governments to secure these rights, but it's really a stretch to say that people have the right not to be offended.
Grimfarrow
08-10-05, 06:30 PM
No, it's called instilling fear. Since media has been stretching the word "terrorism" to its limit, racist graffiti could be considered another form of terror act, but the target of course is another race.
And I'm all for Hate Crime legislations - as long as ALL races are accountable to it. There are too many bigoted minorities that get away with racism just because they are minorities and feel they cannot be cited as racists.
Just 3 weeks ago, my friend (who is Asian-American) got into an argument about the subway ticket stub with an African-American lady. She then told him, "Why don't you f***ing go back to where you came from!". Classy.
General Zod
08-10-05, 06:38 PM
I agree with Ranger, they should do away with "hate crime" classifications. I would perfer if they would just UP the penalty for all these crimes to level that hate crime is at now and call it a day. I don't believe if you smash someone in the head you should more time than if you smash them in the head because they are white or black or whatever.
grundle
08-10-05, 07:40 PM
Just 3 weeks ago, my friend (who is Asian-American) got into an argument about the subway ticket stub with an African-American lady. She then told him, "Why don't you f***ing go back to where you came from!". Classy.
Your friend should have responded by saying, "I am going back to where I came from. I live in (name of local neighborhood) and that's where I'll get off the subway."
grundle
08-10-05, 07:59 PM
I agree with Ranger, they should do away with "hate crime" classifications. I would perfer if they would just UP the penalty for all these crimes to level that hate crime is at now and call it a day. I don't believe if you smash someone in the head you should more time than if you smash them in the head because they are white or black or whatever.
The only people who support hate crime laws are people who otherwise prefer to go easy on criminals. These people usually don't want criminals to be punished severerely, but they are shocked when the criminal turns out to be a bigot, racist, or homophobe. Their support for hate crime laws is because they aren't accustomed to wanting to punish criminals.
I believe that all murderers should get life in jail with no possibility of parole. And I am against the death penalty. So there's no way that I would or could support extra punishment for a murder that was motivated by hate.
The liberal hypocrites really exposed their hypocrisy with the James Byrd case in Texas. He was a black man who was dragged to death by 3 white men. Two of the murderers were sentenced to death, and governnor George W. Bush signed their death warrants. The third murderer was sentenced to life in jail with no possibility of parole, and the only reason he avoided the death penalty was because he agreed to testify against the other two.
Normally, liberals would say that these punishments were too harsh. But in this case, the liberal hypocrites spoke out in favor of a proposed hate crime law for cases such as this. The NAACP even ran a TV commercial that criticized Bush for being too lenient in this case. This proves that the liberals who support hate crime laws are hypocrites.
Rockmjd23
08-10-05, 08:01 PM
Just 3 weeks ago, my friend (who is Asian-American) got into an argument about the subway ticket stub with an African-American lady. She then told him, "Why don't you f***ing go back to where you came from!". Classy.
Ooooooh, if only I was next in line, the things I could say to that lady...
Josh H
08-10-05, 10:31 PM
The only people who support hate crime laws are people who otherwise prefer to go easy on criminals. These people usually don't want criminals to be punished severerely, but they are shocked when the criminal turns out to be a bigot, racist, or homophobe. Their support for hate crime laws is because they aren't accustomed to wanting to punish criminals.
Of all the non-sense you've posted since joining, that is the worst.
1. It's a generalization.
2. It's baseless as you'd be hard pressed to find anyone with a "soft on crime" attitude who supports hate crime penalties. They're contradictory views. The vast majority of people who want lenient punishments aren't going to want extra punishments of this kind. Most supporters of hate crime laws are tough on criminals in general. They just think hate crimes deserve EXTRA harsh punishments.
You are of course 100% entitled to disagree with hate crime laws. Just don't make baseless generalizations about those that support them. There's not quicker way to have your opinion disregarded by others than to belittle those with opposing views.
DVD Polizei
08-10-05, 10:40 PM
Ooooooh, if only I was next in line, the things I could say to that lady...
Remember that video of that stupid white dude who said something to a black lady? A big fat black dude came from nowhere and fucked. The. White. Brother. Up.
Myster X
08-10-05, 10:44 PM
Ooooooh, if only I was next in line, the things I could say to that lady...
Yeah, if you use the N word, you're a racist. It's OK for some of them to be racist to another race. I've seen the same thing happen times again. A friend of mine was working in a bakery store a while back and handling out samples on the counter. Some middle age black man just walked up and snatched almost the entire tray of samples. She pulled it off the counter since he was eating all up himself. Next thing that came out of his mouth was, "stupid Chinese bitch", "god damn Chink".
Rockmjd23
08-11-05, 02:04 AM
Remember that video of that stupid white dude who said something to a black lady? A big fat black dude came from nowhere and fucked. The. White. Brother. Up.
Thats true. Of course I'm not allowed to say or do anything anyway because then it would be a hate crime.
DVD Polizei
08-11-05, 02:19 AM
True it is. Better to go home and make fun of the dumbass in good company rather than in a foreign environment where you could get dulluped with a 450lb butt on your face.
Rockmjd23
08-11-05, 02:21 AM
Ewww, I don't want a 450 lb butt anywhere near me.
Buy: