There are renewed questions about how the line is drawn between hate crimes and conventional criminal cases this week after a group of black teens beat a white Kroger employee into unconsciousness as part of a “fan mob.” We recently discussed similar objections in the Utash case where a group of black men also beat a white driver to death. Critics are comparing these and other cases to the rapid deployment of federal lawyers and investigators in the Fergusan case and the recent opening of a civil rights investigation as a possible hate crime. However, the distinction in this case is that police have noted that there was an African American victim even though you can hear references to the race of the first victim. The controversy is only the latest over the use of hate crime charges and how the line is drawn in launching investigations into racial elements of certain crimes. The distinction between race or rage as a motivating element can be difficult to discern in criminal cases.
The brutal attack occurred on Saturday night when a mob of black teens swarmed a Kroger grocery store in Memphis, Tennessee and proceeded to beat two store employees and one customer to the ground. The group had emerged from a restaurant in the same strip mall and immediately attacked a 25-year-old man as he left his car in the parking lot and headed for the grocery store. When two store employees ran to the man’s aide, the black teens brutally beat them as well while he can hear people cheering and laughing.
Some people were upset by the refusal to investigate the matter as a hate crime and the response of Memphis Police Department Director Toney Armstrong who called the video “extremely troubling to see how many young people were involved, especially on the heels of last week’s youth forum . . . Last night’s events clearly demonstrates a lack of parental controls and if warranted these parents will also be held accountable.” The refusal to even investigate the racial element to the crime angered many viewers of the video, but police insist that this was more of a thrill attack than a race attack.
The difference in cases however can be hard to discern from such videos. For example, the same double standard criticism was raised with another video that went viral this week of a white couple being brutally attacked by a group of African Americans. An assault in downtown Springfield Missouri was called a hate crime against Meredith J. Cole, 19, and Alex J. Vessey, 23, who suffered serious injuries after they were assaulted by six black males. However, Cole herself on a Facebook page says the attack was not racially motivated. Indeed, she admits to uses the n-word after the attack in anger. The video is shown here.
The issue for some is the absence of an investigation in cases like the Kroger attack for hate crime as was the case in other attacks like the earlier controversy in Baltimore or recent “knockout game” cases. I believe that there are good faith distinctions to be drawn in these cases, particularly in Springfield. However, there remains an uncertain line in defining certain crimes as hate crimes while others as conventional crimes. It is a charge that has long concerned civil libertarians due to its ambiguity in some cases. The issue for critics is not whether these cases should be defined as hate crime but whether the crime allows for too much discretion and subjectivity when these crimes could be simply charged as serious felonies in their own right. Yet, these laws were intended to address cases where the victims were singled out due to their racial or religious or sexual orientation characteristics — a clearly worthy goal. The greater problem has proven the gradual expansion of hate speech charges as opposed to hate crimes and the impact on free speech. Despite the outcry in these controversies, I think that these two cases have a plausible distinction that it was not race but anger or raw mayhem that characterized the attacks.
You can judge for yourself. You can find the Kroger video: here or here
@rafflaw
Well, from what I hear, the guys in white robes are taking it easy and throwing back a few cold ones. Seems they figure that liberals are doing their work for them. Geesh, who needs a Klan when you have a Welfare State???
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
It goes both way… And should be equally enforced…. Or charge the agg assault like they are…. I am not a real fan of hate crime legislation….
The way I look at it is if there is no other reason to attack someone except for the color of their skin or their religion, etc, then it is a hate crime. I am not fond of using hate crimes, but my hope is that by using it enough, people will get the idea and stop doing it.
Glen, “The Lord helps them who help themselves.” Plus, I believe Thomas Aquinas would abide the Koreans protecting themselves.
Let’s look back at the 1992 LA Riots. Specifically, the Korean merchants in Korea Town. They were targeted.
The danger is, some people won’t wait around to question if a hate crime has been committed. Watch the guns come out in this video.
Judges robes?
Darren, Or we could take mind reading off the table and just charge w/ the ACTUAL crime, aggravated assault or battery. Otherwise, we will need to be hiring Gypsies as prosecutors to read the minds of defendants. Kreskin just can’t cover all the jurisdictions.
