Holy Toledo!

I highly recommend cable-equipped Reasonoids and any other aficionados of urban chaos turn to the news nets for some impressive aerial footage of an abortive Nazi party rally in Toledo, OH. Anti-Nazi protesters are right now showing their disapproval of National Socialism by trying to tear down a gas station. Where's the ACLU when we need them?

Comments

[Adam]

woah - good heads up.

[crap-action-jackson]

nuthin on CNN or Fox

What are you watching?

[fyodor]

Today's Nazis can't really accomplish anything but pushing people's buttons.

[Jake Blues]

I hate Nazis.

[Tim Cavanaugh]

Well, as soon as I gave the heads up the nets all seemed to switch back to motherfucking Iraq. This is the perfect example of why I believe all foreign policy is crime: A riot going on in our own country but we're all supposed to be paying attention to some shithole 10,000 miles away.

[SY]

Tim, look on the bright side: no-one had to invoke Godwin's Law.

[Adam]

Fox News is covering it

[Pete Guither]

It's back on Fox now. Still going on live -- looting, breaking into buildings.

The Neo-Nazi march never got started. Rocks were thrown and the Neo-Nazi's got escorted out. Since then it's been a riot of the protestors.

[JustGgcuz]

I hate Nazis, but stuff like this actually helps their cause..

Lets see:

Nazis say they are protesting "black gangs" who supposedly terrorize white neighborhoods..

Nazis leave. Their march does not happen.

After they leave..

Black gangs are rioting and knocking down doors, damaging property in the "white neighborhood"...

nazis are home safe, smiling saying "see i told you so (insert nazi claims about "black inferiority/crime,etc")

Some otherwise normal white people who were previously not racist and hated Nazis, after having "black gangs" destroy their property now think, "hmm.. maybe those nazis are right about black people"

["golly"]

Nazis suck. Hitler was a douche bag Keynsian

[Duckman]

As unfortunate as it is, the Nazis have a 1st Amendment right to their sick beliefs. As a free society we need to have to integrity to not go apeshit every time someone expresses a belief we do not like.

The best approach is to ignore them, and denounce them in public forums. Setting fire to shit not owned by Nazis is definitely not productive. Their actions will only work to curtail the rights of other people, not to actually damage the Nazis, who probably love the fact that this will lilkely bring us that much closer to a totalitarian state.

[Steve Sailer is a dumbfuck]

One of the biggest idiots on the public scene (although there's debate whether he's actually on the public scene), after John Lott of course who must suffer from a diagnosable mental illness to explain his existence, is Steve Sailer. It's complete BS how he takes every opportunity to prove his yet unproven theory that black people are inferior at everything (not one study has actually shown any such average genetic difference in intelligence ceteris paribus in children, before all the other stuff comes into play). His idea that black people riot because they're black is also bullshit. If all the people left in NOLA were white there would be the exact same level of looting and violence (the violence was actually way overreported).

I hope Steve Sailer gets AIDS from a male lover and that his wife runs over his head upon discovering the gay affair.

[Adam]

who the fuck is steve sailer? get pissed about trent lott or robert byrd or something.

[JusggCuz]

Steve Sailor is one of those "intellectual" somewhat-mainstream racists who get mainstream conservative gigs (National Review, Washington Times,etc) and are often quoted approvingly by conservative and some supposed libertarians.

[crap-action-jackson]

Fox news says the looting & fire is at the corner of Mulberry and Central.

Looks like this is the building as seen from Google:
http://tinyurl.com/akodr

Looks like the park where the police were hanging out is only a few blcks to the north.

[mocus1]

Yep, you're right.....every kook fringe left wing group can congregate whenever and wherever they like and the ACLU would defend them to the death....and would you hear the news clowns saying "what would you expect to happen", if a bunch of free marketers set their buildings on fire....hell no.....you see, in a free country, you allow people to express their views, however abhorrent, in hopes that rational people will reject them on their own merits.....however, using violence and mayhem only pours fuel on the fire, and makes people think the fringe may have a point afterall.....these "protesters" aren't for free speech, they're for suppressing and exterminating anyone who disagrees with them...

