Already we can be thankful that we finally passed a federal hate-crime law this summer -- because it's helping bring about justice in the case of a Latino man killed by white thugs in Shenandoah, Pennsylvania:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Five people, including three police officers, have been indicted in the fatal race-related beating of a Latino man in Shenandoah, Pennsylvania, the Justice Department said Tuesday.
Two indictments charge the five with federal hate crime charges, as well as obstruction of justice and conspiracy, authorities said in a written statement. A federal grand jury handed up the indictments last week, and they were unsealed Tuesday.
Derrick Donchak and Brandon Piekarsky are charged with a hate crime for beating Luis Ramirez in July 2008 while shouting racial epithets at him, according to the department. Ramirez died two days later.
"Following the beating, Donchak, Piekarsky and others, including members of the Shenandoah Police Department, participated in a scheme to obstruct the investigation of the fatal assault," the Justice Department said. As a result, Donchak faces three additional counts of conspiring to obstruct justice and related offenses, officials said.
Shenandoah Police Chief Matthew Nestor and two other officers are charged with conspiring to obstruct justice in the Ramirez investigation. Nestor and a fourth police officer are named in a third indictment and charged with extortion and civil rights violations related to police corruption, the Justice Department said.
It's genuinely disturbing to discover that local law-enforcement officers were involved in covering this matter up and obstructing justice. It adds just another twist to an already shocking case.
The Ramirez case was a classic example of why we needed to pass a federal bias-crime law -- especially considering the outrageous circumstances in which the local jury slapped the young thugs on the wrist:
[T]his was a pretty clear-cut case of jury nullification: the weight of evidence against the accused was so powerful that it's clear the all-white jury -- like similar juries in the South during the Civil Rights struggle -- was not going to convict two young white men of murdering a Mexican. Even if, as Friedman says, "the only reason he is dead is because he was Mexican."
Prosecutors alleged that the teens baited the Ramirez into a fight with racial epithets, provoking an exchange of punches and kicks that ended with Ramirez convulsing in the street, foaming from the mouth. He died two days later in a hospital.
Piekarsky was accused of delivering a fatal kick to Ramirez's head after he was knocked to the ground.
As they poured out of courthouse, the teens' supporters shouted "I was right from the start" and "I'm glad the jury listened" at cameras that caught the late-night verdict.
But Gladys Limon, a spokeswoman for the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund, said the jury had sent a troubling message.
"The jurors here [are] sending the message that you can brutally beat a person, without regard to their life, and get away with it, continue with your life uninterrupted," she said.
Considering some of the details of the killing, it's also inordinately clear this was a classic bias crime, with the incident instigated by racially charged taunts that made clear the victim was selected because of racial animus:
"Isn't it a little late for you guys to be out?" the boys said, according to court documents. "Get your Mexican boyfriend out of here."
... Burke recalled hearing one final, ominous threat as the teens ran. "They yelled, 'You effin bitch, tell your effin Mexican friends get the eff out of Shenandoah or you're gonna be laying effin next to him,' " she said.
That is, of course, the entire purpose of bias crimes: To hold the victim up as an example: "You're next." The purpose is to terrorize the target community, to drive them out, eliminate them.
This is why Latino advocates demanded the Justice Department step in and deliver justice. It looks like they have.
Larry Keeler at HateWatch has more.
Wow, I'm...shocked? No, not so much.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etC59HVD-tg
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Disturbing .. yes.
Out of the ordinary .. no.
This is where the term "testilying" originates.
When will government of the people, by the politicians, for the corporations perish from this Earth?
Not soon enough!
Hmmm... with juries like that, in that jurisdiction, I wonder what the demographic of the general population will be that the thugs will have to join.
Or will they go to Federal prison?
what having federal hate crime legislation will accomplish. Assault, manslaughter, conspiracy & obstruction of justice are all already illegal. If they beat this guy for the money in his wallet instead of his ethnicity, and the the cops conspired to obstruct justice, why should the punishment be any different? Put another way, if I get conked on the head on Monday for the $40 in my pocket, and then I get conked on the head on Tuesday because someone doesn't like my ethnicity, will the punishments be different? And if so, why?
this may deter people from going out and committing assualt, murder, etc...strictly because of who the person is. People are always going to commit a crime for various motives. This is just another motive that is being addressed. A bigot won't necessarily rob you or beat you, but this may deter said bigot from acting on his hateful impulses.