Paul,
I have heard comments from white people that there is no racism against blacks anymore. I think some of them were wearing robes.
rafflaw – not sure what your point is.
One has to look at the motivation as to why the victim was assaulted. The state has to prove that race or other protected status was a factor in why a suspect exacted the action against the victim. Proving intent is easier than proving motivation insofar both are concerned within the mind of the suspect.
If a crowd of black teenagers only targets white women that could be evidence or if there was inferring physical evidence such as statements made by the suspect or actions made.
The legislature could close the need for proof by these rampage attacks by introducing Rioting as an aggravator. (three or more acting to assault or cause property damage) and make the punishment equal to a hate crimes law.
This discussion has started quite well. Let’s keep it up.
“Of course, we must also be careful not to broaden the definition of “racism” to include any criticism.” Too late, Justice Holmes.
Defining “hate” based on the race or sexual preference of the “hater” is racist and identity prejudice respectively. Period.
I have heard blacks put forward the argument that blacks cannot be racist. Therefore they could not commit a racist act and therefore could not commit a hate crime either.
Anyone who blames this kind of activity on the parents is about 15 years too late.
This is a cultural problem. We saw it in the Trayvon Martin case, and we saw it again when there were claims that Michael Brown punched Officer Darren Wilson. -The response from far too many African Americans is that those punched/assaulted/battered should “Man Up.” -The response from civilized society should be; If you punch or kick a person in the face/head, you are employing lethal force. You should expect the same in response without whining.
Justice, Maybe we need Hate Crimes for white people and Rage Crimes for black people. Let’s take this Orwellian theme to it’s logical conclusion.
Lets be clear, I am really no fan of hate crimes but when a group of whites beats up a black man, its a hate crime but when a group of blacks beats up and kills a white man its just “rage”?
There are racists of all colors, sizes and ethnicities including black individuals. Blacks can be violently racist against whites, Asians and others. If we are going to move to equality, racism, no matter who it is practiced by or exhibited by, must be condemned. Of course, we must also be careful not to broaden the definition of “racism” to include any criticism.
David, Then what should happen in these cases? I’m on the record of thinking Hate Crimes are Orwellian and should have never been written. I don’t recognize you. And, to answer you question, no one ever has said OPENLY and forthrightly that black people should be exempt from hate crimes. It’s ironically like the “Gentlemen’s Agreements” that kept blacks and Jews out of elite country clubs. It was never said, but everyone knew the deal. The old wink and a nod.
Firstly, Nick, it wasn’t “centuries” since slavery and far less than one hundred years since Jim Crow laws were in effect.
Secondly, both whites and blacks have the “right” to hate anyone they please. I’ve never heard anyone (but you) suggest that any one group should be exempt from hate crimes, have you?
I’m sure you are familiar with the concept of a “straw man argument”, no?
Beldar’s comments when he stayed in Ferguson convince me that the town has been defamed by the media for the next hundred years. Kinda like Selma. Civil rights lawyers should be discussing a mob situation alright. A mob that has influenced a governor to tell the Grand Jury to issue an Indictment of a police guy. Media is the message. Mob media is the norm. Governor Jay Nixon should be sued pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1985 for conspiring with his press agent to intimidate a Grand Jury. Declaratory judgment and injunction is in order. My point is that the article compares Ferguson with the mob that punk punches people. Hands Up! Don’t Shoot! We just wanna Loot! is one mob message promoted by the media. The Saint Louis County Police Department allowed the looting purposefully to prove a point about your protestors in Ferguson. The owners of those looted business properties probably will have to resort to their own used of firearms to protect their own lives and limbs and cigars from the shelves. One point I wish to make here is that the mob has many pals including the media. Let us criticize the media as the message and not consort with them.
It seems quite simple and clear to me. Only white people, because of white privilege, are capable of hate crimes. Black people, because of slavery centuries ago, have every right to hate white people and should be exempt from hate crime prosecution. Chrissake, this was an easy one.
Reblogged this on Reality Check and commented:
Racial Rage is most likely.