Texan charged with hate crime for 'knockout game' hit denied bail


#1

Link

The white Texas man facing federal hate crime charges for allegedly slugging a 79-year-old black man in a “knockout game” assault was denied bail Friday for an attack prosecutors say was racially motivated.


#2

Just why are the Feds prosecuting this guy? I’m sure the authorities in Texas are perfectly capable of putting him behind bars if he’s guilty (or even if he’s not).


#3

I’m missing something. I think anybody, be they black or be they white, who sucker-punches another person, should have the book thrown at them.

Why is victim of one race is more important in they eyes of the government than a victim of another race, as this story is showing?


#4

“Some observers have raised the question of racial hypocrisy by federal prosecutors who have ignored other knockout cases where the victims were white and the accused attackers were black”.

                          There in lies the problem.

#5

I’ve asked this question myself as some black teens playing this game specifically stated in their social media accounts that they wanted to target a white person. Prosecutors will only add a hate crime enhancement if they think they can get a conviction because it is difficult to prove and, unfortunately, a lot of people seem to think that racism only goes in one direction. :shrug:


#6

I hope they get him on every charge they can dream up and put him away until he rots.


#7

I hope he rots too. What about the others? Are their punishments less because they are black?


#8

[quote=Allegra] I hope they get him on every charge they can dream up and put him away until he rots.
[/quote]

I do too, assuming the racist “post-racial” justice department targets the other 90 percent of cases that are perpetrated by black men. Otherwise, let him go. I can’t endorse punishing people based on skin color. We should be beyond that.

Wanna bet we don’t see a single charge of future hate crime violations against black perpetrators by our lawless black attorney general any time soon?

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android


#9

I was curious about that as well, and did a bit of checking. Apparently, Texas has a very low rate of conviction for hate crimes: less than 5% of crimes which police identify as motivated by hate. This is far below other states.
statesman.com/news/news/special-reports/texas-hate-crime-law-has-little-effect/nRjsf/

The NBC News article quotes the US Justice Department as saying it wants to ensure that “hate crimes are identified and prosecuted, and that justice is done.”

Perhaps the feds got involved because they didn’t think the Texas courts would deliver.


#10

Every crime of violence is a hate crime.


#11

The whole concept of a “hate crime” is bogus. Every victim is deserving of equal protection under the law. “Hate Crimes” tend to be one directional (i.e. only applied if victim is a minority), and basically say that some victims have more value than other victims just because the are part of a particular race or orientation.


#12

I have learned from life experience that racism is an equal opportunity employer. It doesn’t matter your race, ethnicity, gender, age, belief or lack thereof, educational background, anyone and I mean anyone can become a racist. The choice to become one or not to become one lies in all of us, which is why it puzzles me that some people think that only whites are racist. :shrug:


#13

You can thank biased sociologists for coming up with their own definitions of racism, which excluded the possibility of white people being victims of racism.


#14

This is Obamas DOJ at work; ignore thousands of black on white attacks, find one white on black and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law.

People laughed when Beck said Obama has a deep seated hatred of white people; his appointment of Eric Holder as AG proves it. Well, I don’t care for Glenn Beck much but even a broken clock is right twice a day.

examiner.com/article/attorney-general-eric-holder-refuses-to-apply-the-law-equally

In June 2009, during his testimony before a Senate panel considering new hate crimes legislation, Attorney General Eric Holder clearly suggested that any new laws passed would not apply to white victims. When Sen. Jeff Sessions pressed Holder into saying exactly who would be protected under such laws, Holder gave his opinion that only those who have been subjected to “the unfortunate history of our nation,” should receive the added protection.


#15

"Barrett filmed the attack on his cellphone, prosecutors said. And in other videos on his phone, he used a derogatory word describing black people and suggested he “found the perfect African American suspect” to go after, according to the federal criminal complaint."

I’m a criminal defense lawyer in private practice. In my jurisdiction, penalties are doubled for hate crimes. Prosecutors generally avoid such charges because of the difficulty of proving racist motivation. In the Barrett case, however, the defendant’s own statements provide enough of a basis to warrant trying the case as a hate crime.


#16

And when blacks are arrested with tweets still on their phone they’re out looking for “crackers” there are no hate crime charges.

Ever.

Why?


#17

[quote=Geist]And when blacks are arrested with tweets still on their phone they’re out looking for “crackers” there are no hate crime charges. Ever. Why?
[/quote]

Because they’re not white, apparently. /holder

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android


#18

If such evidence exists, black defendants should be prosecuted for hate crimes too. For the record, I defended a black man charged with a hate crime in D.C. Superior Court about five years ago. My client died unexpectedly (natural causes) two weeks before trial, so we’ll never know the outcome. He was black and, yes, he was charged with a hate crime by the U.S. Attorney’s Office. My only other experience involved a black male bouncer charged with gay bashing. He was acquitted at a bench trial along with two black co-defendants. One purported victim was white, the other black. I credit the U.S. Attorney’s Office for exhibiting color blindness in filing charges in both cases.


#19

Couldn’t deliver what?
If Texas or any other state decided not to enact hate-crime legislation at all – that’s their right and the Feds should stay out of it. Likewise, they should butt out of how states enforce the “hate crime” laws they do have.

I’d be more interested in how effective Texas is in prosecuting violent crime. I also suspect “hate crime” laws are often used as a threat by prosecutors in plea negotiations, “Cop to murder now, if you go to trial we’ll slap on a hate-crime enhancement and you’ll never see daylight again.”


#20

I think you are on the money. I do not agree with “hate crime” enhancements anymore than upgrading assaults because the victim is a police officer. However, as long as such laws are on the books, I do not begrudge their use to force a quick plea.

FYI - Texas is not light on hate crimes. Even without a “hate crime” law, the three people who murdered/lynched James Byrd, Jr. all were convicted. One has been executed, one is on death row awaiting execution and the third is serving life.

In this case, there would be no reason to try this as a hate crime. Injury to an elderly person cares a greater penalty and age is easier to prove than hate. I do not even know if this case is based on hate, though the victim was targeted for his race. It seems the motivation is more to gain some fame by targeting a black man. Still, I am glad the feds are spending their money for the prosecution.


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.