[ACLme]

The ACLU has been the leader for decades in the fight to protect the free speech of hate groups like this.

[Hakluyt]

Steve Sailer is an individual who attributes all human differences to genetics, and discounts culture, group history, etc. as explanatory devices.

[Anonopotomous]

JustGgcuz hit the nail on the head.

The mayor appears to be an idiot. He just said something like "people are just expressing themselves in their own language."

I'm glad I don't live there anymore.

[Hakluyt]

I should also note that Sailer is an adovcate of the sort of dystopia envisioned by Aldous Huxley, where a division of labor is based on the sort of genetic capabilities one is designed for.

[jw]

Let me see if I understand all this correctly:...
A group of people attempt to peacefully,lawfully assemble and avail themselves of their Constitutional Rights to free speech etc. etc. They are chased away by another group who throws rocks, bottles,...whatever, and proceeds to burn, smash, destroy, and STEAL the property of a third group who happens to be of the same race as the first group.
The first-mentioned people are a Hate Group and the second are just expressing themselves in their own language.
Yes,...I think I have it now.

[Deus ex Machina]

Did today's Nazi rally have anything to do with the Millions More March?

[Anonopotomous]

Keith White, a black resident, criticized city officials for initially allowing the march.

"They let them come here and expect this not to happen?" said White, 29.

Yahoo! News

[Hakluyt]

Deus ex Machin,

I hadn't even heard of that until today.

jw,

Nazis are despicable for their beliefs and the rioters are despicable for their actions.

[Morat]

Ahem: The ACLU was only necessary to ensure the Nazi's had a right to assemble (as a basic right enshrined in the Constitution).

The breakdown in law and order AFTER seems a case for the police and the courts. There are no fundamental first amendment rights involved there -- just criminal acts of assault and vandalism, which really aren't the ACLU's forte. 🙂

[Hakluyt]

Anonopotomous,

Well, as a pratical matter, he fellow is likely right. I suppose in some ways that makes the neighborhood look even worse. Then again, the actions of the neo-Nazis do amount to little more than an attempt to troll the residents of the area. Which leads me back to my original point; both the neo-Nazis and the rioters are assholes.

[Morat]

Love the Onion article, btw. My favorite remains their headline when Bush was elected in 2000: "Our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is at an end".

Reading it, well....it's sad to see that the Bush administration managed to toe the line of an over-the-top satire.

[M1[J]E[R]K]

All of these people must have to private schools or were homeschooled. They obviously didn't get properly socialized.

["golly"]

They better not say blacks are prone to rioting. The WTO rioters weren't black.

[bonzofan17]

they were nazi's dude...oh for godsakes donny they were threatening castration!

[Tom Crick]

If there was sufficient evidence showing that the counter-demonstrators planned to do violence, shutting down the march may have been the right thing to do.

...Still, neo-Nazis love to project themselves as victims of society, and we should try to avoid giving them anything they can use as ammunition.

[Ruthless]

"This is the perfect example of why I believe all foreign policy is crime: A riot going on in our own country but we're all supposed to be paying attention to some shithole 10,000 miles away."

Tim Cavanaugh,
Spoken like a true skinhead. I hope kwais doesn't see that.

"any other aficionados of urban chaos"

As an urban pioneer during the riots in Sinincincinnati, I guess I'm an aficionado.
Riots do focus your attention.
Riots are a phase transition that can be set off by the proverbial "butterfly effect."

The main trouble with riots is that they are never about US foreign policy in some shithole 10,000 miles away. Riots are always about snits and other silly, sporty stuff.
You are so right about all foreign policy being a crime.

Paging kwais.

[JD]

The "expect this not to happen" comment is pretty asinine, if you ask me. As a matter of fact, yes, I do expect people, including Black Americans, not to go crazy and start burning down businesses because somebody else expresses an opinion, even a violent and odious one. Does that makes me racist, because I think that Black people can be reasonable and peaceful even if White supremacists get to march, or...? My head hurts.

Not sure what to think about the mayor.
I think this is probably right...

