|
Replies: 48
| visibility 435
|
CU Medallion [73569]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 78044
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
 |
Oculus Spirit [83625]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63724
Joined: 12/31/06
|
I'm trying to figure out why they thought...
Jul 8, 2020, 5:06 AM
|
|
this would be a good idea AND in broad daylight.
I think "hate crimes" are ridiculous...but this was a stupid move.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97703]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64842
Joined: 7/13/02
|
There are many flavors of stupid.
Jul 8, 2020, 6:23 AM
|
|
One brand of stupid tends to bring out the other brand of stupid. And vice versa.
All you can do is roll your eyes, shrug your shoulders, and carry on ignoring.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34104]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33608
Joined: 9/13/99
|
People go nuts when they hear "hate crime."
Jul 8, 2020, 8:36 AM
[ in reply to I'm trying to figure out why they thought... ] |
|
Here is the hate crime they're being charged with:(b) No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall knowingly deface, damage, or destroy the real or personal property of any other person for the purpose of intimidating or interfering with the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to the other person by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States, in whole or in part because of one or more of the actual or perceived characteristics of the victim listed in subdivision (a) of Section 422.55.
You can meet the elements of that crime by doing the following:
1) Deface property
2) In a way that interferes with the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to another person
3) Due at least in part to the person's race.
If I'm the DA, hells yeah I'm charging them with that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Who was the victim of this crime?
Jul 8, 2020, 8:46 AM
|
|
And what was that person's race?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34104]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33608
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: Who was the victim of this crime?
Jul 8, 2020, 8:58 AM
|
|
The people who painted the mural are the victims. I don't know their races. I know that the dingdongs destroying the mural were caught on tape saying the "narrative" of racism and oppression was a lie.
So they're destroying the words "black lives matter"--which the people did EVERYTHING RIGHT to paint there, getting a permit from the City in advance--and a couple of white idiots destroy it because they don't think black people are oppressed. They are literally interfering with the rights of people who lawfully announced "black lives matter" in a mural, while whining that the rights of black people aren't really being interfered with.
Anyway, so yeah the people who painted the thing are the victims.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Seems kind of weak if you can't point to a
Jul 8, 2020, 9:03 AM
|
|
victim and say "they didn't like that person's race". The way the statue is worded indicates it should be that way.
If a "white" person painted, and maybe one did, would that invalidate the "hate crime"?
Also, after thinking about it, I don't know if the people who painted it are the victims, anyway. I'd say it's more that the city/town is the victim, since it was a defacement of public property. Did the paint "belong" to the painters at this point?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34104]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33608
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Good thing I'm not the Contra Costa DA.
Jul 8, 2020, 9:13 AM
|
|
I would guess that black people painted the mural, but I haven't investigated. It also matters what the victim's perceived race was. If someone paints a swastika on a person's house because the person thinks a Jewish family lives there, they are guilty of the hate crime. Which makes sense because it's the evil intent that we are interested in punishing.
You ask a good question at the end: The answer is that the property does not need to belong to the victim. That issue came up in a case in 2001 where someone had written "kill the [n-word]" on a school building, and the court found that the statutory language does not require the victim to own the property.
The court explained:Nothing in the language of section 422.6, subdivision (b) or in the legislative history of the Bane Act suggests the Legislature intended for the application of that provision to turn on questions of property ownership. Instead, the principal thrust of the statute is toward preventing the intimidation of a victim, or the interference with the victim's civil rights, when the intimidation or interference is based on the victim's actual or perceived protected characteristic. Giving the statute the narrow interpretation urged by appellant could lead to results which frustrate, rather than promote, the law's purpose. For example, assume that a public school teacher regularly and openly parks his or her vehicle in a designated space on the school grounds. If a person defaces the car with offensive graffiti referring to the teacher's race, religion, etc., a violation of section 422.6, subdivision (b) may have occurred. But if the same person placed the same graffiti on the teacher's parking space, even while the car may be parked therein, there would be no violation even though the actor's purpose and the intimidating effect of the act were the same as in the first case.
We conclude that the phrase "property of any other person" in section 422.6, subdivision (b) does not require that the victim own the property. As long as the property is regularly and openly used, possessed, or occupied by the victim so that it is readily identifiable with him or her, it falls within the statutory scope.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Good info.
Jul 8, 2020, 9:18 AM
|
|
It may well be a "hate crime" according to the statute, and I wouldn't necessarily dispute that.
My broader disagreement, of course, is whether such statutes should exist.
Instead of thinking of it in terms of: "should Bob get a bigger sentence because he hated the person's skin color"?
I think "Should Bob get a lesser sentence because he had no problem with the victim's skin color"? I have a hard time justifying that.
