January 5, 2017

Hate crime charged in the Chicago attack, but that doesn't mean it was racially motivated.

In Illinois, the hate crime statute covers crimes committed "by reason of" quite a few different factors, and disability is one of them.

WaPo reports on the charges:
“We have the statements of the four of them,” Chicago Area North Detectives Commander Kevin Duffin said at the briefing Thursday afternoon. “They admit that they were beating him, kicking him, they made him drink toilet water, and then obviously the video where they’re cutting a piece of his scalp.”

Duffin said that hate crime charges were warranted because of the victim’s “diminished mental capacity, the fact that they tied him up, the obvious racial quotes that they post live on Facebook.”

When asked whether the hate crime charges stemmed from the 18-year-old’s mental health or his race — both of which are factors listed in the state’s hate crime statute — Duffin said: “It’s half a dozen of one, six of the other.”
2 of the 4 accused are female. 3 of the 4 are 18 years old, and one — a female — is 24.

AND: "Facebook on Thursday refused to respond to mounting questions over its apparent failure to take down a live broadcast of the brutal attack of a young man with disabilities in Chicago."

72 comments:

Rob said...

And these defendants had such bright, successful futures ahead of them. Law professor, brain surgeon, nuclear physicist . . . they could have been anything they aspired to. Such a waste.

mccullough said...

Sounds like two hate-motivation factors: disability and race.

Lyin'PB_Ombudsman said...

"And these defendants had such bright, successful futures ahead of them. Law professor, brain surgeon, nuclear physicist . . . they could have been anything they aspired to. Such a waste."

Presumably they'll be in the Brock Turner lane. So, they'll be out soon.

Bay Area Guy said...

Let's not play the Leftist game of "Quick, Look over there!"

1. This was a vicious violent crime. Full stop. That should earn the perps 10 years in prison. Full stop.

2. Whether or not the perps were racists and/or ableists, adds something, but not enough to stray from 1.

3. Whether or not the Mainstream Media will or will not report that the perps were black, the victim white and disabled, adds something, but not enough to stray from 1.

PB said...

"Hate" crimes are such BS. The core act is a crime. They used to execute people for kidnapping. It shouldn't matter if they do it out of hate or not. Those four racist scum should get the Ragnar Lothbrok treatment.

Vikings is the best show going.

rehajm said...

We didn't mean for the rules to apply to the people we want on our side. Oops!

Virgil Hilts said...

I don't really care if it was a hate crime. Even had these scum did this w/o any animus (racial or other) towards the victim, that doesn't make the crime less awful or less worthy of punishment.
To the contrary, people who would just brutalize someone for kicks are arguably more threatening to society than those who would first need some sort of hate-justifying-reason before they are motivated to pick someone off the street and start torturing them.


Gahrie said...

Hate crime laws are stupid, but as long as they are on the books they should be applied evenly and justly.

Thorley Winston said...

2 of the 4 accused are female. 3 of the 4 are 18 years old, and one — a female — is 24.

Okay I’ll ask it – why is a twenty-four year old hanging out with eighteen year olds? When I was in high school, I remembered that it was considered rather “creepy” that some of the seniors were dating people well into their mid-twenties.




Lyin'PB_Ombudsman said...

I can't watch the video because I'm sure it's too disturbing, can someone tell me if anyone stuck their cock into this person who couldn't defend against the rape? IOW, how Brock-y was this?

Thorley Winston said...

As far as hate crimes (i.e. giving someone who was already convicted of a crime a longer sentence because they were motivated to choose their victim because they were in a particular category) go, I’m opposed to them as a matter of policy but if we’re going to have them on the books, the fact that the defendants were shouting racial slurs at their victim while brutalizing him would make this a prime candidate for one.



Drago said...

Shorter PB: could we please, please, not discuss this...

Drago said...

If the suspects had told the victim to "put some ice on that" it might have approximated the Bill Clinton M.O.

Thorley Winston said...

Question: if President-elect Trump were to say “if I had a nephew, he’d look just like [insert name of victim]” what do you suppose the public reaction would be?

mccullough said...

If Illinois added political affiliation (Illinois hate crimes are based on actual or perceived) to its hate crime statute, they could have hit the trifecta.

Mike Sylwester said...

