# this is NOT a hate crime???



## Twin Fist (Jul 10, 2009)

http://www.ohio.com/news/50172282.html 

*Akron police say they aren't ready to call it a hate crime or a gang initiation.* 

But to Marty Marshall, his wife and two kids, it seems pretty clear. 

It came after a family night of celebrating America and freedom with a fireworks show at Firestone Stadium. Marshall, his family and two friends were gathered outside a friend's home in South Akron. 

*Out of nowhere, the six were attacked by dozens of teenage boys, who shouted ''This is our world'' and ''This is a black world'' as they confronted Marshall and his family.* 

The Marshalls, who are white, say the crowd of teens who attacked them and two friends June 27 on Girard Street numbered close to 50. The teens were all black. 

''This was almost like being a terrorist act,'' Marshall said. ''And we allow this to go on in our neighborhoods?'' 

They said it started when one teen, without any words or warning, blindsided and assaulted Marshall's friend as he stood outside with the others. 

When Marshall, 39, jumped in, he found himself being attacked by the growing group of teens. 

His daughter, Rachel, 15, who weighs about 90 pounds, tried to come to his rescue. The teens pushed her to the ground. 

His wife, Yvonne, pushed their son, Donald, 14, into bushes to keep him protected. 

''My thing is,'' Marshall said, ''I didn't want this, but I was in fear for my wife, my kids and my friends. I felt I had to stay out there to protect them, because those guys were just jumping, swinging fists and everything. 

''I'm lucky. They didn't break my ribs or bruise my ribs. I thank God, they concentrated on my thick head because I do have one. They were trying to take my head off my spine, basically.'' 

After several minutes of punches and kicks, the attack ended and the group ran off. The Marshalls' two adult male friends were not seriously hurt.


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 10, 2009)

There are a lot of reasons why the DA might not want to publicly define a particular offense as hate or gang related.  That doesn't mean that they don't believe it to be one -- but that they don't want to advertise it as such, yet.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 10, 2009)

if it was the other way around would they wait?


----------



## CoryKS (Jul 10, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> if it was the other way around would they wait?


 
The police would.  The media wouldn't.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jul 10, 2009)

They very well might. Hate crime or gang activity has to meet certain criterion of proof. It may just be easier to convict as assault.


----------



## Big Don (Jul 10, 2009)

Don't be silly, Twin Fist, White people can't be *victims *of hate crimes.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 10, 2009)

Technically, there is no such thing as a 'hate crime' per se.  The 'hate crime' is generally a sentence modifier that allows for lengthier sentencing for an existing crime when there is a racist element involved.  However, the media does use the term, and the police generally play along.  In the description above, it appears the charge would be assault and battery or perhaps aggravated assault.

The fact that an assault was black-on-white, or white-on-black, does not automatically make it a hate crime.  The appellation is generally applied when it appears that there is a racist motive for the crime, or a race-related component of the crime.

If the police catch the youths involved, and charges are brought, the DA may yet ask for the 'hate crime' sentence modifier if they are found guilty.

If I am reading your post correctly, you are outraged because of what appears to you to be a double-standard.  The world is full of double-standards.  If it makes you feel any better, statistically, a white person who assaults a black person is much less likely to be given a prison sentence than a black person who assaults a white person, and even if given a prison sentence, sentences for blacks tend to be longer than sentences for whites for similar crimes.  Sounds like a double-standard.  Does this outrage you too, or only when whites are the victims?


----------



## KELLYG (Jul 10, 2009)

What outrages me is that people can't just chill on their front lawns and celibrate a holiday with out the risk of being beaten!!!  It does not matter to me what the race is of the attacker or the people being attacked.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 10, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> if it was the other way around would they wait?