If the existing laws don't deter them, why will this one?
. . . it just might not be tried in front of a jury of good-ole-boys and girls who will let you off cause you're one of them. That's one reason.
We are addressing motive. It's another motive.
Just like robbery is a motive.
Crime of passion.
etc.
It's high time bigotry gets addressed in this country. At least, acting on those impulses.
I am asking a valid question. I read your goddamn fucking post.
I said it addressed the motive...which you convenitently ignored. So STFU.
If you don't understand by now that police officers are the poster children of sociopathic tendencies, you really haven't been paying attention.
Why don't you try getting along without police? Next time you are robbed, attacked, whatever, call somebody else.
cause indictment based on the act of violence itself.
The bigot may not care about taking your money.
He may simply want to hurt you because you're black.
Hopefully, this may take away or at least cause him to question his motivation considering the ramifications of his actions
If local juries aren't going to hold criminals accountable because of prevailing community prejudices, then these laws give the fed a second crack at it.
Yes, it invalidates the entire basis of our legal system, but without these kinds of laws, local communities can basically decriminalize any kind of violation against a minority just because they are a minority. (And yes, it happens a lot)
If you are attacked and robbed, your assailant can be charged for both the violent act and for the theft. What hate crime legislation does, in my estimation, is criminalize not only the act but the motivation, just like being able to charge for both the assault and robbery does. It does get a bit dangerous to talk about crimes of thought, but at the same time, most law is based upon intent anyway (the difference between murder and manslaughter, for instance), so it makes sense from that perspective. I think there is merit to the idea that as a society, we would want to actively discourage people to hate, and even more so, to act on that hate. It's a tricky thing to figure, and there are valid arguments on both sides, but I think hate crime charges are a valuable thing to have available.
I don't think it's criminalizing the motivation so much as the "signs" you leave with the crime.
If a person is murdered and/or displayed in a particularly heinous fashion, that murder is almost certainly intended to not just to kill one man or woman but also to terrorize. Think lynching, or dragging a victim behind a truck or leaving him to die tied to a fencepost. In this case, the killers made sure the witnesses knew that they faced the same possibility if they stuck around town.
We're not talking Vulcan mind-meld here. When you have a hate crime, the perpetrator wants the motivation to be known to inflict fear on other people. That's what you're punishing: the added harm the perpetrator does to the community on top of the act itself.
That's completely true. So perhaps instead of "hate motivated murder" it should be "murder with intent to intimidate and harrass the public". Of course, that is less powerful a term. :)
After all, probably a good number of people beaten and killed are killed by someone who dislikes them, rather than for profit (robbery) or other motive.
But when we talk of "Hate Crime" laws, we're not really meaning the emotions of the perpetrator toward the victim, as in "I hate you because you're different". A more appropriate term might be "terrorizing crime", but "terrorism" already covers another set of offenses.
At any rate, if you beat or kill someone you are, as you say, subject to existing laws for your actions. But if your intention is broader than just harming that one person -- like maybe sending a "message" to everyone in his/her ethnicity, race, whatever, that they might be next -- that's what we're looking at in a "hate crime".
We're not talking mind-reading either. People who commit "hate crimes" want it known why they did it. When the crime is aggravated by hurling epithets in front of witnesses or leaving other evidence as a "warning", it's clear (or should be clear) to the community and the justice system that a "hate crime" took place.
So don't let the term fool you. We labeled it poorly, but it doesn't mitigate the seriousness of the offense.
hands of the locals, who let the crime slide, and puts it into the hands of the feds. It also cleans up some dirty cops in the process.
As to the difference between the knock on the head for your money and the knock on the head because of your ethnicity, race, religion, sexual preference or whatever, one is a crime directed only at you, while the other uses you to direct a crime at all like you. Of the two, which one do you think creates, in the minds of most reasonable people, the greater harm against society?
Think about it The crimes you list are illegal at the local and state levels, which would normally adjudicate them absent the federal hate crime legislation. If local and/or state law enforcement decline to investigate or prosecute or, as has happened, tamper with the case in some way, nothing happens. But if the feds are empowered to take over, then the power is removed from dirty cops and justice has a better chance of being served, although history tells us it can take looooong time.
It's sad to think that some of our friends and neighbors, who are sworn to protect us, allow prejudices and old-time networking to influence them, but it happens. Not all corruption is about money. Some is about peer pressure and community mores.