It’s half a dozen of one, six of the other.

That lackadaisical answer is odd. I interpret it to mean that the prosecutors don't think the "hate crime" element really is serious but they are compelled to charge it reluctantly because of the national outrage.

If it were just the mental disability, the prosecutors would be glad to charge the hate crime.

If it were just blacks beating a white while they yell "F*CK WHITE PEOPLE", then the prosecutors would be glad to ignore the "hate crime".

Since both elements are present in this case, the prosecutors feel compelled charge the racial element too. It’s half a dozen of one, six of the other.

roger said...

see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom

Truthseeker said...

A crime is a crime. It is not made any better or worse due to the motivation of the perpetrators. Laws need to be applied without emotion. Be outraged all you want at the act that was committed, but having emotional states such as "hate" in any legal system is simply wrong, not matter how much better it makes people "feel".

roger said...

any opportunity at all to cover up racial motivation to abuse whites is eagerly grasped by apologists of black violence. channon christian being exhibit A

sane_voter said...

Apparently one of the women is the mother of two children.

Mark said...

As has been clear from the start, since they are based upon what a perpetrator thinks and says, "hate crimes" are essentially thought crimes and speech crimes. But making thought and speech a crime is itself completely contrary to law.

What a person thinks or says does not make an underlying crime any worse, just as it does not make a crime any better. The abhorrent acts here, which come close to being atrocities, are gravely evil in themselves regardless. And we should not diminish our recognition of that evil by focusing instead on thought and speech.

All that said, what would be just here would be for the judge to capture on video sentencing these people to a few decades in prison, getting their reaction on the video and posting it on their own Facebook accounts so they can enjoy the same public humiliation they inflicted on their victim.

rebel deuce said...

I hope they put a stop to the welfare checks. You have to know that no one would hire these ugly people, so the state must be keeping them alive.

They could all qualify for a disability based on how ugly they all look.

Yancey Ward said...

Mike Sylwester wrote...

"If it were just the mental disability, the prosecutors would be glad to charge the hate crime."

I don't think this is really correct. In fact, I think if he had been black and disabled, it wouldn't have been charged as a hate crime at all, unless the perpetrators were white, then it would have been charged under both definitions even in the absence of racial epithets. "Fuck Hillary" would have been all that prosecutors would have need to charge the hate crime.

I think it is the outrage that forced the hate crime charge, and had there been no publicly released video of the crime itself, you can be damned certain no hate crime charge would have been filed at all.

Rob said...

Thorley Winston asked, "Okay I’ll ask it – why is a twenty-four year old hanging out with eighteen year olds?"

She was their case worker.

n.n said...

[class] diversity may be a progressive condition.

EDH said...

Meanwhile Facebook banned me for using a pseudonym.

Headline: Facebook terms of service force users to tell site as soon as they change their phone number.

The condition is just one of a range of bizarre restrictions in the network’s rules

Oso Negro said...

While Facebook took down the video of the crime, the Facebook page of Tanishia (North Pole Princess) Covington is still up and America is having a conversation about race there.

walter said...

Mike Sylwester said...It’s half a dozen of one, six of the other. That lackadaisical answer is odd.
--
Did they call him a "retard" or make him say "Fuck Retards!" or the like?

FullMoon said...

Lyin'PB_Ombudsman said... [hush]​[hide comment]

I can't watch the video because I'm sure it's too disturbing, can someone tell me if anyone stuck their cock into this person who couldn't defend against the rape? IOW, how Brock-y was this?


Jesus, are you stupid, or what? Bock never got his zipper down. Making out with a drunk slut who passes out while he fingers her. Then he gets railroaded (as does the judge) by assholes like you.

Otto said...

Proud of commenters here - Hate crime is BS. Shows you guys and girls didn't fall for the AA bait.

Comanche Voter said...

I'm not fond of "hate" crimes either. If you viciously assault someone, if you maim or murder someone the crime is the crime. Dressing it up with a "hate" bow doesn't make much difference.

That said ganging up to beat up a dummy (to use old fashioned non PC words) is beneath contempt.

They are not only criminals (for the assault) they are moral scum.

But you punish the assault--not the moral character of the assaulter.