 
Yes,it's a "hate-crime." Unfortunately, as others have pointed out, such a designation is at the discretion of the authorities.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jul 10, 2009)

An Example should be made, all these thugs should be executed post haste.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 10, 2009)

"Hate crime" is, unfortunately, too simple a description of these crimes. If person A kills B because A hates B for sleeping with A's wife, that isn't a "Hate crime" because he hated a person. But it would seem like in this case it might be applicable. Wait and see. There's time yet to adjust the charges as evidence emerges and as one or two of the six strike deals with the DA's office.


----------



## Big Don (Jul 10, 2009)

arnisador said:


> "Hate crime" is, unfortunately, too simple a description of these crimes. If person A kills B because A hates B for sleeping with A's wife, that isn't a "Hate crime" because he hated a person. But it would seem like in this case it might be applicable. Wait and see. There's time yet to adjust the charges as evidence emerges and as one or two of the six strike deals with the DA's office.


If a white guy, while kicking the hell out of a black guy calls the black guy names or uses a slur, that is a hate crime...
If a group of black people attack a group of white people while yelling slurs...
Gee, if someone remained completely silent while beating people of other races, would that be a hate crime?


----------



## Nolerama (Jul 10, 2009)

Big Don said:


> If a white guy, while kicking the hell out of a black guy calls the black guy names or uses a slur, that is a hate crime...
> If a group of black people attack a group of white people while yelling slurs...
> Gee, if someone remained completely silent while beating people of other races, would that be a hate crime?



Don, I'm sensing some frustration from you in reaction to this incident. Don't you think that your frustration might some day translate into hatred and that you're just perpetuating the cycle?

The situation sucks. But the world isn't white and black. But I think that frustration and hatred from mere semantics is not the way to go about changing the mindset of our flawed society.


----------



## Big Don (Jul 10, 2009)

Nolerama said:


> Don, I'm sensing some frustration from you in reaction to this incident. Don't you think that your frustration might some day translate into hatred and that you're just perpetuating the cycle?
> 
> The situation sucks. But the world isn't white and black. But I think that frustration and hatred from mere semantics is not the way to go about changing the mindset of our flawed society.


The only frustration is with the misleading label of "Hate Crime" which is used when people mean "THOUGHT CRIME". Assault is assault no matter what the motive is, just as grand theft is grand theft no matter what the motive is. But, some people, generally not conservatives, want "Hate Crimes" in which an assaulted person is also yelled at (adding insult to injury?) somehow MORE IMPORTANT than a crime committed by your friendly neighborhood sociopath.
It is as if "being mean" to someone was worse than kicking their ***. Yeah, I'm frustrated, because idiotic crap like this frustrates me.


----------



## Nolerama (Jul 10, 2009)

One could argue that the difference between an assault and a "hate crime" assault is similar to (but not exactly the same as) the difference between manslaughter and homicide.

Either way, it's frustrating. But that's the way Americans do things. At the very least we can debate the validity of a crime's condition. People in other countries would kill for the opportunity to nit pick over the label of a crime, or lament over a perceived double standard.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jul 10, 2009)

> Out of nowhere, the six were attacked by dozens of teenage boys, who shouted ''This is our world'' and ''This is a black world'' as they confronted Marshall and his family.
> The Marshalls, who are white, say the crowd of teens who attacked them and two friends June 27 on Girard Street numbered close to 50. The teens were all black.


 
Sounds like one to me. 

If it read like this: 

_Out of nowhere, the six were attacked by dozens of teenage boys, who shouted ''This is our world'' and ''This is a *WHITE* world'' as they confronted Marshall and his family._
_The Marshalls, who are *BLACK*, say the crowd of teens who attacked them and two friends June 27 on Girard Street numbered close to 50. The teens were all black._

It would be on every news channel along with Al Sharpton screaming for justice. Where's the media coverage? I know where the double standard is...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 10, 2009)

The concept of 'hate crimes' exists due to the public perception that when racism is the basis for a crime, it is more serious that other reasons for a crime.  If I punch you out because I don't like you, that's one thing.  But if I punch you out because you're black (or white, asian, etc) then that's another.

I'm not overly fond of the 'hate crime' statutes, but I understand why they exist.