"It's exactly what they wanted," Ford said of the group that planned the march, which was called off because of the rioting.

...but this is just dumb:

Mayor Jack Ford blamed the rioting on gang members taking advantage of a volatile situation.

Ah, it's the good old outside agitators - they can always be counted to crop up where they're needed.

[Herrick]

While we're on the whole issue of race, is there any more hypocritical position to take than to be opposed to Affirmative Action, yet to support the Electoral College, which is by far a more egregious minority preference quota system (to say nothing of the way we elect Senators)? If you both support the Electoral College but oppose Affirmative Action, you are a hypocrite plain and simple who likes to have it both ways.

For the record, Herrick opposes both Affirmative Action and the electoral college, and is a homosexual.

[Jeff P.]

I support affirmative college homosexual action, provided it is enacted by women. On camera.

[Herrick]

I'm a bit ambivalent about hate crime laws. I get the argument that we shouldn't be punishing people for what they think, but on the other hand, when you commit a crime on someone just because of their race/religion/sexuality/whatever I don't see how it's any different than mailing a letter to every one else of that category in the area telling them "you're next" which is clearly harassment and a threat.

Perhaps that should be the solution to the hate crime question. People charged with such crimes shouldn't just have extra time tacked onto their sentence for a "hate crime", they should also be prosecuted for making threats against the safety and harassing all the people of that group in the area, which is already illegal (although I guess the harassment might be a civil offense, but making threats is a criminal violation).

With a kiss,
Herrick

[JohnnyCanuck]

If all the people left in NOLA were white there would be the exact same level of looting and violence

Yeah...there was sooooooo much looting and violence all over the white areas of Mississippi and Louisiana that got hit just as hard as NO by Katrina!!!

[The Cholo]

Johnny Douchebag,

There was as little looting and violence in the non-NOLA Majority Black parishes and counties hit hard by Katrina as there were in the white areas. It's an urban-rural difference and a breakdown of government difference, not a racial one Ass-Hat. By the way, how was the Nazi rally today? I could have sworn you were there but it was hard to tell with the white hood and all.

[Ruthless]

"For the record, Herrick opposes both Affirmative Action and the electoral college, and is a homosexual."

I've got your back, so to speak.

You are so right that we should be reaching out with understanding instead of vengeance.

Ruthless sees your kisses and raises you a kiss or two.

[strat]

I experienced something similar in the 80's in D.C. About 25 jokers from the KKK decided to "march" (can only 25 people really have a march?) on D.C.

I never actually saw them, but found myself caught in a riot started by the 3000 ticked-off locals. They kicked things off by throwing a cinder block through the windshield of a passing police car.

I was trapped in the doorway of the National Archives with a family of tourists, and when I attempted to flee the scene, like any right minded invdividual, I ran straight into a row of D.C.'s Civil Disturbance Unit police. Funny thing, they wouldn't let us run away and only forced us back into the melee.

As Ayn Rand once said, I agree that "Racism is the lowest form of collectivism." I detest what the Klan and the NSWPP/NSDAP/Nazis stand for, but I don't have any more appreciation for the ostensibly slighted people who decide to riot when someone says something they don't like.

Lock 'em all up, I say.

[Rick Barton]

Yeah, prosecute the rioters. Those who destroy the property of others, be they government agencies or street thugs, are another kind of filth.

[jdog]

"Let's always reject violent protest and keep our freedom of speech."

How about 'Let's always be violently willing to protect our freedom of speech.'

[scape]

I forgot the [/Joke] tags on my post. And, yes, the hate crime laws make about as much sense as the "thought" they're supposed to prosecute.

I also got a kick from the CNN coverage that made it sound like - during a clash between neo-Nazis and black gangs - that police officers were arrivng on bicycle. Sounded like a Reno 911 skit.

[JohnnyCanuck]

The Cholo - There was as little looting and violence in the non-NOLA Majority Black parishes and counties hit hard by Katrina as there were in the white areas.