Don Lemon however says that this was not an "evil" act; maybe the four or five who ganged up on one guy just had "bad upbringings". The statement leads me to wonder about the moral character of Don Lemon.

Lyin'PB_Ombudsman said...

Fullmoon,

I didn't see the video, but since you brought up non-cock penetration, did these folks go Abner Louima on this victim?

Anywho, I'm thankful for the Lundgren-landers (i.e. socialists) who, unlike you, didn't think it was cool to make excuses for Brock, hence the pre-zip confrontation.

Jon Ericson said...

Mugshots!

AprilApple said...

Throw away the key.

Lyin'PB_Ombudsman said...

April,

Should all four or some subset get more, equal or less time than the NY police who destroyed Abner Louima's asshole w/ a stick?

Che Dolf said...

Truthseeker: A crime is a crime. It is not made any better or worse due to the motivation of the perpetrators.

Does anyone really think motive doesn't affect the severity of a crime?

"Hate" crimes are a bad idea, but it's not because motives categorically should be disregarded.

Bob Boyd said...

What's interesting to me is, what were they thinking when they posted the whole thing on Facebook?
It's not like they just seized a random opportunity to indulge their anger and hate, then made each other swear never to tell.
They seem to have expected to be praised. They seem to have believed this outrage was somehow justified to the point where there would not be the normal consequences. I wonder where they got that idea.

ken in tx said...

Since the concept of mens rea has been removed from many crimes--you don't have to intend harm to be criminally guilty of causing it--the idea of Hate Crimes restores the concept of mens rea to some crimes. Maybe that's not bad.

FullMoon said...

Lyin'PB_Ombudsman said... [hush]​[hide comment]

Fullmoon,

I didn't see the video, but since you brought up non-cock penetration, did these folks go Abner Louima on this victim?

Anywho, I'm thankful for the Lundgren-landers (i.e. socialists) who, unlike you, didn't think it was cool to make excuses for Brock, hence the pre-zip confrontation.

Not making excuses for Brock, simply calling you a lying asshole and pointing out the obvious. The "victim" didn't get screwed, Brock did.

AprilApple said...

Hey LyinPB -

Wondering if you have anything to say about THIS particular crime? hmmm? I suppose since in was done in the name of hating on Trump - by asshole mean grrrl brats, you're cool with it?

AprilApple said...

These asshole mean grrrl brats remind me of the brats who stick live animals in ovens for fun.

Again - throw away the key.

Lyin'PB_Ombudsman said...

April,

I'm w/ BHO re this being despicable. And, the book should be thrown at them, imho. I can hold this POV and also think Brock got off easy. And, it could be argued that the police destroying a dude's internal organs via the asshole is a worse crime.

FullMoon said...

yin'PB_Ombudsman said...

April,

I'm w/ BHO re this being despicable. And, the book should be thrown at them, imho. I can hold this POV and also think Brock got off easy. And, it could be argued that the police destroying a dude's internal organs via the asshole is a worse crime.


Yeah, you can do all that, and you can intentionally perpetuate the lie that Brock forced his dick into some innocent waif.

As far as destroying someones asshole, chew on this.:Christopher Newsom was repeatedly sodomized with a foreign object; he was bound, gagged and blindfolded; he was dragged outside and shot in the back of his head, neck and back; and his body was set on fire. Channon Christian was tortured for several hours, beaten about the head, and raped; afterwards, bleach was poured over her body and down her throat, then she was covered with several plastic garbage bags, dumped in a disposal bin, and left to suffocate.

chickelit said...

Jon Ericson said...Mugshots!

Note the upwards chin thrusts by the males -- they are obviously aping Obama at his medal ceremony.

AprilApple said...

Obama's children.

chickelit said...

Lyin'PB_Ombudsman wrote: I can't watch the video because I'm sure it's too disturbing, can someone tell me if anyone stuck their cock into this person who couldn't defend against the rape? IOW, how Brock-y was this?

Leave it to KYin' Jelly to bring anal penetration into all this.

George Grady said...

Thorley Winston:

Okay I’ll ask it – why is a twenty-four year old hanging out with eighteen year olds?

Judging from the names, it seems that the two female perpetrators may be sisters.

n.n said...