The problem being described here, though, as I said earlier, seems to be frustration over an apparent double-standard.  White assaults black, and the media labels it a 'hate crime'.  Black assaults white, and it's just an assault.

But that's not true; it's just the way it looks at times.  The media doesn't bring charges - the police do, and the DA prosecutes crimes and decides whether or not to go for a 'hate crime' sentence modifier.

It is what it is.  But there's nothing really here to get aggravated about.

What is it you want to change, exactly?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 10, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> Sounds like one to me.
> 
> If it read like this:
> 
> ...



The 'double standard' is in the media.  Yawn and so what?  What can anyone do about that?

And again - blacks get longer prison sentences than whites for the same crimes on average - where is your outrage over that?

Or is it just double-standards against whites that offends you?


----------



## CoryKS (Jul 10, 2009)

The police and the media have two different objectives. The police are interested in maintaining order, so they're not likely to cater to everyone's sense of outrage to achieve parity. The media are interested in stirring **** up in order to sell their product, and the fastest way to do that, at least in the case of white-on-black crime, is to play up the hate crime angle. Keep in mind that the media could also be _downplaying_ the hate crime angle in the case of black-on-white crime for the same reason - to create outrage among those who resent the double-standard.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jul 10, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The 'double standard' is in the media. Yawn and so what? What can anyone do about that?
> 
> And again - blacks get longer prison sentences than whites for the same crimes on average - where is your outrage over that?
> 
> Or is it just double-standards against whites that offends you?


 
Double standards in general irritate me because it denotes a lack of fairness; of justice. If you want to start a thread about the disproportionate sentencing of blacks versus other races then you can find out how I feel about that instead of simply assuming. You know what they say about ***-u-ming. 

Two wrongs don't make a right, and blaming the media doesn't change the facts. And just because I point out a double standard where blacks happen to be in the wrong doesn't mean I have a white sheet and hood folded up in my chest of drawers. 

As a species, we're never going to gain any ground overcoming the stupidity of prejudice until the bar is the same for everyone; period. 

Regardless of subject matter, when there is even a perception of unequal treatment it only fuels the fire of discontent and furthers the wedge of disunity among the "people."


----------



## elder999 (Jul 10, 2009)

CoryKS said:


> The police and the media have two different objectives. The police are interested in maintaining order, so they're not likely to cater to everyone's sense of outrage to achieve parity. The media are interested in stirring **** up in order to sell their product, and the fastest way to do that, at least in the case of white-on-black crime, is to play up the hate crime angle. Keep in mind that the media could also be _downplaying_ the hate crime angle in the case of black-on-white crime for the same reason - to create outrage among those who resent the double-standard.


 

More to the point, the DA is only interested in what he can obtain a conviction for-no more or less, and that's what...._colors_ his decision about whether or not to press for a "hate crime" enhancement: whether or not he thinks he can get a conviction.


----------



## punisher73 (Jul 10, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The 'double standard' is in the media. Yawn and so what? What can anyone do about that?
> 
> And again - blacks get longer prison sentences than whites for the same crimes on average - where is your outrage over that?
> 
> Or is it just double-standards against whites that offends you?


 
I would REALLY like to see the FULL data on that one.  Usually, when that is shown they don't show the criminal history of the two people in question.  If it could be shown that 2 people with ZERO juvenile or adult background had that large a disparity between sentences (especially in Michigan where there are sentencing guidelines for a plug in formula) than there should be an outcry.


----------



## punisher73 (Jul 10, 2009)

In Michigan here is what the law says about a situation like this.



> *THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT)*
> *Act 328 of 1931*
> 
> *750.147b Ethnic intimidation.*
> ...


 
I am not sure about other states and their laws, but in Michigan what happens fits right into that law and is considered a felony vs. a misdemeanor assault if it just happened to be two parties arguing and it evolved into a fight.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jul 10, 2009)

Ohio is a shall-issue state.