You've bought into PC historical revisionism...or is it just American chauvinism? Must be humiliating for the "wprld's indispensable nation" to see far worse tragedies in foreign countries where they don't go apeshit as soon as state imposed order disappears. No doubt they didn't riot in LA after Rodney King or Cincinnati or Detroit either.

By the way, how was the Nazi rally today?

I wouldn't enter any American city as I stick to the civilized world. How was the riot? Did you smash up some white guy's shop? A cop's head, maybe?

BTW has Chimpy made promises yet to spend a few billion in the blighted area to keep them quiet? As we've seen that usually solves most urban problems in the Land of the Free.

[pigwiggle]

"Young black gangs promulgate violence in response to Nazi accusation of young black gangs promulgating violence"

Nazis 1, Toledo 0; sick.

[jdog]

I also got a kick from the CNN coverage that made it sound like - during a clash between neo-Nazis and black gangs - that police officers were arrivng on bicycle. Sounded like a Reno 911 skit.

Scape,

And Halloween is still two weeks away.

[Ruthless]

"BTW has Chimpy made promises yet to spend a few billion in the blighted area to keep them quiet? As we've seen that usually solves most urban problems in the Land of the Free."

I sense bitterness, JohnnyCanuck.

Ruthless blows kisses.
Relax thy sphincter.

[scape]

Exterior scene. Night.

Little trick-or-treater in Nazi costume: "Trick or....racial annihalation."

Crabby Jewish guy: "Get of my porch you little fuck!"

(approaching) Deputy Weigel: "SIR! Sir. This is supposed to be an innocent pagan-Christian fun time for the kids. Please."

[jw]

Halloween an "innocent, pagan-Christian fun time for the kids"???? The Fundies would have your head for that one, Scape.
But seriously, sending "little Johnny" out in a Nazi stormtrooper uniform? Can that be any worse than sending him out in a Tricky Dick Nixon mask?

[Rick Barton]

How about 'Let's always be violently willing to protect our freedom of speech.'

It would be our right only if the political avenues are closed to us. Things aren't near to being that bad, but they have gotten worse of late. Things won't get that bad if we pressure government toward its constructional limits. Non-violent civil disobedience is ethical, however.

BTW, the founders of our republic considered it the right of citizens to violently resist unlawful government attacks on their property.

There is a thread and law review article: "Are Cops Constitutional"

Can anyone link to it. I couldn't snag it.

[jw]

Rick Barton:
What exactly do mean by "an attack on property"?
In my experience government usually seizes or confiscates property....except in military operations.

[Rick Barton]

jw,

Yeah, that's what I meant; unconstitutional confiscation of property. Also, unconstitutional attacks on their persons.

I wish someone could snag that link.

[Adam]

Are cops constitutional?

[Shem]

Can that be any worse than sending him out in a Tricky Dick Nixon mask?

Actually, when I was eleven I went trick-or-treating as a Nixon. Went over great. The Republicans loved the Nixon "homage" and the Democrats praised me for "such a scary costume."

[Rick Barton]

Thanks Adam!

[Rick Barton]

From "Are cops constitutional?"

"Nothing illustrates the modern disparity between the rights and powers of police and citizen as much as the modern law of resisting arrest. At the time of the nation's founding, any citizen was privileged to resist arrest if, for example, probable cause for arrest did not exist or the arresting person could not produce a valid arrest warrant where one was needed.92 As recently as one hundred years ago, but with a tone that seems as if from some other, more distant age, the United States Supreme Court held that it was permissible (or at least defensible) to shoot an officer who displays a gun with intent to commit a warrantless arrest based on insufficient cause.93 Officers who executed an arrest without proper warrant were themselves considered trespassers, and any trespassee had a right to violently resist (or even assault and batter) an officer to evade such arrest.94"

"Well into the twentieth century, violent resistance was considered a lawful remedy for Fourth Amendment violations.95 Even third-party intermeddlers were privileged to forcibly liberate wrongly arrested persons from unlawful custody."

[joshua corning]

speaking of inappropriate costumes...does anyone know where i can get one of those "better dead then red t-shirts" not the ones with the blue state red state crap on them but like the one in the movie "highlander" the militia guy wore that had a cartoon of moscow in croddhairs on it?