Like, if the max penalty is 3 years normally, but 5 years for the "hate crime," why should it just be 5 years, period?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Responding to myself...
Jul 8, 2020, 9:25 AM
|
|
It's pretty basic, I realize, probably not worth spending a lot of time. All sentences are put in place based on how bad society thinks a crime is. Society in general probably considers these crimes to be worse. I don't. It's a simple as that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34104]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33608
Joined: 9/13/99
|
I think you explain it correctly.
Jul 8, 2020, 9:57 AM
|
|
But are you sure you think certain crimes aren't worse?
Painting on someone else's house is vandalism, even if it's just a picture of a cute little puppy. Should it matter if what you painted was actually a swastika and the neighbor was Jewish? Or if you paint a noose on a black family's house?
Or is it all just vandalism and should be punished equally?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
You are doing a good job cornering me...this made me think.
Jul 8, 2020, 10:08 AM
|
|
It still seems to me these are different actions, not just different motives. Like, a swastika or noose seems naturally threatening, no matter what the person inside looks like. But to answer the question, yes, of course painting the puppy does not seem as bad to me.
There are very clear, obvious examples of crimes that are done out of racial animus. But the tough ones are ones that are not so obvious...how do you really know, and how can you really judge, the real heart of the individual committing the act? Is it really something we should be trying hard to evaluate?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34104]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33608
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: You are doing a good job cornering me...this made me think.
Jul 8, 2020, 10:29 AM
|
|
Thanks, this discussion is helpful for me as well, because this isn't my area of practice and it's interesting to research it.
I agree that a swastika or noose seems worse, although I wouldn't say "naturally" threatening. It's threatening as a result of the hateful meaning those symbols have been imbued with through our culture and history. A skinhead might intentionally paint a swastika on their own house, and if anything would feel empowered rather than threatened. Thus, a wandering skinhead who saw a house full of skinheads and painted another swastika on their house would not meet the elements of the hate crime.
I also agree with you that there are obvious cases of racially motivated crimes and less obvious cases. I believe each of the elements needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, though I'm not a criminal lawyer. Someone could be charged with but not found guilty where the evidence of animus was not obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5669]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 12143
Joined: 9/28/08
|
Re: Who was the victim of this crime?
Jul 8, 2020, 9:11 AM
[ in reply to Re: Who was the victim of this crime? ] |
|
BLM is an organization of the democratic party - obvious since all donations go through ActBlue.com. How can it be okay for them to advertise on the street?
Can I get some street space for my favorite charity?
Can I, as a taxpayer, sell some space to Kellogs to advertise Fruitloops?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
You can apply to the locality, I'm sure.***
Jul 8, 2020, 9:19 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83625]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63724
Joined: 12/31/06
|
I get it...
Jul 8, 2020, 8:52 AM
[ in reply to People go nuts when they hear "hate crime." ] |
|
but I don't get it.
It just seems weird to add an extra degree on a crime.
For instance, in this case...was this a stupid thing to do? Extremely! Let's make it a "stupidity crime" on top of the other charges.
I'm not nuts over it, it just seems unnecessary in my mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34104]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33608
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Didn't we JUST have this discuss like a week ago?
Jul 8, 2020, 9:04 AM
|
|
Ford explains this better than I do, but here:
Lots and lots of crimes have extra degrees based on how we just the motive of the person. In this case, we want to punish people more when their crime is an act of racism or other bigotry (religion, ethnicity, etc.) because we want special penalties for that sort of evil.
If someone paints a swastika on a Jewish neighbor's house, is it just stupidity and property damage?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83625]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63724
Joined: 12/31/06
|
The swastika analogy is good...
Jul 8, 2020, 9:11 AM
|
|
And I can see the application for the case xtiger presents...
There is just something funky in my thinking with assigning a degree of "hate" on crimes of violence. I feel like Prodigal on that. Something I got to struggle with a little more.
I do know there are varying degrees already on crimes like murder and theft. I think my struggle is the feeling that "hate" is often applied politically.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Correct me if I'm thinking wrong...but "degrees"
Jul 8, 2020, 9:21 AM
|
|
on murder is not really just about motive, right? When you commit first degree murder, you have done something materially different than 2nd degree, right? They are different actions. In first degree, you have planned it out. That's not just motive...that's you doing something different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34104]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33608
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Depends on jurisdiction, but...
Jul 8, 2020, 9:26 AM
|
|
First degree doesn't require planning, but only that you intended it some time before you did it. Second degree requires reckless indifference, which means you did something terrible without caring if the person got killed. Manslaughter requires that you were in an extreme mental state, like suddenly enraged by some event. Negligent homicide means you were careless (but not recklessly indifferent). Felony murder means you were committing some other crime (like robbery; there are a list of applicable crimes) and someone ended up dead (even if you didn't kill the person).