The failure of hate crimes is not in the classification but in the propensity of people with "good intentions" to extrapolate from a specific incident to brand a class of individuals for political progress. That is [class] diversity that judges people by the "color of their skin", rather than by the content of their character.

The Cracker Emcee said...

" Thorley Winston asked, "Okay I’ll ask it – why is a twenty-four year old hanging out with eighteen year olds?"

She was their case worker."

That, my friend, is solid gold.

Bill said...

From the shithole that is Chicago via the shithole that is Facebook.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"If it were just the mental disability, the prosecutors would be glad to charge the hate crime.

If it were just blacks beating a white while they yell "F*CK WHITE PEOPLE", then the prosecutors would be glad to ignore the "hate crime"."

Exactly. Let's turn it around: if 4 whites had kidnapped a mentally deficient black, tortured him and forced him at knife point to say "I love white people" and "All hail Donald Trump" and posted it on FB, would anybody be asking if this was a racially motivated crime?

If the CPD had dared to say in that instance, "We don't know what the motivation of the attackers was," BLM would have had a crowd marching in the street in 10 minutes flat.

I don't believe in "hate crimes" either - all violent crimes are hateful. But since the Left has foisted the hate crime category on us, let's force them to live up to their own laws. That's the only way to bring an end to this nonsense.

The Left says blacks can't be racist because they don't hold the power in this society. How much power did this kid have when his head was being forced in a toliet? How much power did Newsom and Christian have when they were being tortured to death?

exiledonmainstreet said...

Apparently, the perps were smoking weed when things turned ugly. That makes me wonder what the hell they are putting in pot these days. Back in my pot smoking days, we ate Doritos and stared at the aquarium and said stuff like, "I just had a thought that I think was, like, a genius thought."

The last thing on earth we wanted to do was beat someone up.

mockturtle said...

I agree, exiled. I think today's pot is laced with PCP or other additives. Not cool.

Jon Ericson said...

news-commentators-defend-facebook-hate-crime-video

Guildofcannonballs said...

The true hate crime is essentially telling Hammurabi and those who value codified law "us in charge determine what the crime is based on who did it and the politics of the time involved at any random given moment."

We already know this is the case in every Democratic run pollution-ultra-producing city in America, but smearing our faces in their hypocrisy will get y'all 12 more Trumps.

Think of how the income tax was passed. Now think of what the Austin D.A. is gonna charge you with in 2030 if you didn't get that morning's memo of every group included in the LGBTPOIR cartel and your "joke" at the Sacred House of Blessed Sodomy falls flat.

Ted Kennedy promised in 1965 the ethnic makeup of America would not be affected by mass immigration from areas not of the same ethnic makeup of America at the time.

Trump should make the right to Hate (damn right with a capital) a law passed by Congress including drastic punishment for any authorities attempting to criminalize any emotion, but especially common and justified ones like the ever-valuable, seldom praised hate.

Should all those SJW's ban The Blues Brothers because Jake hates Illinois Nazis, or is it okay when Belushi hates something real bad and real worthy of real hate? I bet Belushi hates people who think like that. SQUARE IT, SQUARE THE CIRCLE NOW.

SukieTawdry said...

It's a bad sign for a civilized society when the women become as feral as the men.

Kyzernick said...

LOL

"Civilized"

My sides, they split!

SukieTawdry said...

Meanwhile Facebook banned me for using a pseudonym.

You mean they think SukieTawdry is my real name??

Unknown said...

I hope they receive the same harsh punishment as the assailants of Reginald Denny
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Reginald_Denny

On April 29, 1992, at 5:39 pm, Denny loaded his red dump truck with 27 tons of sand and began driving to a plant in Inglewood, where the sand was due. He left the Santa Monica Freeway and took a familiar shortcut across Florence Avenue to get to his destination. His truck had no radio, so he did not realize that he was driving into a riot. At 6:46 pm, after entering the intersection at Normandie, rioters threw rocks at his windows, and he heard people shouting for him to stop. Overhead, a news helicopter with journalists Zoey Tur and her wife aboard captured the events that followed.

