Latino advocates press for federal investigation of Luis Ramirez' hate-crime death in PA
By David Neiwert Thursday May 14, 2009 4:00pm
The pressure is mounting on President Obama's Justice Department to take on the case of Luis Ramirez, the Latino man whose killers were set free by a rural Pennsylvania jury that likely indulged in classic race-based nullification -- and Exhibit A in the debate over why we need a federal bias-crime law.
Yesterday, Latino advocates held a news conference outside the Capitol to make the push:
Joined at a news conference outside of the Capitol by U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez, D-NJ, and Rep. Mike Honda, D-Calif., members of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Anti-Defamation League and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People said the federal government should press civil rights charges against Brandon Piekarsky, 17, and Derrick Donchak, 19.
... "This trial sends a message that the Department of Justice and our congressional leaders should be very concerned with," said John Amaya, legislative staff attorney at the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund. "If you are Latino in America, if you are brutally attacked because of your ethnicity, if you died as a result of that brutal beating that is senseless and unjust, there is no justice for you."
The Justice Department has acknowledged it has an open investigation in the case, but has declined to be specific.
Gladys Limón of MALDEF has a piece up at CNN explaining in more detail why the case needs a closer examination -- at least, the sound legal reasons.
But there are larger reasons. As the Editors at The Sanctuary put it, murders like Ramirez's are an essential building block "in the process of establishing a subhuman class":
The third, overarching, shocking reality thrown into sharp relief by the murder of Luis Ramirez is how easily an environment of violently xenophobic rhetoric and targeted hate has normalized a modern-day lynching to the point that it is absorbed and diluted with barely a blip into the everyday news cycle and into public consciousness. How effortlessly a subhuman category of being is constructed and subsequently reviled. How a verdict has been passed on just how to deal with this synthesized Creature, and how effective that virulent messaging has been evidenced in a death like this one and in a pattern that plays out in various towns, cities, and states across the country. Seemingly unconnected cells of hatred hammer the dominant culture's sentence down upon a targeted group, and the system nods and winks when all is done.
The populace nods and winks along with them, too. This is particularly the case in rural areas, where bias crimes are rarely reported, rarely investigated or prosecuted, and even more rarely ever produce a conviction. As you can see in the above news reports, back in Schuykill County, the denial is layered on thickly:
One of the jurors at the beating death trial said a federal investigation is not the way to go.
"When is enough, enough? It's over! I don't think anything should come of this. I think the boys should live their lives and do something," said juror Josh Silfies.
Some people in Shenandoah agree.
"I think the verdict is the verdict and it should stay the verdict," said Christine Pridish.
Likewise, in a similar local account:
CHARLOTTE GOZDITIS: We are getting a reputation of being nothing but prejudiced, ignorant mean people and that's not true.
KATHY: The decision has been made. It's all done. It's over with.
Not everyone agrees, though:
Others, including Gene Gilbert, believe there is a need for a federal investigation. "Let them come in and look at this because I think they're getting off a little lenient."
"To get down to the truth to really investigate and find out what really went on and to make sure they get their justice," said Camille Guzman of Shenandoah.
"Up to now people are not satisfied with it and others who were very uncomfortable with it and I think it will bring satisfaction to go though with it. Nobody is going to be satisfied with it until it's over," said Kathleen Merchlinsky.
We'll be watching the Obama DOJ to see if it is appreciably better in dealing with these kinds of situations than was Bush's, which steadfastly ignored such situations.
In the meantime, despite the media's ongoing cluelessness about both the need for a federal bias-crimes law, as well as the right's utter mendaciousness in opposing it, the prospects of passing the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act are looking better by the day.
Login or Register to post comments.
Why can't they just get these guys for murder?
And we must go beyond that. We must focus on the beliefs that we disagree with and punish extra for those beliefs.
In other words, sure, we could just execute a murderer, but isn't it better to be able to dig up the murderer's corpse for additional mutilation so we can pose beside it and demonstrate our self-righteousness?
Don't worry, this "hate" crime logic would never be abused. It's not like we would charge animal rights protesters as terrorists because we disagree with their beliefs. Or would we?
What other beliefs should "enhance" punishment? The list is endless, but since "hate" is "bad," we must get to work as soon as possible.
... just wow...
... this allows the prosecution to at least put the murder in its correct context. Even if the justice system failed misserably in this context.
