The National Fraternal Order of Police has launched a campaign to change federal law to add attacks on police as a hate crime. In a letter to President Barack Obama and Congress, the powerful union cites the murders of two New York City police officers, Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu. The demand would treat an attack based on status as the same as an attack based on race. Given the Administration’s expedited investigations of civil rights violations involving deaths caused by police officers in Missouri and New York, the change would create an interesting situation where both future suspects and officers would be arguably protections under federal hate crime laws.
Currently, the federal law states that it is a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.”
Jim Pasco, the executive director of the National Fraternal Order of Police, insisted that “[r]ight now, it’s a hate crime if you attack someone solely because of the color of their skin, but it ought to be a hate crime if you attack someone solely because of the color of their uniform as well.”
Many of us have been alarmed by the intense anti-police rhetoric that has arisen in some protests, including chants for more dead police officers. Despite this sympathy, however, the addition to a status as a hate crime category raises some difficult questions about the expansion of this law, which has been viewed as troubling in many circumstances by civil libertarians.
There have been an alarming increase in the shooting of police officers in the last year. However, there are already ample criminal provisions addressing such crimes, including crimes specifically covering attacks on police offices or fire fighters. Adding a new category to the hate crimes statute is unlikely to offer any additional deference when you already have these laws as well as standard charges for murder etc. The question is whether we want to continue to expand this law to cover attacks allegedly made on the basis of status. There are also questions of what the requisite proof would be in such cases.
There is also an obvious concern that any assault on a police officer could be potentially classified as a hate crime. Citizens often voice contempt or anger at police. In some confrontations, we have seen even the slightest forms of assault charged under existing laws. Some of those cases could not be enhanced with a hate crime charge. Defense attorneys have long complained that prosecutors over-charge such cases in deference to their colleagues in police departments. There is often pressure to use every possible charge against someone who is accused of assaulting an officer. There is a danger that free speech rights could be implicated in such prosecutions as well as other protections.
While there will be powerful political pressures for Congress to yield to this demand, it is worth considering such questions before taking such step. First and foremost is the question of whether such a change is really needed in light of existing laws. There may be good arguments for the inclusion to be made but I hope that there is not a rush to take action due to our collective anger over these horrific attacks on police officers. This is a question that raises some novel questions about how such crimes are defined and proven.
What do you think?
Source: Yahoo
Oh there it is. 😉
Lost a comment Darren but I will make another one because I think this is so sweet of the Police Union and Self Righteous of the Bullies that they are.
Give me a break. Protect them because of the color of their uniforms? lol. I don’t hear you Officer. Sorry. I realize that the streets are a rough place to be but you knew that when you applied for the job. Unfortunately Crime is full of hate and you will get it directed at you as it is the nature of the game. So you want to be protected. lol. I want to be protected from you. Just like everyone else that had their civil rights invaded by the Police.
Cops are notorious for stepping over the line in harassment of the citizenry and in my opinion it is ludicrous they ask for protection because of a civil rights case?! If they can’t take it they shouldn’t dish it out. I wish I had someone to protect my civil rights from the police when it counted.
How does equal protection under the law, per the Constitution, apply to hate crime legislation?
Some groups get the special ‘hate’ designation giving them a elevated legal status. Those under the ‘hate crime’ umbrella get special legal treatment those not under that covering can share, thus the ‘uncovered’ are relegated to a less protection under the law status rather than the equal protection all citizens should enjoy.
Cops ALREADY have a special protection under the law that citizens do NOT enjoy. Now they want hate crime status as well????
Every day at Freedom’s Phoenix news site & other news sites there are 2 or 3 stories about police abuse of some sort. EVERY DAY!! In AZ not many years ago a young Marine was killed in his OWN HOME in front of wife & kids because cops had the wrong house. NOT ONE COP got prosecuted. The family got 3.4 million, but not one LEO went to trial.
NO ONE WAS HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE KILLING!!
Then there is the draconian asset forfeiture situation going on. If you don’t know much about that one, look it up!!!! ANYONE at ANY time can be a victim of this law enforcement abuse. AF has been so lucrative that now cops teach each other how to take property from citizens…any way, look that up. YOU could be next.
The botched “OOPS!! Wrong address again!” drug bust situation where innocent citizens are killed & asset forfeiture…there are a LOT of cop abuse situations around the US now. Few cops ever get prosecuted.
And they wanna whine for hate crime crap. How about some accountability for cops laws instead?
SamFox
Ahhh, a chink in the armor. Oops!
In Wi., the major funding to a group that is protesting against cops is the NEA. I guess there is no solidarity between all unions.
Probably because the police union refused to support any of the other unions when El Commandante Walker went on his union busting campaigns while leaving the police alone. So, as far as I care, the police union can shove off.
Interesting that profiling is acceptable but only to prosecute crime and not prevent it.
Yes I can.
Because a “hate crime” as defined presupposes motivations and intents based on the status of the victim. Whereas a crime, without that artificial construct of “hate crime status”, is based on the individual facts and circumstances.
You want to make thought crimes the basis. I want to make facts the basis. If it is “hate” in that particular circumstance, then that is factored into the final results.
