Father wants son's beating treated as a hate crime

"… Milligan’s father believes several African-Americans beat his son, who is white, because he is dating an African-American woman. He wants police to treat the beating as a hate crime. He also has criticized what he calls a deafening silence from the community, police and the national media.

“If this was a black guy who was beaten by a group of white guys for dating a white girl, people would be up in arms,” he said. “There’s a double standard.”

Buffalo police believe a group of about 10 to 15 African-American men attacked Milligan late at night, police spokesman Mike DeGeorge said. Police have made no arrests and are still investigating the motive, he said.

Milligan Sr. says he believes the attackers are the same “neighborhood guys” who threatened his son and his African-American girlfriend because of their interracial relationship.

The younger Milligan and his girlfriend, Nicola Fletcher, who is also 18, had recently complained of an increase in insults and threats in east Buffalo, where Fletcher lives and where Milligan was staying with his grandmother, Fletcher said…"

Where’s Al? Anyone seen Jessie? How 'bout the POTUS who saw fit to besmirch an entire police department when he didn’t know the facts? Where’s MSM? Thank God for righteous men like Rev.Pridgen who said to his congregation, “If it was a black teen, we would have been protesting with flags and everything else.” and good journalists like my unhyphenated brother, Rod Watson, “If blacks in Buffalo in 2009 are acting like whites in Selma in 1959, this society has big problems, despite electing a president who is himself the product of an interracial union.”

Police and politicians who recognize only one side against the other as racism and hate-filled, miss the mark. Evil is evil. Pink on orange, tan on green, purple on blue…

cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/07/new.york.beating/index.html

I oppose hate crime legislation because if a violent act was committed, then the violent act is what should be punished, as opposed to the motivation behind the violent act.

All crime is hate crime.

I agree with the above two posts, having said that, the father has a point… the silence from the so-called civil rights people and the tolerance crowd is deafening. The double standard is alive and well.

We should band together and protest as they have, then.

What happened WAS a hate crime.

It’s on CNN. A national network, has reported it, so drop the MSM comments.

If no evidence emerges than what are they supposed to do? How are they supposed to find a suspect and/or secure a conviction? There were 10-15 men beating this guy, no witnesses? You can’t go on “those group of guys in the neighborhood”. Unless witnesses come forward or video evidence emerges, this will remain an unsolved crime.

Maybe if there was more to go on, then Al & Jessie would get invovled.

No, not every crime is a hate crime. I don’t remember ever hearing about a bank robber who robbed because he hated, say, the bank tellers.

But the whole idea of hate crimes is bogus. The law should not take cognizance of any such thing. And when it does (or doesn’t), as in the cited case, it illustrates that there is a bias that, at best, calls the law into disrepute or, at worst, makes it look illegitimate.

If I had plenipotentiary powers, I’d revoke all hate crimes legislation–and about 9/10 of all other legislation passed by Congress. (Even then, I probably would be leaving too much intact.)

No, not every crime is a hate crime.

I would go even farther than this. Most crimes that get the designation “hate crime” have picked the wrong word.

The antonym of “love”, in most such cases, isn’t “hate”. It’s “apathy” or “indifference”.

Now true hatred does exist, don’t get me wrong. But in many cases it is simply the sense of the “other” in the perception of the victim by the perpetrater, which renders the perpetrater’s view of the victim to be “less” than themself, perhaps to the point of being less human, if at all.

I do not convincingly know enough details of the original story, so wish to make clear I am not offering commentary on this particular case. Rather am making a general point.

I would really, really like to see this hate/apathy distinction made more clearly in general discourse. That would help temper the misuse of the “hate” appellation as an ad hominem instrument used to discredit one’s opinion, as is so commonly done (eg, Proposition 8 supporters).

Revoke hate crime legislation?

Tell that to the 70 Catholics, who were victims of crime in 2007. They were targeted just because of their faith. fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/victims.htm

I wonder if they would agree with your position. I think they would want the criminals to be punished more for their hatefull and biased attacks.

Also, if the case did go to trial, all bias should be eliminated during the jury selection process.

So if someone is murdered, beaten or has property vandalized, are you saying those crimes won’t be prosecuted if the hate crime legislation is revoked?

Isn’t that why a judge is given a range of punishments, so he can judge the viciousness of the action and the appropriate punishment. Does the judge need legislation to tell him that since the victim is in a particular group, the punishment needs to be greater?