ADL and NAACP. The verdict was an outrage, and I'm sure the racists in those parts don't want to hear from us, but there's strength in numbers, I hope.
The jurors should also be investigated if only to put the fear of God in them.
The jury system is no good unless it agrees with you??? It's too bad if folks think that justice wasn't done, but that's our system. By the way, someday when and if you ever serve on a jury, are you going to pay attention to the courtroom and make your decision on facial expressions or act upon the judges instructions???
But I think people should pay extra attention to the charges and the evidence. Regardless of facial expressions. But they should pay attention to the judges instructions. But a jury is supposed to be unbiased. Regardless.
Those guys got away with murder. As far as I can tell anyway.
Man this country is so fucked up it's beyond belief sometimes.
of you, Hairlip and Mudshark.
Hairlip I agree with you on that is the system and too bad if you don't agree with the verdict.
Mudshark I agree with you that you should pay attention to the charges and the evidence.
I disagree that you should always follow the judges instructions. Or that even if their guilty of the charge they should always be found guilty.
And how they seat a jury now is in no way designed to get a impartial jury. Its a contest between the prosecutor and the defense attorney to see who can get the most biased jurists. There are attorneys on both sides who only help pick juries. If you want a better way get rid of voir dier and go back to the old way, which was simply asking the jurist name and if they can bring back a fair verdict.
That's as far as it goes.
An impartial/unbiased juror should be able to decide for themselves what is pertinent to each case.
There are situations where the Judge is right.
And there are situations where it's the juror's duty to make that decision for themselves.
I agree, the whole judicial system has been convoluted.
There comes a point when people have to rely on their common sense.
Unfortunately, too many people lack that quality.
although I think some of the common instructions should be ignored completely. ie that the jury is only to judge the facts in the case. And most likely most if not all of the others should be taken with a grain of salt at the minimum. My personal opinion is that in a jury trial about the only job the judge has is to keep it civil, make sure procedure is followed(fairly), and help the jury if they have any questions regarding legal issues or points of law.
"It's done, it's over, let the boys move on with their lives".
To bad we can't get that into Ramirez's head and quit bringing this crap up. Oh that's right. THEY KILLED RAMIREZ!!!!!.
Just look at that juror and you can easily see why they got off. His only concern was these three white boys. They need a federal investigation of the jury. Not the the three boys, we already know what they did. Let's investigate this jury, they were criminal.
will "that ruin that poor boy's life" by pressing charges.
Absolutely disgusting.
have virtual immunity except for very specific things, such as bribes. Which is how it should be. If juries can be investigated for bringing in verdicts that the government doesn't like, what do you think the chances of someone getting a fair trial are?
there is a balance between allowing the juries to conduct their duty, but also... how the hell do you deal with a case like this in which the jury literally let the accused get away with murder?
you deal with it. Yes it sounds cold but its the truth. Or do you think that all homicide defendants should be prosecuted again and again until they are found guilty? How about rapists? Child molesters? Shoplifters?
I have to recount an incident that happened the other day when my son and I stopped in at a convenience store. My son is a large kid. He's about 6'1-2", 230 lbs. He's got long blond dreads and some of them are colored. He is a sight to behold, but a good, kind, sweet-natured kid. As we were getting our coffee there was a crew of men, I'm guessing they were maybe Mexican, who were also getting coffee. The shortest of the bunch was actually pointing at my son and laughing, speaking in Spanish to his friends, who were clearly uncomfortable. It was obvious he was making fun of my son and clearly thought that we either didn't understand what he was saying or his intent.
Now, thankfully, my son and I just thought the guy was a stupid fuck and gave him a dirty look and walked away, however, I regularly hear people that encounter my son and speak Spanish talking about how his hair looks like a dog's hair, etc. (I understand far more Spanish than I can speak). A friend of his, a cute little punker with crazy hair, gauges, piercings, etc, who also happens to be Mexican tells me that she regularly hears people that think she doesn't understand Spanish talking about how she looks like a lesbian (she's not) and other judgmental and many times rude remarks.
I guess my point with all of this (and I don't know the particulars of this story and I don't condone violence under any circumstances) is that people need to be VERY careful about what they say because not everyone is like me or my son and will simply turn and walk away. Had it been a less rational, large 15-year-old, that could have been a very ugly scene.
When I was about your son's age, I had blonde/black horizontally striped hair at one time, gothy jet black hair at another time, etc. so, I've seen my share of that kind of crap too. Now that I am an older goth, I still get some of it.
