« The Daily Memo - 8/9/07 | Main | Mmmm … Sock. »

Hate Crimes Get a Makeover

no_hate.jpgThree men decide they want to pull off a robbery, but they don’t really want to work too hard at it. So they go online to a message board for gays and find their victim, picking him because he’s a homosexual and, they reasoned, wouldn’t put up a fight or resist very much (clearly, these men had never met a gay man before).

During the course of the eventual robbery,the three men beat up Michael Sandy and he fled; however, he ran into traffic, got hit by a car, and eventually died from injuries sustained by the accident.

So the three men were naturally charged with murder. But, they were also charged with hate crimes. The catch: They didn’t choose Sandy because they hate homosexuals, they chose him because they felt homosexuals would be an easy target.

The question is: Should they be charged with a hate crime if they don’t have the requisite hate? The answer, at least according to the State Supreme Court in Brooklyn, NY, is: Yes.

“This is a case where the defendants deliberately set out to commit a violent crime against a man whom they intentionally selected because of his sexual orientation. Thus, the hate crimes charges in this case are consistent with the intent of the Legislature.

And so, many argue, the slippery slope begins: Will people be arrested merely for expressing their dislike for the homosexual lifestyle? According to some, it’s already happening:

Madison, Wis. David Ott, a former homosexual, was arrested for a “hate crime” for sharing his testimony with a homosexual at a gas station. He faced a $10,000 fine and one year behind bars. Seven thousands dollars in legal fees later, he was ordered to attend re-education classes at the University of Wisconsin conducted by a lesbian.
St. Petersburg, Fla. Five Christians, including two pastors, were arrested at a homosexual rally for stepping onto the public sidewalk instead of staying caged in their officially designated “free speech zone.” Their signs were also “illegal” because they were slightly “bigger than their torsos.” Apparently, large people are entitled to more speech than those with smaller frames.
Elmira, N.Y. The Elmira police arrested seven Christians for praying in a public park where a homosexual festival was getting started. A female officer told the group, “You’re not going to enter the park, and you’re not going to share your religion with anybody in this park.” The group of seven didn’t say anything, but got down on their faces and silently prayed. They were promptly placed in handcuffs.
Crystal Lake, Illinois. Two 16-year-old girls are facing felony “hate crime” charges for the content of their fliers.

But, then again, all of this is coming from a crazy, right-wing newspaper. Personally, I agree with the Brooklyn judge.

| Comments (2)


Comments

So do I. It clearly says that it has to be "a violent crime", and none of those so-called examples of slippery slope fit the bill.

And who in their right mind would have a law banning signs larger than a torso?

I look at hate crime legislation in the same light as sex criminals registrations...great on paper, but often screwed up when enforced.