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
But the point remains, those "degrees" are not about motives
Jul 8, 2020, 9:28 AM
|
|
But about differing actions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34104]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33608
Joined: 9/13/99
|
No, could be the same action.***
Jul 8, 2020, 9:28 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
I can commit first degree murder
Jul 8, 2020, 9:29 AM
[ in reply to But the point remains, those "degrees" are not about motives ] |
|
because I am a cannibal and I want to eat, or I can commit it because I don't like the person's skin color. It's first degree not because of why I did it, but because I intended to do it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34104]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33608
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: I can commit first degree murder
Jul 8, 2020, 9:42 AM
|
|
Correct although if you are resorting to cannibalism because you're on a lifeboat for a month, then the killing though intended would not be punished the same way.
Intent matters. Sentencing hearings are very much about the perpetrator's intent, goals, remorse, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83625]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63724
Joined: 12/31/06
|
Re: Correct me if I'm thinking wrong...but "degrees"
Jul 8, 2020, 9:27 AM
[ in reply to Correct me if I'm thinking wrong...but "degrees" ] |
|
First Degree, Second Degree, and Manslaughter seem to deal with intent/motive to me.
It seems weird to add a "hate crime" on top of murder.
I do see spooneye's point on a vandalizing crime
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34104]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33608
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: The swastika analogy is good...
Jul 8, 2020, 9:22 AM
[ in reply to The swastika analogy is good... ] |
|
It might be that the actual background of the legislation, and the elements of the crimes themselves, are not well-enough known, and people are more familiar with certain patterns of criticism that may not correctly describe the laws.
I don't know what it means for "hate" to be applied politically, but the good news is that hate isn't an element of a hate crime. That's just a label for crimes that are motivated by someone else's religion, race, gender, etc.
Here's what I'd be interested to know, and I don't have time to look it up because I spent all my goof-off time researching other stuff already: California's hate crime legislation (the Bane Act) was enacted in 1987. Has it provided any benefit? Here is a brief discussion of its intended purpose:
It was (and most of this is quoting a court now) "California's response to the alarming increase in hate crimes. It was the inadequacy of existing law and the increase in crimes committed because of the victim's minority status that prompted the Legislature to enact the Bane Act." It was "the expressed desire of the Legislature to afford greater protection to disfavored minority groups by adopting the Bane Act."
"In urging gubernatorial approval of the Bane Act, its author referred to a report issued by the Los Angeles County Commission on Human Relations noting the increase of acts of racial violence and religious incidents in Los Angeles County during 1986 and stated that the Bane Act addresses this problem. The commission's report described numerous racially or religiously motivated incidents, several of which involved graffiti on school buildings, walkways, signs, and classroom doors."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [881]
TigerPulse: 57%
Posts: 2125
Joined: 2/3/12
|
The neighborhood got permission and a permit
Jul 8, 2020, 7:13 AM
|
|
That’s the courthouse across the street, which was blocked off so they could paint the mural. The funny thing is the woman in Trump gear says “not in my town” as she paints. She might end up with a misdemeanor, but will have to move to a different town now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [73569]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 78044
Joined: 11/30/98
|
I ain't debating the fact they should've done it but
Jul 8, 2020, 7:32 AM
|
|
A hate crime?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5669]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 12143
Joined: 9/28/08
|
Re: I ain't debating the fact they should've done it but
Jul 8, 2020, 9:13 AM
|
|
Well I think a word was left out of the citation:
(b) No white person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall knowingly deface, damage, or destroy the real or personal property of any other person for the purpose of intimidating or interfering with the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to the other person by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States, in whole or in part because of one or more of the actual or perceived characteristics of the victim listed in subdivision (a) of Section 422.55.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34104]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33608
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: I ain't debating the fact they should've done it but
Jul 8, 2020, 10:38 AM
|
|
NC_Tiger, do you believe that this law has only been applied to white people?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34104]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33608
Joined: 9/13/99
|
The mural was "not supposed to be there anyway," says xtiger
Jul 8, 2020, 8:29 AM
|
|
Except that the person who did the mural applied for a permit from the City and was given approval in advance. These fucknuts painted over it the same day it was created.
