What Makes a Crime a Hate Crime?
[Guest post by DRJ]
From the Austin American-Statesman:
“Police are investigating a brick with an offensive message thrown into the window of an East Austin home. The brick, thrown through a 4-year-old boy’s bedroom window, read “Keep Eastside Black. Keep Eastside Strong.”
The homeowner, Barbara Frische, who is white, said she has lived in the home for 10 years.
***
Police have not classified this incident as a hate crime, said Austin Police Sgt. Richard Stresing, because hate crimes target an individual specifically because of an identifying characteristic, like race. Police say the incident has been classified as criminal mischief and deadly conduct.”
Wouldn’t this be treated as a hate crime if the brick had been thrown into a black child’s room with “Keep this neighborhood White” written on it? If you are going to have hate crimes, I think the test should be whether conduct is racially (or ethnically, etc.) motivated.
– DRJ
I think of east side more as hispanic. Down by the downtown part like around cesar chavez I would live there. I think it’s a neat neighborhood what just needs a little love. It would be scary at first though.
Comment by happyfeet (71f55e) — 7/24/2009 @ 4:31 pm
Wait…”Keep Eastside black”…this does not identify a race?
I want some of what ever they are smoking…it must be GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD stuff!
Comment by MunDane68 (54a83b) — 7/24/2009 @ 4:34 pm
Wrong window.
The brickthrower intended to throw it through the window of a four year old black child to reinforce the message…
Oh.
Wait.
Message.
I got it:
*ahem*
The message is about strength.
Only.
Well, maybe the eastside too, since it’s in there twice.
Comment by SteveG (97b6b9) — 7/24/2009 @ 4:41 pm
Yikes! My old neighborhood!
When I lived in East Austin, there was a dwindling population of elderly whites and a lot of African American families. It was a very pretty part of town and not yet overtaken by Yuppies.
Comment by Nancy (1276be) — 7/24/2009 @ 5:08 pm
hate crime (n.) – anything that offends a Democratic Party special interest group.
Comment by Mike LaRoche (d83224) — 7/24/2009 @ 5:20 pm
Liberal Rule Book: You can tell it’s a hate crime if it is directed agasint any non-Christian and/or white.
Comment by Hrothgar (8b4b25) — 7/24/2009 @ 5:56 pm
So, where’s President Waste of Sperm with a few comments on this one ? Or does he just comment when it’s a black man supposedly harmed in some way by a white cop ? Funny how it’s an outrage when it’s a black victim, but not even noteworthy when it’s a white person.
Comment by DaveinPhoenix (8c6b07) — 7/24/2009 @ 6:11 pm
“Funny how it’s an outrage when it’s a black victim, but not even noteworthy when it’s a white person.”
Or if it is a poor, unimportant black or hispanic person.
Comment by PatAZ (9d1bb3) — 7/24/2009 @ 6:39 pm
Wait’ll the Congressional White Caucus hears of this!
Comment by ras (20bd5b) — 7/24/2009 @ 7:21 pm
I think with a black president making remarks about stupid cops is bringing the race pustule to a head.
A multi-racial group of cops is backing Crowell in the Gates dustup, too.
Comment by Patricia (48ec63) — 7/24/2009 @ 7:57 pm
The police called another press conference to address the numerous objections they have received since the initial police statement. The police spokesperson admitted they may have not read the note carefully enough, so they sent it back to their crack special investigators for hate crimes. After closer inspection it was conclusively confirmed that this vandalism couldn’t have been a hate crime, based on the fact the word hate could not be found in either sentence. The spokesperson added that during the follow up investigation it was noted that the writing seem suspiciously juvenile and the unidentified 4 year old occupant of the bedroom in question has been brought in for further interrogation along with providing a handwriting sample.
Comment by political agnostic (b0a528) — 7/24/2009 @ 8:16 pm
Someone get Professor Gates a lawn jockey, because things are not always as they appear.
Comment by Joe (17aeff) — 7/24/2009 @ 8:26 pm
A hate crime is what the politburo needs to put its opposition into the gulag for as long as it takes the criminal to acknowledge his thought crime against the state.
Comment by Thomas Jackson (8ffd46) — 7/24/2009 @ 8:45 pm
Barbara Frische?
Comment by nk (07e440) — 7/24/2009 @ 11:04 pm
Well, the police *could* be right. It doesn’t look like they actually are, though.
I know DRJ knows this (by her last sentence), but for some of those who might not:
Suppose my new neighbor Patterico moves in. He looks sort of Irish, but mostly he bugs me by taking his trash cans in on time and playing classical music. I say, “Stupid Flanders… er, Patterico,” behind his back.
One day, I throw a potato through his window with the message, “NO IRISH!”
Now, this *isn’t* a hate crime. I don’t like Patterico; I’m using his ethnicity in an effort to harrass and annoy. You have to show that ethnicity was the *motive.* If you had already made an arrest, it would be possible to conclude it was not a hate crime if the person copped out and there was pre-existing non-race-based bad blood.
Since there hadn’t been, the conclusion seems unlikely. Caveats: I don’t know all the facts. My conclusion is based on the reported facts. Those might well be wrong.
–JRM
Comment by JRM (355c21) — 7/24/2009 @ 11:44 pm
Great analogy. The potato was an especially nice touch.
Comment by DRJ (6f3f43) — 7/25/2009 @ 12:07 am
And if all some disadvandaged youth (code word) wanted was my wallet, and he hit me over the head with a crowbar, and I spent the rest of my short life in a nursing home (true story), I suppose that’s a love crime.
Comment by nk (07e440) — 7/25/2009 @ 12:16 am
*disadvantaged*
Comment by nk (07e440) — 7/25/2009 @ 12:17 am
But JRM, isn’t hate assumed when an attack is against other than white people?
You can charge a ham sandwich (or potato); why didn’t they charge here and let the DA decide?
Comment by Patricia (48ec63) — 7/25/2009 @ 8:29 am
In the Liberal utopia, all the animals are equal, it’s just that some animals are more equal than others.
Comment by Barry Denham (4b6666) — 7/25/2009 @ 9:51 am
What’s the big deal? According to the pending legislation, if we all dress to look gay we would all have the extra protection of increased sentences if we are attacked.
Comment by Amphipolis (42043b) — 7/25/2009 @ 10:34 am
You don’t understand how the game is played. Hate crime is when a minority is victimized. When a white is victimized it is a crime of unknown motivation. This is not a double standard, this is how it is supposed to work, as designed by today’s ruling class.
Comment by Jack (1a3562) — 7/25/2009 @ 11:18 am
The LAPD used to have “hate crime” forms for officers to fill in.
“Hispanic” was an option in the victim category, but not in the “perpetrator” category.
True hate crimes can be a kind of terrorism, and should be punished more severely. But hate crimes legislation in practice does not seem to be accomplishing that.
Comment by Daryl Herbert (a32d30) — 7/25/2009 @ 12:16 pm
[...] Others: RedState, Chicago Boyz and Patterico’s Pontifications [...]
Pingback by Since when is this NOT a Hate Crime? | Political Byline (e78bc3) — 7/25/2009 @ 1:50 pm
[...] Courtesy of Sailorette, the infamous “brick through a window ain’t a hate crime” case, dissected by Patterico’s crew. [...]
Pingback by Every Word a . . . | Little Miss Attila (62389c) — 8/10/2009 @ 7:13 pm