Am I to feel better because a kid who throws eggs at my house because I’m Catholic is punished more harshly than someone who throws eggs at my house because he gets his jollies from hurting anybody?

Don’t put words into my mouth. Criminals who target people because of their color, ethnicity or creed should be punished more.

Do you even know why hate crime legislation was introduced in the first place? It’s because when a biased crime occurs, it reaches past the victim, into the victims community.
For example:
Do you think lynching someone is just murder? or is it something more?
It’s meant to hurt and intimidate the victims family,friends, and community.
I’d like to see you argue against that level of hate.
You sound like you adore criminals.

Last time I checked WE THE PEOPLE tell our legislators what kind of laws we desire. The judge interprets the law. We wanted tougher laws to combat hate crimes.

A child throwing eggs?
I think that’s a drop in the bucket.
Try thinking about your church/synagogue being burned to the ground because someone hates you so much.
Try thinking about being beaten to near death and then having a noose thrown around your neck and being hung from a tree.

You may think these are extreme examples, but the fact is they happened here in America.

I believe the poster meant that a crime is a crime regardless of motive. The focus should be on the victim.

I believe this law is a tool. The crafters knew very well that it would take a subjective opinion to determine, and, therefore, could be manipulated accordingly. I has already become a tool of divisiveness. No coincidence, as far as I’m concerned.

I do not like “hate crime” laws; I think they set up a seperate class of people who are no more deserving of justice than anyone else. In this case I’ll make an exception and here’s why: to get these hate crime laws overturned, the shoe is going to have to be put on the other foot a few times to get people to open their eyes to how this is nothing but reverse bigotry.

What do you do when the people who commit these acts receive drastically reduced sentences due to a ‘crime of passion’ plea or ‘insanity’?

Murder is murder? Except of course when sometimes murderers only get 4-5years because of a sympathetic/gullible jury. If you want to abolish hatecrimes, you must also put into place something else that prevents murderers from getting away with less punishment than someone smoking a joint.

Jurys have nothing to do with sentencing; that is done by judges.

Agreed.

They indirectly do. If they find the murderer guilty of second or third degree manslaughter, instead of murder one or two. Then the jailtimes are drastically reduced.

So what you’re saying is that the decision of justice should be taken away from a jury of peers and a local judge and be simply mandatory harshness? Hate in return, not calm weighing of facts.

A friend of mine was viciously murdered in what is classified as a hate crime in some states. It did not happen in one of those states. The murderer plead an insanity plea that my friend’s status as a transsexual ‘drove him crazy’ and ‘made’ him stab her over thirty times, rip out her throat, remove genitals and toss them in the garbage, then try to hide the body and the items he did the murder with.

He only got 6years because they called it manslaughter. He goes to the same grocery store I do, well, used to, I stopped, for obvious reasons.

Yes, they did happen here in America. But you didn’t answer my question. You would feel better if someone who hurt you because of hate was punished more harshly than someone who hurt you because they’re simply amoral? They don’t hate you, they dont’ think of you at all, they get their jollies out of hurting people and you happen to be nearby? Would America be a better place?

You sound like you adore criminals

.

See, it’s because of how quickly you judged me and decided my place that I fear hate crimes. It’s a way for you to legally hate back, to get revenge, not justice. You judge emotions harshly, and wrongly in my case. How can I trust you or hate crimes law? :frowning:

I don’t know if it’s a question of “feeling better” or not.
If I were the victim of a biased crime I would want the criminal to get the maximum amount of time and then some. What’s to prevent the person from doing it again?
I’m talking about VIOLENT crime, which most hate crime is.
So Yes, I think America would be a better place if all violent criminals were behind bars, where they could not harm citizens.

I didn’t mean to upset you and if I came across as harsh, I apologize.
I feel passionately about the issue, just like you do.
I think we need to be tough on crime.
Hate crime legislation is not about “getting revenge”, but achieving justice. I’m failing in showing you how hate crimes go beyond the victim and into the victims community (whether that be race, gender, creed, etc.)

Think about this:

What is the main reason for acts of terrorism?
-To kill. To instill fear into a population. To gain power over a group of people.
What is the main reason for a hate crime?
-To hurt/kill. To instill fear into a population. To gain power over a group of people.

Don’t you think people who want to hurt more than just the victim deserve to be punished more?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.