Essentially you are right, but the government feels that they need to legislate our thoughts also.
If it proves mens rea and concurrence along with the actus reus that's the reason.
You might as well be asking why should any crime with a handgun be weighed differently than with your bare hands?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
what I'm asking is, if you shoot me to rob me, why should the punishment be any different than if you shoot me because of my ethnicity? How can I make my question any clearer? It is already illegal to violate someone's civil rights, commit assault, obstruct justice and so forth. These laws are already demonstrably difficult to enforce evenly. Adding more laws, it seems to me, doesn't address the issue. Enforcing the laws we already have does.
way, way back in 1989 or 1990, I participated in a study for the Fair Housing Commission in Chicago. The purpose of the study was to find concrete evidence of housing discrimination. In the study, we would invent identical characteristics for a white guy and a black guy, i.e. same income, same family situation, same job, etc. What we found, and were able to prove conclusively was that black renters and home buyers were being discriminated against almost uniformly by realtors, homeowners associations and landlords. Now what we need to accomplish, but haven't yet, is enforcement of the laws that were already on the books way, way back in 1989 or 1990 (whatever year it was). Adding more housing discrimination laws won't do it, as those laws will be flouted just like the current ones are.
"As to the difference between the knock on the head for your money and the knock on the head because of your ethnicity, race, religion, sexual preference or whatever, one is a crime directed only at you, while the other uses you to direct a crime at all like you."
that's a pretty good answer. Thanks.
But I still think enforcing the laws we already have will accomplish same. Adding new laws seems like a cheap way to appease those who are being discriminated against without actually doing anything of substance.
We need both.
But it's NOT a preference, and never has been. The bill doesn't even address it as such.
No one chooses their sexuality, so I'd appreciate it if you'd stop labeling it as such.
you know, I think, what I meant. I should have used orientation. I do understand it isn't a matter of preference.
why use the outdated and incorrect expression? When you do, it sends a message to all those that can't read your mind like I can.
the terminology is not something that I keep up with. It isn't a central issue in my life as it may be with others. I don't minimize the importance, and on reflection, I see the difference of implied meaning, but come on...you know me by now, and I think you know I have no malice. Lighten up a little on me, will you? I sit corrected.
I was being a hard-ass about it, but if I offended, I apologize. That's why I didn't go Ape-sh*t on your *ss. As for the "terminology", that term has been outdated for about a decade or so. So you might want to check in with your gay community or friends for at least once a decade.
;)
I wrote it without thinking it through. I've got plenty of gay/lesbian friends at work. We've spent a lot of time solving the totality of all the world's ills. I know better, just didn't think it through before I wrote. Usually, I am more mindful of what I write or say.
:)
I am Mentok, The Mind-Taker.
The latter is also a form of domestic terrorism.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
indeed it is.
What is ridiculous about the whole murder is murder claim, is not all killing is murder.
Some is self-defense, some accident, some accident with negligence, some accidents without negligence, or maybe someone just keeled over in your living room of a heart attack.
In any of these cases, you end up with a corpse on the ground, motive is used to prove whether a crime occurred or not, you don't just end the investigation on there being a body.
In some rare cases, people have been convicted of murder when the body was never located.
My understanding is when cops investigate a death they presume homicide until they see the available facts do not support that.
That's partially why autopsies are so common in our country.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
is the biggest partof it.
hate crime = crime against a community
that's the point.
When will government of the people, by the politicians, for the corporations perish from this Earth?
Not soon enough!
It's very simple: Bias-crime laws affect sentencing for acts that are already crimes. As with all criminal law, the increased sentence is intended to reflect the additional harm caused by bias crimes.
There are three levels of additional harm present in bias crimes that are not present in the ordinary crimes which bias crimes resemble:
1: Harm to the immediate victim. Numerous studies have shown that bias-crime victims experience abnormal levels of psychological harm. Moreover, bias crimes themselves are more often violent than ordinary crimes, and in fact (particularly in anti-gay hate crimes) often acts of extraordinary violence.
2: Harm to the target community. Bias crimes are "message" crimes -- the message being "we want you out" -- and the message is directed at the entire group of minorities who the victim represents. This community is effectively terrorized by bias crimes.