[JusGGcuzcuz]

I'm watching the Beltfuck Boys right now.

Fred Barnes solution is Toledo should ban the Nazi march and then let them go run to the ACLU and get whatever legal means they can to force their way in. Then Toledo should have extra cops since "they know neo-nazis will provoke violence."

I dont want to be forced to turn in my Free Speech card. but maybe he has a point.

[Hakluyt]

JohnnyCanuck,

Actually, there was looting in Mississippi. It just went under-reported. And we are aware now that the situation in NOLA wasn't nearly as bad as some media reports suggested that they were.

[nazi guy grasping for straws.]

"The WTO rioters weren't black."

But they were wearing black!

[Senator Robert C. Byrd (D-WV)]

"The WTO rioters weren't black."

There are white niggers too.

[Ruthless]

Before continuing to condemn my terrorist neighbors, read the next thread about the damage done by the War on Drugs.
As Rick Barton says: "Those who would choose violence."
Who chose violence first? Drug warriors or the misunderstood inner-city yoofs?

[Jennifer]

I've never been able to figure out what I think about hate crime laws. On the one hand, it is indeed egregious to punish people for "what they think" rather than "what they do;" on the other hand, burning a ten-pound wooden cross in a black guy's yard really is a more serious matter than just burning ten pounds of plain old firewood in his yard.

Maybe the problem is that whether or not action X should be a hate crime tends to be a shades-of-gray thing, whereas the law only seems to recognize black and white? (No pun intended, in this context.)

[Ruthless]

Anarchy has no problem with shades of gray.
Just sayin'.

[pigwiggle]

"burning a ten-pound wooden cross in a black guy's yard really is a more serious matter than just burning ten pounds of plain old firewood in his yard."

It?s intimidation; it?s a threat. Isn?t there some legal recourse for less theatrical threats? You know, like my neighbor just coming out and saying ?watch your back, I?m going to hang you from a tree?. I could be convinced that burning a cross in some black folks? yard wasn?t any different than telling them straight up ?we are going to hang you nigger?.

[Hakluyt]

Jennifer,

A hate crime is not needed to deal with such a situation; there is plenty of legal recourse already in existance.

[Born Again Iconoclast]

Ohio has a ton of problems, mostly too many out-of-work blacks and caucasians who like to blame all their problems on fill-in-the-blank group for their economic and social woes. This is mostly predominant in older, former industrial engines like Toledo, Youngstown, Dayton, parts of Cleveland, etc. Columbus is starting to go that way, as well, which is why I moved to our suburbs upon returning from Iraq.

Sadly, this is also why I am about to become a FORMER Ohioan very shortly. I see nothing but more of these kind of confrontations in the future, what with the economy of the rust belt being what it is. And now that more Latinos and Somalians have moved to our state---mostly law-abiding and family oriented groups that keep to themselves, don't break laws like blacks and caucasians, and try to stay gainfully employed whether or not they're making a "living wage"---I expect these same black rioters and white neo-Nazis to eventually turn on THEM!

Ohio - ignorant, uneducated blacks blaming their woes on ignorant, uneducated whites and vice versa ... while hard-working latinos try to stay out of the way of both groups of idiots!

[Jennifer]

So let's say that when BAI moves out of Ohio a gang of thugs moves into the home he vacates and proceeds to terrorize the neighborhood. Two gangs of thugs, in fact. Both commit an equivalent number of crimes, of equal severity so far as property value and level of injuries are concerned.

But Gang A commits crimes against anyone they find, whereas Gang B commits crimes exclusively against the Somalians. There are arguments in favor of treating both sets of crimes equally, and arguments in favor of punishing the anti-Somalian gang more severely. And I kind of agree with both arguments, but I lean toward punishing the anti-Somalian gang more severely.

[Hakluyt]

Stevo Darkly,

Oh definately, there is a distinct ethical system which is part of Nazism.

[Stevo Darkly]

Sorry, I was actually quoting The Big Lebowski. (So was bonzofan17 at October 15, 2005 07:17 PM.) Check it out sometime. It's a weird movie, but funny.

