Plan B Forum

A man poured boiling water on a gay couple. Georgia won't charge him with a hate crime.


http://www.vox.com/2016/3/19/11262470/g ... ling-water

A man and his boyfriend in Atlanta spent 10 days and nearly one month in a hospital, respectively, after another man poured boiling hot water on them, allegedly because of their sexual orientation.

Anthony Gooden and Marquez Tolbert were sleeping in Gooden's apartment on February 12 when Martin Blackwell, the boyfriend of Gooden's mother, walked in. According to Tolbert, Blackwell poured boiling water on the men, causing severe burns that required surgery to treat. Blackwell, who didn't live in the apartment, told Tolbert, "Get out of my house with all that gay shit."

"The pain doesn't let you sleep. It's just, like, it's excruciating, 24 hours a day, and it doesn't go anywhere," Tolbert told Atlanta's WSB-TV. "It doesn't dial down, anything. It's just there."

Blackwell said the men were having sex when he poured hot water on them, Sarah Kaplan reported for the Washington Post. But Vickie Gray, a friend of Tolbert's, said they were sleeping, although the attack wouldn't be justified if the men were having sex.

Blackwell is currently in jail, charged with two counts of aggravated battery.

Why we need to elect Hillary Clinton.


Bernie is a cute little economic sideshow but this is the real deal.


yrs,
rubato

Oh what a crock. The man is in jail, charged with a crime and let's hope he's punished to the full extent of the law. "Hate crime" is just so much hyperbolic bullshit. What difference does the motive make? He did something awful and deserves mucho jail (which might just expand his horizons)

MajGenl.Meade wrote:He did something awful and deserves mucho jail (which might just expand his horizons)

Anyone else like to bat, seeing as Meade is bowling pies.

Blackwell is currently in jail, charged with two counts of aggravated battery.

The man is in jail, charged with a crime and let's hope he's punished to the full extent of the law. "Hate crime" is just so much hyperbolic bullshit. What difference does the motive make? He did something awful and deserves mucho jail

Absolutely...

And if the penalties are not strong enough for that sort of behavior, then we should strengthen them...

We don't need some sort of PC "hate crime" media diversion....

We just need to punish real crimes effectively...

Thought police. It is an essential part of our common law justice system. "Hate Crimes" need bigger punishment because they indicate wrong thinking. But it is a big part of our criminal laws to consider the thinking of the doer--did they have criminal intent? When you turn over the rocks, the legal system is full of things we would rather ignore.

snailgate

If I'm walking down the street, and somebody bashes me over the head because of my race...

And somebody else gets bashed over the head for their watch...

What makes my being bashed over the head somehow worthy of more punishment then the guy who got his head bashed for the theft of his watch?

The answer to that is simple...

It's not...

We've had our heads equally bashed...

That's what matters...

And the punishment for the head bashers should also be equal....

That terrible case in South Carolina is an excellent example...

A cowardly scumbag murders nine people in a church...

Who the hell cares whether it was a "hate crime"....or a "love crime"....or an "indifferent crime"....

HE MURDERED NINE PEOPLE IN COLD BLOOD....

Put him on the gurney ride to hell, next case...

We long ago decided that motive matters when prosecuting and sentencing certain crimes. The murder of a police officer or murder for hire is punished more severely than the murder of your child's rapist or a murder pursuant to a bar fight. A hate crime designation is just one more instance in a long list where a particular motive is used to punish the exact same act more severely.

There is an intrinsic difference between random graffiti sprayed on a wall and swastikas sprayed on the tombstones in a Jewish cemetary, between an arson committed by a firebug and the firebombing of a mosque. Inherent in every hate crime is a threat of violence directed at anyone sharing the targeted characteristic. If that threat had been made verbally, it could be prosecuted and punished. But when that threat is telegraphed just as, if not more, clearly through a violent act, it would remain unpunished if prosecution were to be limited to the overt act, without the recognition that what has taken place is a hate crime i.e. is targeting anyone who shares the same characteristic.

It is also an unfortunate fact that prior to the advent of hate crimes legislation, the hatred/phobias/obsessions/whatever that motivated perpetrators to target that characteristic, far from being punished equally with more pedestrian motivations, would serve to lessen the punishment of the perpetrators, sometimes allowing grotesquely violent acts to result in little or no prison time. It was seen as understandable that a red blooded straight boy would be so repulsed by homosexuality that he would seek out queers to maim or kill. And of course very often they were being judged by people who thought just like them, and so were willing to give credence to absurdities like Dan White's Twinkie defence to avoid punishing cold blooded premeditated murder for what it was.

there sure are a lot of people who hate trump s supporters.

if I put up a trump sign and someone rode by, stopped, called me a bigot, and then punched me unconscious....