3: Harm to the larger community. Bias crimes drive out minorities, and create racial tensions and underscore existing racial/ethnic/identity divisions within a community. They also are known to cast clouds over whole towns as havens for violence.
as I said to Paul above, those are pretty good answers. But, as I also said above, enforcing the laws we already have will go a long way towards accomplishing this. It is already against the law to violate someone's civil rights, which is what happened in this case. Civil rights laws have proven difficult to enforce, as, I fear, bias crime laws will. Shit, we can't even enforce drunk driving laws. This push-me-pull-you approach just isn't working. We are already the world's largest incarcerator. Adding more laws to the books ain't gonna cut it.
incarceration, thank you.
If you want to tackle the incarceration rate, advocate that for non-violent drug users and the like. As someone who belongs to at least three groups of society who are targeted for bias crimes, I'd rather not see the brutal perpetrators of such crimes loose on the street. If the bias crimes legislation helps, use it, use it, use it.
"The greatest tyranny is censoring information in order to be better able to control people." - Cristina Saralegui
if the schools in poor neighborhoods had just as up-to-date facilities as in the rich neighborhoods, and if we stopped ruining economies in Asia & Latin America, and if we took responsibility for 400 years of slavery, etc. etc. etc., maybe we wouldn't need layer after layer of unenforceable laws.
something to be said for that.
In environmentalism, there is a concept known as "source reduction." This concept suggests that instead of trying to figure out how to properly dispose of toxic waste, sulfur dioxide, plastic water bottles, etc., we should find ways to reduce the sources of these contaminants. We have done very little in this country to reduce the source of bigotry, which is ignorance. We seem content to tolerate and even reward obviously obsolete patterns of thought and behavior, because ignorant people are more easily manipulated.
and I've got to lay a good bit of the blame for that manipulation at the feet of the press.
Beware the fnords.
And ignore double posts.
are enforced at the local level, where corrupt systems get the perps off.
Hate crimes are prosecuted by the feds. They don't give a fuck about your local brand of injustice.
They can be prosecuted in federal court. Hate crimes still originate in state courts unless there is some other factor or a particularly good lawyer that gets it sent to fed court, but it does allow easier appeal to the fed system when you are breaking a federal statute. Regradless though, yeah, the fact that having it as a federal statute puts the fear of being taken to federal court in to play is definitely a good added deterent.
BigDaddyMalcontent,
This country does not have a history of armed mobs of people roving around and killing people for their money. It does however have a terrible history of roving mobs killing people because of their color. The state and local authorities are historically notorious for doing absolutely nothing about this and have often been complicit in its undertaking. The federal government realized that something needed to be done to bring about justice in cases like these and created a legal framework with which to handle such cases. Because of the targeted nature of the crimes they are seen as separate from murder or assault by federal law.
It's amazing to me that you have absolutely no historical framework with which to see how a hate crime is a separate entity from laws currently on state and local books. You ignore the bloody history of lynchings and beatings that took place in this country not long ago. Peoples Parents and grandparents today are old enough to have been the perpetrators of these heinous acts and are readily available for jury duty. In their eyes how can you assault or murder an animal as many of them see people of color. Hate crime laws speak to this societal phenomenon and willingness of people to infringe upon or deny others civil rights.
before you preach.
There's something wrong with us as a nation, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the lack of legislation. Until we get at our underlying issues, the quantity and severity of laws will be useless. The fact that this is so difficult for so many here to comprehend is another symptom of this nation's sociopathy.
but by your reasoning the slaves should not have been freed and slavery made illegal because the hearts and minds of many were still pro-slavery. (The US was one of the last industrialized nations to end slavery - how long should the wait have been?) Or civil rights legislation in the 60s which so many were against. There are no doubt many racists in this country, but the people that would actually inflict violence on someome based on race is much smaller (I would like to think, anyway), mainly because of the (possible) punishment by existing laws. I would argue those that are racists to the point of violence are not going to undergo social change no more than slaveowners in 1862 were going to have some moral epiphany. As a result MORE laws that ensure the arrests, prosecution, and incarceration of these individuals at that point is the only remedy.
I've seen some stuff, man. And some thangs...
"This country does not have a history of armed mobs of people roving around and killing people for their money. "...
Obviously you have never lived in L.A.
As the point of hate crimes is to make an example that says, "You're next", it is now time that an example was made of the perpetrators.
impacts the prosecution of this case. The incidents seem to have predated passage of the new law.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
there being talk of no statute of limitations. Still, I asume you are referring to constitutional questions? If so, good question.