You sure start lying early in the morning, xtiger!
https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=2336
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
I have never understood the concept of a "hate crime"***
Jul 8, 2020, 8:37 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34104]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33608
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Here is the particular criminal statute at issue:
Jul 8, 2020, 8:38 AM
|
|
No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall knowingly deface, damage, or destroy the real or personal property of any other person for the purpose of intimidating or interfering with the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to the other person by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States, in whole or in part because of one or more of the actual or perceived characteristics of the victim listed in subdivision (a) of Section 422.55.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34104]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33608
Joined: 9/13/99
|
The statute references Section 422.55(a), which says:
Jul 8, 2020, 8:39 AM
|
|
For purposes of this title, and for purposes of all other state law unless an explicit provision of law or the context clearly requires a different meaning, the following shall apply:
(a) “Hate crime” means a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of one or more of the following actual or perceived characteristics of the victim:
(1) Disability.
(2) Gender.
(3) Nationality.
(4) Race or ethnicity.
(5) Religion.
(6) Sexual orientation.
(7) Association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
It seems redundant...
Jul 8, 2020, 8:45 AM
[ in reply to Here is the particular criminal statute at issue: ] |
|
Isn't the part about damaging property and interfering with some else's rights already illegal? How does one go about assigning a motive like this, and why should that warrant a different treatment of the crime?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34104]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33608
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: It seems redundant...
Jul 8, 2020, 8:51 AM
|
|
Motive is established routinely in criminal law. It's an element in just about every felony.
Crimes are generally punished in accordance with society's view of the criminal's intent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Motives are established to try to prove
Jul 8, 2020, 8:54 AM
|
|
guilt, but I don't know that it should be used to determine "how bad" the crime was.
If I burn my neighbor's house down, to me, it doesn't matter why I did it. Like, if it happened, that I have no problem with my neighbor's skin color, that means I should get a lesser sentence? That's silly, to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34104]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33608
Joined: 9/13/99
|
That's a great example.
Jul 8, 2020, 9:40 AM
|
|
If you burn your neighbor's house down, it absolutely matters why you did it.
Let's make the action exactly the same in all cases: You set fire to some leaves near the neighbor's house while their gas line was leaking in the basement.
If you were just trying to get rid of some leaves, and you had no idea the gas was leaking, and didn't mean to burn anyone's house down, then you were careless and bad but not the worst menace to society. Lighter sentence. If someone dies, maybe negligent homicide.
If you had no idea the gas was leaking and just wanted to freak out your neighbor and BOOM wuh oh, then you are a problem and will get a greater sentence. And if someone dies, maybe second degree murder.
If you knew the gas was leaking and wanted to blow up your neighbor's house because you two have had a 10-year feud, you are definitely an arsonist and possibly also guilty of attempted murder or (if successful) first- or second-degree murder.
If you burned it down because black people own it and you kill their family because your goal is to get rid of all the black people in town, then it's not just a personal feud reaching its pinnacle: you're beginning your crusade of ethnic cleansing.
If you burned it down because you wanted to help your neighbor collect on the insurance, well that's a whole other thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58411]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46321
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Of course it is. And yes, it's all about the totally
Jul 8, 2020, 8:57 AM
[ in reply to It seems redundant... ] |
|
subjective process of assigning motive, and here's how that works: Victim black, perp white = automatic hate crime. That kind of takes the subjectivity out of it. Racially motivated hate is the default motivation in those cases, no hesitation, no questions asked. As a black friend said when George Floyd was killed, "what else could it be?". Chalk one up for the bad guys.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
I think hatred is a root motive of every crime
Jul 8, 2020, 8:58 AM
|
|
perpetrated against another person.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58411]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46321
Joined: 4/23/00
|
For the most part, at least on some level, yes.***
Jul 8, 2020, 9:05 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
This portion of the thread is more about semantics...
Jul 8, 2020, 9:37 AM
[ in reply to I think hatred is a root motive of every crime ] |
|
As spooneye pointed out, "hate crime" is just a phrase people use, not really material in talking about the merit of specific statutes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [73569]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 78044
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58411]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46321
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Tons of hate and anger there.
Jul 8, 2020, 9:12 AM
|
|
Maybe we need a law for anger crimes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5669]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 12143
Joined: 9/28/08
|
Re: Tons of hate and anger there.
Jul 8, 2020, 9:14 AM
|
|
Getting close...
How about thought crime?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58411]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46321
Joined: 4/23/00
|
We're almost 40 years late, but we're almost there
Jul 8, 2020, 9:18 AM
|
|
in 1984. But they can tell what you're thinking only if your skin is white.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34104]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33608
Joined: 9/13/99
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [73569]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 78044
Joined: 11/30/98
|
well your lib leaders are not only allowing it but cheering
Jul 8, 2020, 10:44 AM
|
|
it on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34104]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33608
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Well your lib leaders need to cut that out.***
Jul 8, 2020, 11:31 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 48
| visibility 435
|
|
|
50