[Carl]

We're coming for your balls Darkly, your balls!

We are nihlists! We believe in Nothing!

[Carl]

The solution to the problem is sooo obvious:

All Neo-Nazi's should first have their stores smashed. Then we should make them wear little pins, so we can identify them. Then we should round them up into camps, and? Well, I'll leave the last part up to the imagination.

[Stevo Darkly]

First, they came for the Nazis ...

[Hakluyt]

Stevo Darkly,

Alright. Sorry, I've been reading a lot of stuff like Robert Gellately's Backing Hitler and Claudia Koonz's The Nazi Conscience lately.

[Stevo Darkly]

And I've been reading lots of things like "Pearls Before Swine" (comic strip) and "News of the Weird" lately. We inhabit different worlds, Hak. 🙂

[Hakluyt]

Stevo Darkly,

The world would be pretty boring if we didn't. 🙂

[ed]

Wow, did Toledo win the Super Bowl or something?

[joe]

Jennifer,

Most laws dubbed "hate crime laws" aren't about threats like that. They are sentence enhancements for violent crimes that involve a racist or political element.

The issues surroungin "Hate Crimes" and those surrounding "Hate Speech" need to be traken independenty.

Also, we consider "what someone was thinking" in when sentencing and charging violent criminals all the time. What do you think is the difference between First Degree Murder and Manslaughter?

[Jennifer]

Joe--

What's your take on my hypothetical of the two street gangs, one that treats crime as an equal-opportunity affair and one that exclusively targets Somalian immigrants?

Actually, I'd also be interested in hearing the official Libertarian take on that, as well.

[joe]

Jennifer,

The street gang that targets Somali immigrants does all the harm that the equal-opportunity thugs do, plus they ratchet up tensions between racial groups.

My turn: do you think it is right that our legal system punished hit men more severely than people who do shoot their targets themselves?

[Hakluyt]

joe,

There is a difference between mens rea and someone's political, ideological, etc. motivations. One can qualify for a particular mens rea no matter what ones political, etc. motivations, whereas those motivations aren't required to qualify for a particular mens rea. A better analogy would be sentence enhancements associated with terrorism.

Jennifer,

"Hate Crime" laws given some groups special status under the law either de jure or de facto. That is largely what is problematic about them.

[Jennifer]

do you think it is right that our legal system punished hit men more severely than people who do shoot their targets themselves?

I can see the argument that one who cold-bloodedly kills a stranger for money is somehow more vile than one who kills someone they know because they hate them, but I think all premeditated murder, whether for hire or otherwise, should get the same penalty. (Mostly. Still, you need to have trials to consider extenuating circumstances--if, say, a mother premeditates the murder of the guy who raped her daughter and then got off on a technicality, I wouldn't feel any outrage if her sentence was Time Served.)

[joe]

Hakluyt,

Please name a group that is given special status under a Hate Crimes law.

[joe]

Jennifer,

"I think all premeditated murder, whether for hire or otherwise, should get the same penalty."

In my mind, there are two reasons that justify sentence enhancements - the vileness of a crime, and the degree of harm it does.

I believe political violence is both particularly vile, and particularly dangerous.

[Hakluyt]

joe,

De facto blacks are given special status under hate crime laws. In some other countries some groups are given special protection or status under the law. Of course the broader point is that such laws are ripe for abuse.

...the vileness of a crime, and the degree of harm it does.

Which are at best very subjective assessments generally tied into a society's particular biases and/or prejudices.

I believe political violence is both particularly vile, and particularly dangerous.

Then you would have no problem convicting the individuals involved in this riot which harsher sentences (or those involved in the 1999 anti-WTO riot for that matter) with harsher sentences then say just your regular street punk who vandalizes a store for kicks?

[joe]

"De facto blacks are given special status under hate crime laws."

As a matter of fact, more black people than white people are charged with hate crimes every year in this country. Would you care to revise your thesis?