However to presume that “hate based” is the reason for the crime with no evidence other than the composition of the victim is ……words fail me…..reverse bigotry….stupidity….perversion of justice.
Sometimes it IS that the crime is solely motivated by the status of the victim. The KKK picked their victims solely based on race……. BUT to presume that all victims of crime who are black, asian, etc are victims solely because they are what they are is myopic to the extreme….. and a prime example of narrow thinking.
and the circumstances of the crime.
Which include the thoughts (IE motivations and intent) leading up to the crime.
You simply cannot square that circle no matter how hard you try, kiddo.
I said: Until I ACT on those thoughts there is no crime.
Anna Marie says: Therefore..the thoughts were part of the criminal process, were they not? Acting out of deliberation is a human trait, and thought cannot be divorced from the action.
If you contend that actions cannot be viewed in the totality of circumstance, including intent, then you step outside rationality (and all of human experience)and into a strange realm of post modern atomization.
You have some real reading comprehension issues. Try to read slowly for content and read all the words. Perhaps even reading the totality of a person’s comments would also be helpful
I said UNTIL I act on despicable thoughts….and unless I act on those thoughts there is no crime. Thinking hateful things is not a crime. Acting on them is a crime, but it is the CRIME that is at issue first, not the thoughts.
When a crime is committed the legal process via the court and a jury considers the totality of circumstances and dispenses justice accordingly. On a CASE by CASE basis.
Punishment for a crime is not and should not be based on whether the victim is part of a designated group that gets special hate points (or something). Punishment for a crime is and should be based on the crime itself, and the circumstances of the crime.
The Keystone is what everything else depends upon to hold it together. A PC Keystone would mean that Political Correctness holds your society together. Funny, but people who champion PC ideas believe this is true for them. When an idea, like “terrorist activities, and acts of violence against people because of their race, religion, and so on, are hate crimes,” once becomes accepted, it seems to grow far beyond the limits of the original intent.
Actually like PC Keystone Cops.
“All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.” Animal Farm, published in 1945.
I can’t tell you how nice it is to not have commenters screaming about “white privilege” whenever we discuss topics like this. There was a time when those hand wringers patrolled this blog like PC Police.
Hate crimes exist because some people think some lives matter more than others.
Typical liberal nonsense.
A crime is a crime. A murder is a murder.
Ann Marie, I see that your concern is for the minority population, but try to relate this to ALL citizens, including police. Consequently, until a person acts out of hate, it is considered free speech. It is the action that is to be tried, not the thought or open opinion.
If I get pulled over and get a ticket by a police officer then tweet that I think the officer is a jerk and proceed out of anger say, “I hate him (or her),” should I be held liable because I tweeted my thoughts, opinions, and emotions? No! But if I proceeded to bring harm to this particular police officer or even an officer by proxy, then it becomes an action and therefore a crime.
BTW it is a mortal sin to take a life, except in self-defense, to defend family or one’s country.
I disagree with the NFOP. They are expressing their concern and emotions, which are running quite high right now. This would destroy all individual rights of free speech…and free thought.
what you raise is an interesting thought problem that used to come up in Catholic school religious instruction. It was a mortal sin to hit a priest, but what if you were hitting the man, not the priest? Is it still a mortal sin?
I sincerely hope I woud never have cause to find out whether it is a mortal sin or not, lol. 😉
As an avowed agnostic I do not expect it to come up. 😉
Until I ACT on those thoughts there is no crime.
Therefore..the thoughts were part of the criminal process, were they not? Acting out of deliberation is a human trait, and thought cannot be divorced from the action.
If you contend that actions cannot be viewed in the totality of circumstance, including intent, then you step outside rationality (and all of human experience)and into a strange realm of post modern atomization.
“Hate Crime” designations are, in the self absurd,
{citation needed}
AnneMarie Dickey – what you raise is an interesting thought problem that used to come up in Catholic school religious instruction. It was a mortal sin to hit a priest, but what if you were hitting the man, not the priest? Is it still a mortal sin?
In this case, if you kill the man/woman, not the cop, is it a hate crime?
Go to Anytown, USA and commit a crime; every victim will ‘feel’ a degree of ‘terror’. I had my briefcase stolen out of my vehicle (in the garage) while I carried groceries into the house. This was an ungated HOA and it had a terror effect on the specific community; hate crime?
Go to that same town where a junkie kills a random person during a bad heist. That person happens to be a District Attorney, and it was simple bad luck for her.
Same town, same DA…but she is found eviscerated in front of her office with a note from the Mexican Mafia.
Either way, she is just as dead, but scenario 2 is sure as hell going to scare the daylights out of the community more than scenario 1 and with good reason. The very foundation of the rule of law has just been attacked.
Hate crimes law reflect the reality that crimes that target a community are more serious by their very nature.
When we saw lynchings of black people who tried to register to vote…it sure as hell wasn’t a random murder. It was a message of terror to the entire black community: ” stay in your place or we kill you just like this!”
You do not treat terror the same as random acts because terror is different in the scope of the target.
“Hate Crime” designations are, in the self absurd, and now the FOP wants to be be included in that cluster of morons? How idiotic is our low?