...would that be a hate crime?

are you the arbiter of who can be hated legitimately?

if not you, who?

free speech , free thought, free will

if that moron poured boiling water on the two lover boys, he would pour it on me if I offended his screwed up sensibilities too.

everyone is weak enough to hate something.

you , scooter , are as hateful a man as I have ever had the misfortune of chatting with....

if the other side is in power, and we go by your rules, you could be locked up for hate...., moron.

wesw wrote:there sure are a lot of people who hate trump s supporters.

if I put up a trump sign and someone rode by, stopped, called me a bigot, and then punched me unconscious....

...would that be a hate crime?

If as a society it was decided that political affiliation should be a protected class, then yes, it would be. Thus far, to my knowledge, no jurisdiction has identified it as such in law. I think a case could be made for it becoming so, because politically motivated violence is designed to prevent or discourage people from exercising some of their most fundamental rights. In the U.S., I believe such violence may already be prosecutable under the Civil Rights Act, although I do not know if its reach is expansive enough to address the scenario you describe.

are you the arbiter of who can be hated legitimately?

if not you, who?

free speech , free thought, free will

I am not the arbiter of anything, that's what legislatures and courts are for. And you are free to hate anyone you want unless you choose to translate that into action. This is not about punishing anyone's speech or thought. The prerequisite for charging someone with a hate crime is that they have already committed a violent ACT. Examining their motive for doing so makes it no different than scores of other crimes where motive is a factor in sentencing, whether mandated by law or at the discretion of a judge.

if that moron poured boiling water on the two lover boys, he would pour it on me if I offended his screwed up sensibilities too.

No, actually, he wouldn't.

everyone is weak enough to hate something.

Not everyone translates that into acts of violence, which is what we are talking about here.

you , scooter , are as hateful a man as I have ever had the misfortune of chatting with....

if the other side is in power, and we go by your rules, you could be locked up for hate...., moron.

I'm not sure who the "other side" is supposed to be, but no, I have absolutely nothing to worry about, because nothing that I have ever said or thought about anyone would EVER become an act or threat of violence, and short of that, I have never advocated otherwise for anyone else.

I don't have any problem at all with motive being taken into consideration when a person is sentenced for a crime, (that's a normal part of the justice system, just as a number of other factors are taken into consideration) but I've said many times over the years that I have definite philosophical problems with "hate crime" laws as a concept...

You just touched on one of the problems; determining who should and who should not qualify as a "protected class"...

I think "hate crime" laws raise serious equal protection questions, and I'm also not keen on the idea of formally criminalizing people's attitudes or beliefs, (no matter how repellent and odious those attitudes and beliefs may be to me, or to society in general.) However, I don't have a problem with something like, "the intent here was to terrorize an entire community or group of people" being considered as an aggravating factor for sentencing under a standard crime (assault, manslaughter, murder, etc.)

This approach also gets around the who is and who isn't a "protected class" issue. In the hypothetical wes poses this could automatically be considered without the need to have a separate law. (The "community" in this specific case being those who are so misguided as to support Donald Trump)

Additionally, while I don't have statistics on this, I suspect that the deterrence effect of "hate crime" laws is precisely zero. I strongly doubt that one single person who wanted to attack or kill anyone based on their race, religion, sexual orientation, (or any other "protected class") has ever thought to themselves, "oh boy I better not do this; I might be charged with a hate crime" and then decided not to do it.

The knuckle dragging mouth breathers who commit these kinds of crimes simply don't think things through in that way. And if they don't have the smarts to be restrained by the penalties for the underlying real crime, (assault, manslaughter, murder etc.) why on earth would they feel restrained by the prospect of being charged with a "hate crime"? It's simply not logical...

So with zero deterrence value, and a whole lot of equal protection and other issues, why do "hate crime" laws exist? I think the answer to that is pretty simple. They exist solely so that politicians and professional activists can have a "feel good" (but completely ineffectual in practical terms) vehicle for pandering to various "protected classes".

Which is yet another problem I have with "hate crime" laws...

One final problem:

The media has developed a fetish like PC obsession (which certainly does not serve the public) over whether or not a heinous crime that has become publicized is also going to bring a "hate crime" charge. (Probably in the interest of sensationalism.)

In my view, it grossly trivializes the underlying heinous act to have that sort of focus. The mass murder that I referenced earlier is a perfect example of this. I was frankly appalled at the amount of coverage and talking-head yammering that was devoted to "will this guy be charged with a hate crime?"

Hello? The cowardly scumbag murdered nine defenseless people in cold blood. Who gives a flying fuck whether or not he's charged with a "hate crime" with nine counts of homicide pending? .