The scumbags are fortunate in their accidental choice of neighborhood in which to pull this little tantrum of theirs.

I do not think a second, similar tantrum will be afforded such leniency.


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 10, 2009)

Nolerama said:


> But the world isn't white and black.


 
The problem is that many people do indeed think it IS.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 10, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The 'double standard' is in the media.  Yawn and so what?  What can anyone do about that?
> 
> And again - blacks get longer prison sentences than whites for the same crimes on average - where is your outrage over that?




tell the WHOLE truth Bill

they get longer sentences, but on aveerage, have much more extensive criminal backgrounds

that effects sentencing too Zippy


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 10, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> tell the WHOLE truth Bill
> 
> they get longer sentences, but on aveerage, have much more extensive criminal backgrounds
> 
> that effects sentencing too Zippy


 
http://www.kernel.uky.edu/1995/fall/0927/v1.html


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 10, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> tell the WHOLE truth Bill
> 
> they get longer sentences, but on aveerage, have much more extensive criminal backgrounds
> 
> that effects sentencing too Zippy



Gotta cite, there, stud?  No, didn't think so.

You're full of it.  Again.  As usual.

Gotta get to the dojo, will check in later.  Have a nice hate.


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 10, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> if it was the other way around would they wait?


Yes.

The politics behind labeling crimes is mind-boggling sometime.  Add in legitimate police investigative reasons for not labeling a particular offense, and it's even more complicated.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 10, 2009)

Eat this, Bill



Archangel M said:


> http://www.kernel.uky.edu/1995/fall/0927/v1.html



want some more?

http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2007-04-02hm.html


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 10, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> Eat this, Bill
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Neither of your links address my statement.  Try again.


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 11, 2009)

Ahhh..lets be fair here Bill. We are all in agreement on the study that shows Blacks get longer sentences and/or are arrested more often. Why dont YOU cite some sources that prove that its unfair? Or that its due to unfair treatment by the police or the justice system? 

People spout those studies off as proof of some sort of bias in and of themselves but I dont think its that easy. Those links address many issues...they may not cite any proofs, but your implication that these sentences are due to some sort of bias isnt showing any citations either.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 11, 2009)

here is some dessert Bill

http://araceagainsttime.blogspot.com/2009/06/attorney-general-holder-whites-not.html

_In light of the brutality of the crimes committed that night, the sentences handed down were extremely lenient. The man who threw the brick at Kaufmann's car and instigated the attack, 17-year-old Deonte J. Williams, was sentenced to only 19 months in prison._

teah, the system is skewed against blacks

my *** it is


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 11, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Ahhh..lets be fair here Bill. We are all in agreement on the study that shows Blacks get longer sentences and/or are arrested more often. Why dont YOU cite some sources that prove that its unfair? Or that its due to unfair treatment by the police or the justice system?
> 
> People spout those studies off as proof of some sort of bias in and of themselves but I dont think its that easy. Those links address many issues...they may not cite any proofs, but your implication that these sentences are due to some sort of bias isnt showing any citations either.



The problem with proving bias is that it is impossible to prove or to disprove.  If one points out that blacks receive, in general, harsher sentences for the same offenses also committed by whites (which I did), then others say well, the blacks more often have prior criminal records.  But then you can say well, WHY do the blacks more often have prior criminal records?  Is it because they often live in low-income areas which are prone to crime?  Is it because they often turn to drugs because they cannot find work?  Is it because they are inferior to whites, or prone to lawlessness in general?  Do the police tend to arrest blacks more often than white, thus beginning their lifetimes of criminal history, which will later be used in sentencing?  In other words, even if one were to somehow prove that the disparity in sentencing is not racist in and of itself, then one has to turn to the reasons for crime in the first place and whether or not any of them are racist.