I don't know how much of it is just simple rudeness to someone who is different from them, or if there's a little extra to their reaction. Either way, your son and his friend don't deserve that, and I see your point about how people should conduct themselves carefully. Not everyone will be able to let that kind of well, humiliating experience, go easily. I at least speak enough Spanish to let loose some snark, others who don't may react in other ways.
Thanks for the kind words. I wish I knew more Spanish, I'm learning because I work as a nurse in an inner-city hospital and we get lots of Spanish speaking patients. My son's little friend speaks fluent Spanish and is at least able to let people know that they've crossed the line. You're right about the rudeness, these kids get it from basically everyone, but my son and I were rather astounded that someone could be so blatantly rude without looking at the size of the person he was mocking and not worry about his personal safety. He and I were discussing this very case and how a situation like this could turn very bad quickly.
Just goes to show, there are ignorant fools no matter what their cultural background.
How is, what you just told us, in any way shape or form connected to the issue in this thread, other than the people making fun of you son's CHOICE of get up were of the Mexican persuasion?
Boocilla's point is that hate is not restricted to Caucasians and that other ethnic groups can/should be convicted of hate crimes against Caucasians if their actions merit it.
Her point may also have been that we do not know the full details of the trial and the evidence. Is there any possibility that the Defendants were provoked?
Or, she may just be a concerned mother describing offensive, thoughtless and potentially dangerous actions taken by another human being to illustrate the potential for violence when people are mocked for their appearance.
They were provoked by the sight of a Latino man with a white girlfriend. That was what they were shouting at him. He responded in Spanish, and that set off the assault.
Thank you for the information.
Good.
*
Being (Insert ethnicity or color) is not, I mean, if you get picked-on for looking goth, punk or just plain weird you probably want to get atention, but if you're BORN a certain way you've no choice, let's not loose sight of the fact that the jury was composed of (how many?) of whose peers?
Nah man, freaks are naturally born that way. It's their choice to appear "normal" or not. In other, more enlightened cultures, they'd be seen as artists and encouraged to create rather than rebel.
I am sick of hearing about hate crimes... One life is just as important aa another....
This goes for all crimes and murders against anyone...
A murder is a murder...
We talk of hate crimes when the leaders of this country do anything they please to anyone and make money by doing it..
a manslaughter is the same as an accident which is the same as premeditated murder which is the same as dying in the OR which is the same as committing suicide which is the same as....
I know, god forbid your precious white mind has to be worried about these petty details, like people being victimizing for being different. Oh, noes... how dare those minorities take up your precious time! The gall!
that Pete2069 believes that all human life is important, regardless of ethnicity, gender, religion, creed, etc. That's what he begins his post with.
Next, make the assumption that he was not attempting to distinguish among legal definitions of types of homicides. His point was that "murder" merits trial and findings of guilt merit punishment regardless of the ethnicity of victims and perpetrators.
The serious questions that arise are:
What is gained by hate crime legislation? What makes some crimes worthy of additional, federal prosecution? What should be the extent/wording/applicability of this legislation? How will it be enforced in practice? Is there a risk of double jeopardy?
In the Ramirez case, given that the Defendants were tried and have been acquitted, are there grounds for the ADA to appeal? If not, should the Defendants be subject to additional prosecution for the same actions for which they have just been acquitted?
Personally, I find the last paragraph of your comment to be borderline racist.
does have varying degrees, in my state we have murder, causing suicide, assisting suicide, voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, reckless homicide etc...
But does it make it any worse for murder for lets say knowing a guy is gay and going and killing him or knowing that a guy has a large sum of cash and killing him for it? In my opinion no, they both deserve the maximum punishment, but neither should be subjected to harsher penalties.
Wow. Then we start giving child molesters a second trial if they win the first. Child molesters are really bad. Terrorists too. Terrorists shouldn't win trials.
.
Hate crimes do not affect you. It simply allows the justice system to deal with the scope of crimes committed against minorities because they were minorities. It does not affect the sentencing, it simply helps putting the crime in context, and allows minorities to protect their dignity.
If you seem to think people defending their right to preserve their dignity is something that you find disagreeable, maybe you guys should start paying more attention to what you see in the mirror... because frankly it is disgusting.