Obviously he was motivated by hatred; anybody who even superficially followed the case knows this. But South Carolina has the wisdom to be a Death Penalty state, and the case couldn't be more open and shut. If charging and trying this piece of garbage for a "hate crime" delays his date with the needle by even one day, DON'T DO IT...

So to summarize, the downsides to "hate crime" laws are numerous, and the benefits are nil...

Unless one sees providing a vehicle for media sensationalism and empty self-righteous political posturing as "benefits"...

I don't...

And the sentence rube began this thread with shouting:

A man poured boiling water on a gay couple. Georgia won't charge him with a hate crime.

Beautifully illustrates my point on the "empty self-righteous political posturing" score...

Is burning a cross merely vandalism and therefore only subject to the maximum sentence of vandalism allows?

Hate crimes should fall under a broader "terrorism" rubric where it should be shown that any act is not only against an individual but intends to effect a larger community.

This could be difficult to prove by the case in question but not in the South Carolina case Jim is mentioning.

This means that the crimes are directed to intimidate any class not just a protected one

If somebody burns a cross on somebody elses property, (or without a permit on public property) there are a whole bunch of crimes they can be charged with in addition to vandalism:

criminal trespass, arson, and reckless endangerment for a start...

If you handed out maximum sentences, and ordered them served consecutively, it would add up to a considerable amount of time...

Certainly more than one would receive for a "hate crime" conviction...

burning a cross on someone s lawn is a form of terrorism.

jim is correct. protected classes are anathema to equal protection under the law.

the class that I might deem worthy of protection would be different than class or classes that scooter might deem worthy, at least partially.

so yes, scooter, you want to be the arbiter of what is just, who is worthy and who is unworthy.

as to your assumption that the freak ,who poured water on the two guys, would not do something horrible to me if I upset him badly....

...I disagree.

...and I am unanimous in that, mr humphries!

Lord Jim wrote:If somebody burns a cross on somebody elses property, (or without a permit on public property) there are a whole bunch of crimes they can be charged with in addition to vandalism:

criminal trespass, arson, and reckless endangerment for a start...

If you handed out maximum sentences, and ordered them served consecutively, it would add up to a considerable amount of time...

Certainly more than one would receive for a "hate crime" conviction...

So just limit it to spray painting then?

Jim, you raise a number of legitimate questions about hate crimes statutes that could be raised about other aspects of criminal law, such as the terrorism statutes that Crackpot alluded to, or the death penalty.

Which crimes should or should not be classified as terrorism, or subject to the death penalty?
Do the application of terrorism or death penalty statutes violate Equal Protection?
Does classifying a certain crime as terrorism, or imposing the death penalty for it, have any deterrent value?
Are terrorism and death penalty statutes a "feel good" vehicle used to pander to certain constituencies?
Have the media developed a fetish-like obsession with whether a particular heinous crime constitutes an act of terrorism or will attract the death penalty?

I would say that all of those questions could as easily be answered yes, as when asked of hate crimes statutes.

I think the Equal Protection concern is pretty much nonsense. Hate crimes statutes address crimes based on the race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. of the victim. There is nothing about hate crimes statutes or their application that privileges victims belonging to particular races, religions, sexual orientations, etc. The fact that the perpetrators of hate crimes are overwhelmingly white, Christian, heterosexual, etc. and that their victims are overwhelmingly non-white, non-Christian, non-heterosexual, etc. is simply a reflection of reality - blacks don't go around firebombing white churches, Jews don't spray paint Stars of David on tombstones, gay street gangs don't go in search of heterosexuals to rough up. Usually, that is. When they do, they are prosecuted. Where is the Equal Protection problem?

One concept that I categorically reject is that hate crimes statutes serve in any way to criminalize thoughts or beliefs. The fact that it is a crime to kill someone in a murderous rage does not criminalize anger. That it is a crime to steal does not criminalize greed. Neither then does the recognition that race was the motive for a crime in any way criminalize racism.

wes, I understand. My refusal to take the bait has befuddled you, and you are left with claiming that I said what you wished I had, rather than what I actually said, which was pretty much the opposite. Thanks for playing.

Lord Jim wrote:

Blackwell is currently in jail, charged with two counts of aggravated battery.

The man is in jail, charged with a crime and let's hope he's punished to the full extent of the law. "Hate crime" is just so much hyperbolic bullshit. What difference does the motive make? He did something awful and deserves mucho jail

Absolutely...

And if the penalties are not strong enough for that sort of behavior, then we should strengthen them...

We don't need some sort of PC "hate crime" media diversion....

We just need to punish real crimes effectively...

That.

but then scooter wouldn t be 'special'....

I was born special. An Act of Parliament declaring me so would only have been gilding the lily.