One set of studies that have definitively put the racist label on sentencing laws is recent, and involves crack cocaine versus cocaine itself.  Until recently, laws for possession and sale of crack were much higher than those for cocaine - but crack is cocaine, just cooked into a different chemical form.  Why is this racist?  Because crack cocaine is the drug of choice amongst the poorest members of our society, whilst cocaine itself remains a drug that can only be afforded by the relatively wealthy.

http://www.sentencingproject.org/crackreform.aspx

Since the majority of the poor in America are black, the disparity in sentencing laws meant that the result was effectively racist, even if it was not targeted at blacks in hatred.

However, let's get back to the point.  The statements made expressed outrage that a violent attack on whites by blacks was not trumpeted in the news as a hate crime.  The OP expressed resentment that whites-as-victims-of-blacks are not treated the same way as blacks-as-victims-of-whites when it comes to being considered a racist crime.

My response was that the media may well slant it that way - I can't disagree - but that the media does not bring charges.  Furthermore, as you said, it is a known fact that blacks convicted of violent crimes such as assault are more likely to receive longer sentences than whites convicted of the same crime - regardless of the reason, this is a true statement.

Since both could generate outrage over the potential 'racism' inherent in them, my question to the OP and sympathizers was: where is your outrage over the OTHER side of the question?

The response to date has been to pretend it doesn't happen the other way.  Whites are the victims, blacks are not.  Period.

There are people who believe such things, and there is a word that describes them.


----------



## geezer (Jul 11, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> ...Since both could generate outrage over the potential 'racism' inherent in them, my question to the OP and sympathizers was: where is your outrage over the OTHER side of the question?



Another nice post, Bill. Ever consider a sideline career as an editorial writer?

Anyway, I supposed that by now, it's occurred to you that folks either get your point, whether they agree or not, or they are utterly hopeless cases. It's not like you can expect total agreement or anything. But it would be nice to have people at least acknowledge what you've said. But they get up on that soapbox and just rant on and on, saying more of same old stuff.  You can let it annoy you, or you can just let it go. ...Peace, Bro.


----------



## theletch1 (Jul 11, 2009)

Attention all members:

This is an official reminder to all posting to read the Study rules.  Especially the part about attacking the message and not the messenger.  Personal attacks, name calling or other rude, childish behavior has no place on this web site.  If you simply cannot debate with another member without resorting to less than adult comments then use the ignore feature for that member.

-Jeff Letchford
-MT super moderator


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 11, 2009)

Crack cocaine sentencing is frequently pointed out as an example of inherent racism in the justice system -- but that ignores the legislative history and what was going on when the harsher sanctions for crack cocaine were enacted.

In the mid to late 80s, when crack first made a major appearance, it led to some serious wars and lots of violence between drug dealers.  Crack was cheaper than powder (you can make a lot crack from a little powder...), and moved cocaine use into a lower income bracket.  We're talking drive-bys and gang violence...  Innocent folks getting killed led to knee-jerk reactions from legislators... like harsh sentences.

You can see the same relationship in carjacking laws and sentencing.  After all, carjacking is just robbery in the specific form of taking a car...


----------



## Ray (Jul 11, 2009)

The only problem with justice is that it's not really what most of us are after; we're after revenge.  And if we can classify ourselves into a group that has been "offended" then we can speak as though WE were the offended party.  No, the white people in American (in general) were not diminished by these actions...Yes, in America's past blacks (in general) have been diminished by actions that took place...we continue to classify and separate ourselves by the most useless means (like skin color) and continue to strive against each other even there is no real gain to be had in the strife.

Without any evidence, without any documentation, I'm guessing that the offenders in this incident were looking for trouble...any kind of trouble they could get into.  They shaped their actions to the opportunity that was available...I believe they would have shaped their actions to a completely different opportunity to beat someone had it presented itself.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jul 11, 2009)

Bill is actually right about the income gap. It appears that even Hispanics do better!!

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104552.html



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> The only problem with justice is that it's not really what most of us are after; we're after revenge.


 
Good point. If everyone were out for justice then everyone would be treated equally in all situations good or bad.