There is a constitutional prohibition on retroactive laws. I presume all of these charges relate to acts which, predate the new
federal statute. That is what provoked the question.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
argued out in the courts. It may also be that they are moving forward based on hate crimes legislation tht was already on the books? Don't know. If not, these guys will probably claim that this action is unConstitutional.
The new law has no effect.
The new law simply adds sexual orientation to the list of ethnicity, religion, etc., which were already covered.
These police and perps had to have been charged under the old law.
When will government of the people, by the politicians, for the corporations perish from this Earth?
Not soon enough!
I haven't seen the actual charges, so I can't confirm it -- but the story says they are being charged with a federal hate crime, and that crime did not exist (outside of limited federal applications, such as crimes committed to keep people from voting) prior to the passage of this legislation.
don't understand the importance of hate crime legislation. *sigh* As a mixed Latina, I get it quite well. The crime against Luis Ramirez was intended as intimidation and threat to an already fairly powerless group of people in that community. With the level of hateful rhetoric directed towards Latinos, I worry for my own community, and I'd feel I'd have even more reason why worry about being in areas with very few Latinos.
The police were complicit in this crime because they agreed with the message that we Latinos should not be welcome in their midst. The federal hate crime conviction sends a message back to the bigots; that their violation of people's civil rights will not be tolerated. And I am very, very thankful for that, and for the convictions in this specific crime.
"The greatest tyranny is censoring information in order to be better able to control people." - Cristina Saralegui
I feel a tinier bit safer out there knowing that some bigot a-hole might think twice before assaulting me just because I'm gay. Making it a FEDERAL crime just may slow said a-hole from acting on his homophobia.
*
"The greatest tyranny is censoring information in order to be better able to control people." - Cristina Saralegui
is the whole point. Nobody should live in fear.
9/11, 9/11 9/11!!!!!
;)
state induced fear, is not only OK, it's downright patriotic. How else to keep us masses in line? There's nothing like a State Approved Boogeyman® to keep us chattels in our places.
because in trying to obstruct and cover it up, they gave the crime the police seal of approval, which - as likely as not - establishes an environment where the worst of crimes is offically sanctioned. The rule of law is turned on its head.
also sends a message that cops can't ignore laws when they want to.
"The greatest tyranny is censoring information in order to be better able to control people." - Cristina Saralegui
"We" kinda screwed up with the term "hate crime". It confuses people into thinking that it's about the emotional state of the perpetrator. When in fact we're dealing with "terrorism". Except by the time we finally got around to dealing with "hate crime", terrorism had become synonymous with "International Terrorism", and that conjured up a different image.
I don't know the answer except to keep explaining that it's not about the criminal hating the victim, it's about scaring, intimidating and warning the victim's community. The extra punishment is for the harm done to the community, and the higher jurisdiction is to prevent localized tyranny by the majority (or the established power).
I liked your post bad_robbie.
Adding my two cents, I read the example of someone conking you on the head to steal $40 from your wallet (above). If someone does that, they take the $40 and leave.
In hate crimes, they might take the $40 and still continue to beat the shit out of you. I say they because it's often more than one person. Often there are groups or gangs, either from the outset or other like-minded types join in: a sort of swarm.
I've seen it first-hand in Toronto. I once saved a guy that was surrounded by one of these mobs ready to beat the crap out of him. He was gay (as am I), they were rednecks-- 'nuff said.
I'm no tough guy, but I was so mad I chased them off. Must have been an adrenaline rush.
They want to make it clear, as a group they hate gays, and it's clearly use of fear and intimidation-- gays are not welcome 'round here.
Now, if the cops get involved, they might claim it was a simple robbery, but I assure you IT WAS NOT.
Laws and courts and legal terminology aside, there's no mistake what was happening.
far left loon >.<
If you scroll through the thread, you'll see I've conceded the point, more or less. However, as I also mentioned elsewhere in the thread, piling law after unenforceable law onto the problem won't do as much as we may hope. What's really needed is a dramatic sea-change in the way we address fear and ignorance, which, in turn, requires a more or less complete overhaul of just about every institution in North America. I'm afraid we (or others like us) will still be batting this one back and forth twenty years from now unless we do (overhaul the institutions, that is). Of course, the same can be said for most of the topics discussed on this site.
