Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 11:05 AM
Tue Nov 10
55 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
tips@gawker.com
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder | Email
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield | Email
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate | Email
Media:
Hamilton Nolan | Email
Politics:
Alex Pareene | Email
Investigations:
John Cook | Email
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan | Email
Weekends:
Foster Kamer | Email
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
10/22/09
And that's the irritating part. Attacks against Al Sharpton are really a way of, by extension, calling every black person (or person of color) who ever agreed with him about anything (or even thought the man made a relevant point on an issue) militant, bigoted, and crazy. It's writing everyone off without looking at the issue at hand, or what's a reasonable position to have on the matter. It's "Oh, you're one of those Al Sharpton supporter-type black people?" I've personally watching black people jump backwards to explain to white people what a fucking joke they thought Al Sharpton was; it's like, seriously, you're really going to go that hard about Al Sharpton just to give someone some lame sense of comfort?
It's incredible offensive to me as a person of color that anyone assumes that my community shares a single opinion on a significant number of 'racial' (or even general social) issues, and it's doubly offensive that I've really got to damn-near smite down Al Sharpton (who I could care less about, honestly) to prove some point about how progressive I am or whatever. Truth is- I think the man's a media-whore like most social-leader types. I've also seen him be right on some stuff.
I'm trying to figure out: who exactly made Al Sharpton the spokesperson of the black community? #racism
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/23/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
A few years ago, I did an extensive piece on the issue of hate crimes for the Los Angeles Times Magazine. As part of my research, I did a search in the L.A. criminal courts records, and to my astonishment, found that most hate-crime accusations and convictions were against minorities (blacks against latinos, and vice versa, and far more rarely, either of them against whites). It makes a certain amount of sense, because an undereducated, undisciplined youth from a deprived background is much more likely to utter an offensive ethnic slur during a confrontation than a middle-class person (of any race). Such a slur is considered prima facie evidence of a hate crime.
It has also been argued that the motive (hate, in this case) for a crime is commonly factored into the punishment. True, as far as it goes. However, in a traditional criminal proceeding, motive can be shown as evidence to show likelihood of guilt, but not as a basis of guilt in and of itself. Motive can also be a factor in the severity of a sentence given by a judge who, even within sentencing guidelines, can give stiffer sentences for heinous crimes.
Other quick points:
The hate-crimes add-on charge puts a great burden on the defendant, especially one with a public defender, because the prosecutor can use it as an arm-twister to gain a plea bargain. In other words, the prosecutor can say, "If you plead guilty to assault and battery [for example], we'll dismiss the hate-crimes charge." That puts unfair pressure on a lower-income defendant who can’t afford a protracted defense and is tempted to cut his or her losses by pleading guilty to a crime he might be innocent of.
Another aspect of the argument is that the frighteningly high “hate crimes statistics” that are regularly given out by various law enforcement agencies, especially the FBI, are misleading. Their figures represent reported or alleged hate crimes, not convictions. And needless to say, there are far, far more accusations than convictions, and it is the latter that is the meaningful statistic.
Fred Dickey
10/22/09
So yes, you can still blame Al Sharpton for pushing this as a hate crime when it clearly wasn't.
These are clearly not good people, but to call it a hate crime simply because he's white and she's black is ridiculous. What, is *any* violence between people in an interracial relationship a hate crime now? It seems to me that *that's* more racist than the crime itself.
The whole argument, though, *should* point out why hate crime laws are stupid to those who don't see it. Why should any of us be sitting here debating whether or not these people are racists? Isn't kidnapping, violence and rape against a defenseless woman enough? (Assuming they had actually done it...) Why should skin color even enter into it? #racism
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
Also, women named Frankie are always bad news. #racism
10/22/09
Also hate crime statutes tend to end up being twisted and taken to absurd extremes. Many examples. #racism
10/22/09
What I'd like to see is attacks on larger gatherings of people (like opening fire in a gay bar) prosecuted as terrorism. #racism
10/22/09
The one thing all hate crimes have in common is that they are all already crimes before you make them hate crimes. #racism
10/22/09
If properly prosecuted, I think it will send a message to the animals out there who think they can attack people purely based on membership in a group they don't like.
I know that a lot of people don't get this. Let them think about it from a comfy little jail cell.
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
Friendly advice: Are you trying to convince the Gawkers of this world that their frank bigotry about places like West Virginia is bigotry, or that viciousness is a matter of the heart and mind rather than the Zip code? Good luck with that, my friend. #racism
10/22/09
Can't it just be "let's pay attention to this abused woman and get the perps" - be the woman black or white or Hispanic or chartreuse? It is that aspect of him that bothers me more than the cartoon. #racism
10/22/09
10/22/09
Problem? His solution to this is to move the trial to the media. That's ineffective and irresponsible. Like we saw in the Duke Lacrosse case, media trials can be disastrous. As bad as our courts can be - and they can be very, very bad - the court of opinion is less just. #racism
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
"In a letter in March 2008, that person, Alisha Burton, wrote that Ms. Williams had been held captive but only after a romantic relationship with Mr. Brewster took a turn for the worse...Ms. Burton confirmed that Mr. Brewster had beaten Ms. Williams, but rejected the notion that the abuse was a hate crime, since Ms. Williams and Mr. Brewster had dated for months."
So is the problem with calling what happened a hate crime? But that's not really a problem, right, since they weren't convicted of hate crimes. They were convicted of attacking her while holding her captive, which the physical evidence and various statements corroborated. Obviously the girl is unstable, but are we supposed to now believe that absolutely nothing happened? #racism
10/22/09
One other thing. She's not "unstable," she's mildly retarded. #racism
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
Except in this case the accuser is retarded and there was an endless amount of physical evidence and numerous confessions and the victim's own testimony was never used used at trial.
Her "recanting" is highly dubious. #racism
10/22/09
Duke Lacrosse? #racism
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/23/09
Personally, I couldn't believe he survived the Tawana Brawley case. #racism