I agree that there is a measure of subjectivity in assessing a crime's vileness. But then, there is a subjective judgement to be made as to whether burglary is worth than grand theft auto, or battery worse than arson. I don't see a way around allowing the legislature to proclaim some crimes worse than others, based on subjective impressions, unless we want all crimes to receive the same sentence.

As far as the harm done, there is an objective harm that flows from hate crimes - the worsening of racial/ethnic/whatever grievances, with the attendant hostiliy and/or withdrawal on the part of members of the victim's group. People in Seattle don't look at anybody differently because of a stickup gone bad in New York, but they just might because of a high profile hate crime.

As for your third quesiton, yes, I would consider that a more serious offense. Political violance carries with it a danger that common street violence and property crime does not.

[Hakluyt]

joe,

More to the point about abuse, in criminal law we learned that many individuals were charged under such laws based on statements they made years before that had nothing to do with the underlying crime.

[Hakluyt]

joe,

As a matter of fact, more black people than white people are charged with hate crimes every year in this country.

No, per capita there may be more charges, but as a whole there are more charges against whites than blacks. The numbers range at about ~2,500 for whites and ~500 for blacks.

[Hakluyt]

joe,

And even more to the point, hate crime laws were passed because of the lobbying of certain minority groups because it was assumed that it would afford them greater protection as a group.

[Hakluyt]

joe,

Also, in many instances the law doesn't actually enhance the sentence, making the law superfluous. In the case of the black gentleman who was horrificly drug to death in Texas, the sentence wouldn't have been any different if a hate crime law were in place. This undercuts what should be most primary about criminal law given my particular philosophy on criminal law - deterrrance.

[joe]

"More to the point about abuse, in criminal law we learned that many individuals were charged under such laws based on statements they made years before that had nothing to do with the underlying crime." For there to be a conviction, a jury of the defandant's peers has to find that the elements exists, beyond a reasonable doubt. That said, prosecutorial overreach is a problem, but it's hardly limited to this field of law.

"No, per capita there may be more charges, but as a whole there are more charges against whites than blacks. The numbers range at about ~2,500 for whites and ~500 for blacks." So what? The assertion you made, that black people are a favored class, is disproven by the fact that black people are charged at an even higher rate than whites. This shows both that black people are not immune from prosecution under the law, and that crimes against whites are just as likely, if not more likely, to be so prosecuted. Where is the favored status?

"And even more to the point, hate crime laws were passed because of the lobbying of certain minority groups because it was assumed that it would afford them greater protection as a group." This could not possibly be less to the point. So there was an assumption about how prosecutions would play out? You know the story about how sex discrimination got added to the Civil Rights Act. Looks like a genetic fallacy to me.

[joe]

You are correct about that one case. However, most of the crimes prosecuted fall short of first degree murder, and the sentencing enhancements do apply.

[Hakluyt]

joe,

I'd say a fair number fall right in there. Of course, more to the point, do these laws deter crimes or not? For my money they don't.

That said, prosecutorial overreach is a problem, but it's hardly limited to this field of law.

So you want to give prosecuters more discretionary power so as to overreach with? Juries are full of cows and are easily manipulated. Take trial practice sometime.

So what?

Well, you are like, you know, wrong.

This shows both that black people are not immune from prosecution under the law...,/i>

Lack of immunity hardly connotes a non-favored status.

So there was an assumption about how prosecutions would play out?

yes, there was.

[Hakluyt]

joe,

I suppose an even more compelling issue is whether you want the government rumaging through your book buying history, what is on your shelves, etc. in an effort to prove the hate crime charge. I own, for example, Gibeneau's Essai sur l'in?galit? des races humaines. Imagine how a prosecutor could use such knowledge to push a hate crime charge against me or anyone else who owns that book.

[Hakluyt]

Er, Gobineau.

[Stevo Darkly]

joe, I think you're confusing two issues when you say that more blacks are charged with hate crimes than whites.

Suppose we made the following into law:

1) Kill a white gentile: Get 10 years to life.

2) Kill a Jew: Under hate crime status -- Mandatory death sentence, no appeal.

3) Kill a black or Hispanic person: Under hate crime status -- Mandatory death sentence, no appeal.