Punishment is part of education
Shrinkiatrist call it negative reinforcement as opposed to positive reinforcement.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
but there are two types of punishment: Do this assignment or you're grounded, which only works temporarily at best; vs. train yourself to overcome your inner cro-magnon or you will be perpetually at odds with progress. Punishment via the criminal justice system, which is what's being advocated in David's post, is the former.
Positive Reinforcement only works on those preconditioned for it, for some it is genetics some environment, some both.
The desire to change the world with no negative sanctions helps give liberalism its wussy image.
What we need to do is decriminalize drugs, and use the space for actual dangerous people.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
about who gets incarcerated, worry about those who are in prison because of non-violent drug related offenses. Those people deserve the compassion and second chance. People who commit violent hate crimes should be removed from society at large, at least temporarily, and there you can work on changing their inner cro-magnon. People and communities that are terrorized through hate crimes don't have the luxury of waiting around while someone who commits a violent crime addresses their inner cro-magnon while out and about and amongst the people they've victimized.
"The greatest tyranny is censoring information in order to be better able to control people." - Cristina Saralegui
There's no question that meting out the proper justice to thugs who beat up people because of the color of their skin or who they choose to love is very much a band-aid response to deeper issues.
No doubt providing that justice only goes a little way to resolving those deeper issues, and if we want to get serious about them we need to get to work on the causes of them.
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't ensure justice is indeed meted out. Bias-crime laws are about ensuring that the punishment is commensurate with the harm caused by people who commit these crimes.
These laws are enforceable, because we have a track record of enforcing them. And what they mean above all is that a neo-Nazi who beats up a black man or a homophobe thrashing some random gay person within an inch of their life will not get off with a slap of the wrist that tells them and their cohorts that it's quietly OK, and ultimately to keep re-offending. They'll get the punishment they deserve.
It's about justice, both for the perpetrators and for their victims.
I trust you're not suggesting we stop enforcing laws against murder simply because they indicate some deeper social malaise, which they do. I mean, hell, we'd all love to start addressing the deeper social causes of murder, too. But I don't think we should stop putting murderers away simply because doing so might distract us from dealing with those deeper issues.
inaction. I'm glad these fuckers got indicted. I'm positive my punishment for them would be much more severe than anything they will receive at the hands of our "justice" system. All I'm saying is, if we were truly on the path toward honest-to-goodness justice on this issue, the laws we already have would be plenty to mete out that justice. Adding another law might make an incremental difference, but I'm tired of the well-that-takes-care-of-that approach. We formed the EPA nearly 40 years ago, but our environment is more fucked than ever. The same can be said for nearly every other issue. Back during the Whiskey Rebellion & Shay's Rebellion and so forth, people would actually walk away from their jobs, pick up the torches and pitchforks and demand justice. We need something like that today. We need...hey, CSI is on...what was I saying...nevermind. Get my drift?
Yes, I saw that. I wasn't taking issue with it, I was using it as an example because it was already in the thread.
All of society needs an overhaul, is right. It takes a long time. As someone who has grown up amidst the gay rights movements, I see it can be done. We now have legal gay marriage across Canada. That's a big change from when I was a kid and people discrimated openly to my face because they could, it was accepted.
People still do discriminate to my face, but generally it's not seen as "cool" now, and others speak up where before they were silent.
It is a very long slow re-education process.
When I think of things we said as kids, because we didn't know better, I'm aghast.
Brazil nuts were ni**er toes
Eeny meeny miney moe, catch a ni**er by the toe
Get your cotton-picking fingers off me
Indian giver
A rip-off was a Jew-job
Etc., etc. EGAD. As a kid I just said 'em, cuz everyone did. I didn't know they were bad.
[edit: those might have been popular Canadian-kid refrains. My hometown was 50% WASP, 30% Italian, 19 1/2% other Europeans, and 1/2% not from the above groups.]
far left loon >.<
I grew up in suburban Chicago,with a few years in suburban Cincinnati, and we said that stuff too, and more. Didn't know what most of it meant 'til much later. I spent the first year and a half or so of college mortified. I wonder if kids say that stuff today. Probably.
of the problem, and it's certainly a valid response, but saying that over and over won't help the person somewhere in the country, perhaps right now as we speak, who is getting their ass beat by someone because of the color of their skin, their sexual orientation, their gender, or their gender identity. We have to worry about the here and now too, not just what might happen after a few decades of education and soul-searching.