WTF is it to any of you if hate crime legislation gets enabled? The only downsize I could possibly think of is that it would not allow future criminals to get away with these kind of atrocities, or at least give the proper context to the crime... allowing a small sense of closure to the surviving relatives of the victim. Are any of you planning on victimizing minorities? If not, then what exactly is your beef with hate crime legislation?
subject to hate crime legislation, then I have fewer concerns. I take it that you are not one of the people who beleive that racism and hate are solely the province of Caucasians?
If a gang of Hispanic-Americans torch the shop or home of an Asian businessman because of his race, isn't that a hate crime?
If a gang of African-Americans beats up a Caucasian truck driver because of his race, isn't that a hate crime?
effect Caucasians? WTF? Didn't someone in another comment section about this post a link to the FBI that said over half the hate crimes in this country are against whites?
Also they don't effect sentencing? Have you read the proposed fed legislation? It can carry up to 10 yrs for non homicide and life for homicide. Or what about the hate crime statute that the defendants were charged with? Didn't that carry additional time?
Doesn't it seem, when Republicans are righteously indignant, that they usually just haven't thought the problem through very well?
Your argument is basically, if a crime really hurts someone, we've got to fix it so that the person the police say did it goes to prison no matter what. And the only reason you could possibly be against it is that you like the criminals, or you plan on committing the crime yourself.
You're seriously unaware that that same argument has been made on talk radio and by suburban housewives for years about child molesters and terrorists? What did you think the purpose of Bush's military tribunals was?
I'm not so bothered by federal dual sovereignty crimes being used to re-prosecute cases where state corruption (bad prosecutors or judges) is the question (the USDOJ is also threatening to prosecute in drug cases where medical pot states don't want to -- don't know about you, I'm not so fond of that). But jury nullification is something different. A jury has found that a person just didn't do it. You take the worst case and want to make a rule for everyone, I'm not so sure I do. Obviously, it's because I want to commit a hate crime. You'd do very well on talk radio.
The ACLU makes some good points in favor of this law, and I'm on the fence. But, honest to god, the more I hear from nitwits who can't seem to understand that reversing jury verdicts should at least raise an eyebrow, the more I picture this law as driven by the same mob of angry suburban soccer-moms who want to eliminate all constitutional protections for people accused of crimes they don't like.
A little quiet reflection on the constitutional protections you enjoy might reveal that this isn't in every respect a fight between Bill O'Reilly and Will of God. You've gotten as far as "people who disagree with me are dumb", which is a good start. But there's really more to it.
Please, if I'm wrong, if this is totally unlike what conservatives have been doing for decades with drug laws, etc, tell me how. "If you're afraid of this law you must be a racist" just isn't doing it for me any more than the 1000 times I've been told I shouldn't be bothered by an illegal search if I have nothing to hide.
"Doesn't it seem, when Republicans are righteously indignant"
Most of the people I see calling for it are Dems.
Yeah, sorry, that was just poorly written. I'm doing something else. It was supposed to look more like, I hate it when Republicans can't seem to understand there are any other possible points of view b/c they've convinced themselves they're doing God's Work. Likewise, a concern for civil rights and a concern for civil liberties are both good liberal topics, and I hate to see liberals reasoning like Sean Hannity, "everyone who disagrees with me hates America".
That said, I'm trying to get a perfectly respectable drug user out of prison because the state forced him to sign a waiver of his rights, so gotta go...
In fact, funny story, the state tried to revoke my client's probation b/c he beat up his wife. I was able to prove to an administrative judge (who almost always sides with the state) that this never happened. Now they're trying to revoke him again because he made phone calls to his wife, though they didn't bring that charge at the first hearing. He's been in custody waiting for hearings for six months now.
Tell me again how giving more prosecutorial power to the state doesn't affect my life, or yours, at all.
This is where we are as a country??? Really?? How many times have you disagreed with a virdict and been told, a jury of peers decided... Now because some "Special intrest" groups don't like our system and laws, The "Government" is going to change the rules in the middle of the game??? This is getting out of hand. Kiss the America our parents knew good bye... I don't even reconize America any more. It's like all of a sudden night is day and grass is blue and the sky is green. We have to stop this Change now before we completely loose our heritage, and country
and the admitted perpetrators, no matter what their ethnicity, got completely off the hook, people would be pissed off.
Human beings are not a special interest group. The government has to afford the same protection under its laws to ALL people.
Login or Register to post comments.