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 11, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> Crack cocaine sentencing is frequently pointed out as an example of inherent racism in the justice system -- but that ignores the legislative history and what was going on when the harsher sanctions for crack cocaine were enacted.
> 
> In the mid to late 80s, when crack first made a major appearance, it led to some serious wars and lots of violence between drug dealers. Crack was cheaper than powder (you can make a lot crack from a little powder...), and moved cocaine use into a lower income bracket. We're talking drive-bys and gang violence... Innocent folks getting killed led to knee-jerk reactions from legislators... like harsh sentences.
> 
> You can see the same relationship in carjacking laws and sentencing. After all, carjacking is just robbery in the specific form of taking a car...


 
Ya beat me to it. Most powder sales in the US don't come with the drive-by shootings, home invasions and "rolling" of purchasers that crack cocaine does. And what demographic do you think was leading the charge to "do something" about the crack fueled violence on the inner city streets? Probably the people who lived there.

It's the same "all to easy..lets blame racism for the problem" approach. 

At the bottom of the piggy pile is the ugly question of, sentencing aside, are these offenders actually committing the crimes they are accused of? The issue of poverty,limited choices and what else are factors in why, but people are committing crimes of violence and victimizing others (predominantly of the same race..I wonder if the victims find issue with sentencing) right now and that has to be dealt with.

Of course, most offenders only serve a fraction of the issued sentence anyway so most of this debate is academic.


----------



## blindsage (Jul 13, 2009)

I think the issue is that black people are more violent, ignorant and lawless than white people.  It's their own fault.  I swear I can find studies and historical examples to prove it.  It's like Reagan said welfare queens in Cadillacs.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 13, 2009)

there are plenty of escalades in the local HUD rent controlled welfare only apartment complexes.


----------



## blindsage (Jul 13, 2009)

I know right?


----------



## Carol (Jul 13, 2009)

Please tell me this is not Akron's Charles Stuart

http://www.ohio.com/news/break_news/50495622.html

The mayor of Akron has called in the FBI to investigate the attack. Props to Al Sharpton for condemning the attack, but this case is bizarre. 

No one noticed 30-50 black youths going about the neighborhood?  On a holiday when many folks spend time outside?   No one HEARD them?  Never mind their color...put 30-50 youths together, on a holiday, with enough adrenaline in them to allegedly do a violent attack...and no one heard any ruckus? 

The tame language doesn't make sense.  Why was G-rated language used during what looks like a hate crime or a gang crime?

Even stranger....the Akron police say the racial comments were not reported to them!  They say they first heard about them in the newspaper.  Mrs. Marshall says otherwise. 

These counterpoints aren't my original thoughts, they are taken from some local Akron folks commenting in their newspaper saying the story doesn't make any sense.  The readers seem divided on the issue.

Anyone else uncomfortable with this story or is it just me?


----------



## punisher73 (Jul 14, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> Bill is actually right about the income gap. It appears that even Hispanics do better!!
> 
> http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104552.html
> 
> ...


 
But, why the income gap?  To me that is the more important question.  A person can point to that statistic and say that it points out the alleged racism in our society.  In Michigan (the only state I can speak of) there is no cut off or limits on welfare.  There are whole generations of families that CHOOSE welfare as a lifestyle.  If you were to factor in that many minorities (and many whites) choose to have no job and just want the gov't to hand out free money how does that affect the stats?  When you have a smaller percentage of people even low numbers really drop the average.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jul 14, 2009)

punisher73 said:


> But, why the income gap? To me that is the more important question. A person can point to that statistic and say that it points out the alleged racism in our society. In Michigan (the only state I can speak of) there is no cut off or limits on welfare. There are whole generations of families that CHOOSE welfare as a lifestyle. If you were to factor in that many minorities (and many whites) choose to have no job and just want the gov't to hand out free money how does that affect the stats? When you have a smaller percentage of people even low numbers really drop the average.


 
Off the top of my head I'd say it's due in part to education.  

But yeah, I've taken Statistics and know how data can extremely skew percieved results so good point.


----------