Under those circumstances, clearly Jewish people would be a "specially protected class," no? Along with blacks and Hispanics also.

Suppose also that white gentiles actually committed rather few hate crimes. (For whatever reason. Maybe the hate crime statutes actually work to deter them. Maybe they tend to prefer to engage in vice or white collar crimes with less overt violence.)

Suppose also that there is a hardcore subminority group of thuggish young Jews who belong to street gangs and like to swig back 40s of Mogen David and go out wilding. Maybe these "Jewstas" go out and commit many violent crimes against the blacks and Hispanics in their inner city neighborhoods in particular.

Thus you could get a situation where both the following are true:

1) Group X (in this example, Jews) enjoy special protection under hate crime laws.

2) Group X also gets charged with more hate crimes than the white majority.

Both can be true. There is no inherent contradiction. The fact that one occurs does not disprove the other.

[Stevo Darkly]

"Hate crime status" should be "hate crime statutes." And maybe I've watched The Hebrew Hammer once too often.

[drf]

that's okay Stevo, I read "white genitals" at first...

glad to see the mandatory Blues Brothers reference at the top.

good comments, as usual, Rick!

[joe]

Hak,

A fair number of what fall in what?

"So you want to give prosecuters more discretionary power so as to overreach with?" This same argument can be used to eliminate any discretion in sentencing. It doesn't refute the real issue. Do you want to give prosecutors the discretion to decide between First and Second Degree Murder charges?

"Lack of immunity hardly connotes a non-favored status." I'm not trying to prove anything. In fact, the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for your assertion that black people are granted favored status under the law. So far, you've provided none, while I've presented counter evidence.

"yes, there was (an intent)" So what? That some of the people who supported the law had a certain intent doesn't demonstrate that it provides favored status, either.

So I'll ask you, yet again, how does this law provide favored status for black people?

[joe]

Hak,

A fair number of what fall in what?

"So you want to give prosecuters more discretionary power so as to overreach with?" This same argument can be used to eliminate any discretion in sentencing. It doesn't refute the real issue. Do you want to give prosecutors the discretion to decide between First and Second Degree Murder charges?

"Lack of immunity hardly connotes a non-favored status." I'm not trying to prove anything. In fact, the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for your assertion that black people are granted favored status under the law. So far, you've provided none, while I've presented counter evidence.

"yes, there was (an intent)" So what? That some of the people who supported the law had a certain intent doesn't demonstrate that it provides favored status, either.

So I'll ask you, yet again, how does this law provide favored status for black people?

[joe]

Stevo,

A law written as per your example would be clearcut discrimination, and define certain races as favored, no question. But no hate crime law in America ties punishment to the race or ethnicity of the victim. The staute kicks in when a violent crime is committed, and the motivation is discrimination, or the effort to deny civil rights, based on race/ethnicity/gender/yadda yadda yadda.

[Stevo Darkly]

joe, I don't see how your second and third sentence can both be true.

[Jadagul]

I think joe's saying that it's not tied to any specific race or ethnicity or whatever- you're punished if your motivation is race, regardless of the race of the victim. So the law doesn't carve out any specifically protected racial group, it protects all equally.

And joe: I have to give you credit. I generally don't agree with you, but you have a great talent for making really good, legitimate arguments that make me rethink positions that I'd discarded as stupid years ago.

[Stevo Darkly]

Of course it's not so blatant as in the example I gave (which was intended to address another point entirely). And I'd say joe is close to being right -- but the truth is, attempts by the law to protect people from hateful discrimination end up, de facto, protecting only certain types of people from discrimination. People who fall into certain ethnic types or genders, specificially, and they get a little "extra" protection.

People who fall into groups less formally recognized, such as "people who have more money than I do, and whom I therefore resent, or maybe I just want their stuff" or "white girls with long straight brown hair that David Berkowitz wants to shoot for some reason," not so much. Even though being a member of those groups can also trigger victimization too. Where do you draw the line?

[Ruthless]

"Where do you draw the line?"

Anarchists aren't compelled to draw lines.