"The greatest tyranny is censoring information in order to be better able to control people." - Cristina Saralegui
all over the subway that read, "No eating or drinking." Yet I see people eating and drinking on the subway every day. What should we do, put up another sign? As I've already acknowledged, I understand the difference between a bias crime and an ordinary crime, but as 200+ years of American history has demonstrated, all the laws in the world don't mean jack shit if the people don't follow them. They passed Jim Crow laws in the South five or six decades ago, but did that make racism go away?
But look up the number of lynchings per decade over the last 100 years. Yes, a person of color may not get a job or an apartment they wanted because of their color. But they aren't likely to be strung up from a tree for drinking out of the company water fountain after the interview. Utopia ain't gonna' happen. We can hold hands and sing "Kumbaya" or make sure we put murderers and other violent offenders in prison, and local juries don't always do that. I can live with someone eating on the subway - not with people getting beaten and murdered because of their color or who they chose to sleep with, and those that perpetrate such acts getting away with it. The law is still the law regardless of if someone chooses to follow it - it doesn't mean jack-shit only if not enforced like the local police and PA jury in this case did.
I've seen some stuff, man. And some thangs...
Jim Crow laws were past post-Reconstruction, around 1880's to 1890's, they were a part of the problem with racist treatment.
Lynching wasn't officially outlawed until the 1940's under Truman.
Civil Rights laws were passed in the 50's and 60's but the Supreme Court does not have their own police, to enforce their decision, and state righers still basically claim the discredited "null and void" doctrine regarding federal law.
Red lining neighborhoods for loans and insurance continued into the 1970's, and most neighborhood schools in lower income minority neighborhoods help perpetuate the problem with the low funding they received from their states, pretty much up to the recent days.
However, racist attitudes may remain, but the actions are verbotten.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
"Hate Crimes" legislation:
http://ourlatinamerica.blogspot.com/2008/11/r...
This Ecuadorian immigrant was murdered in The Hamptons while I was there in 2008. I think this case kinda fell under the media radar at the time.
All those rich folks on the east end of Long Island work these immigrants hard. Then when one of them was taunted and murdered the rich white folks didn't want to stand up for justice. It was all a pretty disgusting display of events as I recall reading in The Southampton Press that summer.
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
And bring down these criminal racist cops.
is intended to be a factual statement
1) The venue will be different. The trial won't be in the local court with the locals as jury.
2) When you attack someone because of race, religion, country of origin you attack everyone that belongs to that group. The penalty needs to be greater since the damage is greater.
...because latino and mexican gang thugs have no problem visiting their mushroom-growing PA counterparts, seeking you out, and snuffing out your entire family before you even know what happened. You need some proof? check out what's going on in places like Laredo, Texas
This is just like the things that used to happen in the south everyday.
It looks like nothing more then racism in the finding of the jury.
I was not there, I don't really know anything about the case but someone was killed. Should it make any difference what the color of his skin is or where he was from.
I guess this is the America we should be proud of?
I am to old to leave but I think I am going to encourage my grandchildren to leave this god forsaken place.
It is awful to let 25% of the people make this country into a mockery.
republicanism/conservatism is a mental illness that is killing America. I think we are in our last throws as dickhead chenny would say.
I have always known our government was a mess. Now I think it is beyond repair.
hear hear
What is more disgusting than a jury trial (of peers yeah right!) that ends with an unjust verdict? The actuality is police (who were lovers of the parents of suspects, friends and sponsors of the suspects' families) conspired with the alledged murderers. Is this justice or "just us"? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...
Bail hearing for Pa. police accused of cover-up
By MICHAEL RUBINKAM and KATHY MATHESONThe Associated Press
Wednesday, December 16, 2009; 6:33 AM
SHENANDOAH, Pa. -- After taking part in a fight that left a Mexican immigrant mortally wounded on the street, teenagers Brandon Piekarsky and Derrick Donchak fled. They didn't get very far before running into two police officers responding to a 911 call about the assault.
These were no ordinary officers. Patrolman Jason Hayes dated Piekarsky's mother, and Lt. William Moyer's son played with Piekarsky on the high school football team. Their commanding officer, Chief Matthew Nestor, was a friend of Piekarsky's mother and even vacationed with her.
Rather than place the popular white football players under arrest, the officers let them go ...
Senorita Bonita
Comments are closed on this entry