The chaos forced Denny to stop in the middle of the street. Antoine Miller opened the truck door, giving others the chance to pull Denny out. Another man, Henry Keith Watson, then held Denny's head down with his foot. Denny was kicked in the abdomen by an unidentified man. Two other unidentified men, who had led a liquor store break-in earlier that day, hurled a five-pound piece of medical equipment at Denny's head and hit him three times with a claw hammer. Damian Williams then threw a cinderblock [4] at Denny's head and knocked him unconscious.

Williams then did a victory dance over Denny and flashed gang signs at news helicopters, which were televising the events live; he also pointed and laughed at Denny. Anthony Brown then spat on Denny and left with Williams. Several bystanders took pictures of Denny but did not attempt to help him. LAPD officers in the vicinity did not assist Denny, either.[10]

After the beating, various men threw beer bottles at the unconscious Denny. Gary Williams approached Denny and rifled through his pockets. Lance Parker stopped near Denny and attempted to shoot the fuel tank of Denny's truck but missed.

Jon Ericson said...

Great jumping Jehoshaphat!
Thou mangled common-kissing strumpet!
Balzak!
Pollak!
Ga!

Sebastian said...

"that doesn't mean it was racially motivated." Phew. That's a relief. Because nothing could possibly be worse.

Jon Ericson said...

Things we won't see regarding this story:
1) Obama or Mooochelle reaching out to the victim or his family and apologizing
2) Any rev-run manning up and collecting money to help defray the victim's medical bills, which will probably be 6 figures after emergency care and follow up treatment
3) Reports by CNN, MSNBC and PBS Newshour about hate-filled left wingers

SukieTawdry said...

Facebook sez: We do not allow people to celebrate or glorify crimes on Facebook and have removed the original video for this reason.

What an odd way to put it. You get the idea they have no problem with streaming a video of a crime in progress as long as the perps aren't celebrating or glorifying as they go.

Jon Ericson said...

Last chance!

chickelit said...

Facebook is trying to irradicate that video evidence from the internet? Here's hoping that Facebook goes the way of AOL.

Zuckerberg will never convince the Chinese to allow his product. He faces litigation in Europe. Why double down on stupidity in the US?

chickelit said...

It's kinda-like-karma for pumping Hillary so.

Daniel Jackson said...

I'm so confused. What is the difference between this video event and ones originating from the Middle East of people dressed in black cutting the head off a person, bound helpless, in the name of a sacred cow because the victim is of another culture, race, religion, or sexual preference?

How is "hate" different from "terror" in such a video broadcast in real time?

This is another "Lord of the Flies" moment in our modern era. Where is the "civil" in our Civil Society?

Failure to call this act, and to hold these people accountable for this act, for what it is holds us all, the third party victims, accomplices. Anything less than complete outrage amounts to a "moral hazard" that will result future actions of similar nature with accelerating horror.

damikesc said...

If it is not, officially, "racially motivated" then I'd question the legitimacy of hate crime laws. Well, I'd question them MORE. I already dispute them as being utter bullshit.

If the races were reversed, it'd be a no-brainer "hate crime".

Anywho, I'm thankful for the Lundgren-landers (i.e. socialists) who, unlike you, didn't think it was cool to make excuses for Brock, hence the pre-zip confrontation.

Who are these people who defended Brock Turner here?

320Busdriver said...

Has anyone checked to see if any of these 4 savages are on the video from the zombie protest of the Special Olympics event in Madison?

I'm thinking someone in prison has a disabled sibling and one or more of these cretins will somehow get their just deserts.

Cassandra said...


Cassandra said...

Perhaps my memory is incorrect, but I thought hate crime laws initially and essentially were federal laws to provide a jurisdictional hook for the federal government to try (or often retry state cases without double jeopardy implications) individuals who committed ordinary state crimes (for which there was no federal counterpart) but who avoided state prosecution or conviction by local officials or juries due to local animus. Somewhat like federal anti-lynching laws which, indeed, may have been the first hate crime laws.

If so, hate crime laws may be appropriate (albeit with some misgivings) at at the federal level to mitigate local injustice. However they seem totally inappropriate at the state level and, at that level, simply add an unneeded penalty for ordinary crimes that are accompanied by offensive speech that is otherwise constitutionally protected.

mockturtle said...

Cassandra, maybe you are suggesting that hate crime laws serve the same purpose as the feds indicting mob gangsters for tax evasion when they couldn't pin anything else on them.