Don't click or your IP will be banned


Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread ><<  1    2  >>Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject: Occupy Protesters Charged With Hate Crimes

Zen Peach





Posts: 19136
(19150 all sites)
Registered: 6/10/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/3/2012 at 04:55 PM
quote:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/03/us-oakland-protests-hatecri mes-idUSTRE82208720120303



Sat Mar 3, 2012 1:56am EST

(Reuters) - Three Occupy Oakland protesters accused of surrounding and taunting a woman before stealing her wallet were charged on Friday with robbery and hate crimes, authorities said.

Michael Davis, 32, Nneka Crawford, 23, and Randolph Wilkins, 24, confronted the woman on the streets of Oakland in February after she told them not to riot in her neighborhood, the Oakland Police said in a written release.

"She was surrounded by three protestors and battered as they yelled vulgar epithets regarding their perception of her sexual orientation," Oakland Police spokeswoman Johnna Watson said.

The female victim was not identified except as a 20-year resident of the neighborhood.

"Her wallet was taken during the crime," Watson said. "The victim broke away from the group and called police, who were able to arrest one suspect near the scene."

Watson said the other two suspects were arrested at a February 29 Occupy Oakland protest.

Each was charged by the Alameda County District Attorney's Office with felony counts of robbery and hate crimes, Watson said.

An Occupy Oakland organizer could not be reached for comment on Friday evening.

A rallying cry of the movement has been that 1 percent of the population has too much of the nation's wealth and the remaining 99 percent is disadvantaged.

It has lost momentum in recent months after police cleared encampments in New York, Oakland and other major cities.

 

____________________

 
Visit User's Homepage
Replies:

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3911
(3918 all sites)
Registered: 11/20/2008
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/3/2012 at 05:48 PM
Michigan Conservative Group Seeks to Overturn Hate Crimes Law
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/lawsuit_by_michigan_conse rvative_christian_group_seeks_to_overturn_hate_crimes_law.php

 

____________________


 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 10411
(10854 all sites)
Registered: 1/8/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/3/2012 at 06:24 PM
I have never gotten the "hate crime" thing. A crime is a crime. Assault is assault and murder is murder. Am I a worse person if I kill you because you're gay than if I kill you because I want to steal your car? Either way I'm a killer and you are dead.

 

____________________
When some folks agree with my opinions I begin to suspect I'm wrong.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 19136
(19150 all sites)
Registered: 6/10/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/3/2012 at 06:42 PM
I love the liberal mindset- so should hate crime laws be continued so that the prosecution of the Occupy thugs go forward??

Hilarious.

 

____________________

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3911
(3918 all sites)
Registered: 11/20/2008
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/3/2012 at 06:59 PM
quote:


(Reuters) - Three Occupy Oakland protesters accused of surrounding and taunting a woman before stealing her wallet were charged on Friday with robbery

"Her wallet was taken during the crime,"

Each was charged by the Alameda County District Attorney's Office with felony counts of robbery


What I'm curious about is: have any of these guys ever been charged with beer theft?

 

____________________


 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3067
(3072 all sites)
Registered: 5/30/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/3/2012 at 07:11 PM
All crime is hate crime. These laws were passed to placate tribal extortionists like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. The problem is that one man's hate crime is another man's social justice. Much like the current ethnic cleansing of Boer's in Southern Africa.

 

____________________
"What we do in life echoes in eternity."




 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20266
(20265 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/3/2012 at 07:39 PM
quote:
I have never gotten the "hate crime" thing. A crime is a crime. Assault is assault and murder is murder. Am I a worse person if I kill you because you're gay than if I kill you because I want to steal your car? Either way I'm a killer and you are dead.


I disapprove of hate crime legislation. No crime should be based on the classification of the victim and that's what hate crime laws do.

 

____________________

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11304
(11309 all sites)
Registered: 8/21/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/3/2012 at 07:45 PM
quote:
I have never gotten the "hate crime" thing. A crime is a crime. Assault is assault and murder is murder. Am I a worse person if I kill you because you're gay than if I kill you because I want to steal your car? Either way I'm a killer and you are dead.


I once thought that way too. If you look at just the singular victim himself, hate crimes legislation might be seen as piling on.

But if you consider that the effect of a hate crime is wider in scope, then it makes sense to make the punishment more severe. It has not been that long that large swaths of blacks lived in fear because of a crime against but one of their number.

Forsyth County Georgia near me was essentially a white enclave until recently because of intimidation and crimes against just a few in the early 1900's, and blacks were run out of the county and were too fearful to return. In the 70's, a family friend was building a house there, and the black construction workers insisted on leaving before nightfall.

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 10411
(10854 all sites)
Registered: 1/8/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/3/2012 at 07:50 PM
quote:
quote:
I have never gotten the "hate crime" thing. A crime is a crime. Assault is assault and murder is murder. Am I a worse person if I kill you because you're gay than if I kill you because I want to steal your car? Either way I'm a killer and you are dead.


I once thought that way too. If you look at just the singular victim himself, hate crimes legislation might be seen as piling on.

But if you consider that the effect of a hate crime is wider in scope, then it makes sense to make the punishment more severe. It has not been that long that large swaths of blacks lived in fear because of a crime against but one of their number.

Forsyth County Georgia near me was essentially a white enclave until recently because of intimidation and crimes against just a few in the early 1900's, and blacks were run out of the county and were too fearful to return. In the 70's, a family friend was building a house there, and the black construction workers insisted on leaving before nightfall.

So you have to go back decades in our history to justify it? When do we move on Brock?

 

____________________
When some folks agree with my opinions I begin to suspect I'm wrong.

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11304
(11309 all sites)
Registered: 8/21/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/3/2012 at 07:52 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
I have never gotten the "hate crime" thing. A crime is a crime. Assault is assault and murder is murder. Am I a worse person if I kill you because you're gay than if I kill you because I want to steal your car? Either way I'm a killer and you are dead.


I once thought that way too. If you look at just the singular victim himself, hate crimes legislation might be seen as piling on.

But if you consider that the effect of a hate crime is wider in scope, then it makes sense to make the punishment more severe. It has not been that long that large swaths of blacks lived in fear because of a crime against but one of their number.

Forsyth County Georgia near me was essentially a white enclave until recently because of intimidation and crimes against just a few in the early 1900's, and blacks were run out of the county and were too fearful to return. In the 70's, a family friend was building a house there, and the black construction workers insisted on leaving before nightfall.

So you have to go back decades in our history to justify it? When do we move on Brock?


When hate crimes stop.

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 10411
(10854 all sites)
Registered: 1/8/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/3/2012 at 07:54 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
I have never gotten the "hate crime" thing. A crime is a crime. Assault is assault and murder is murder. Am I a worse person if I kill you because you're gay than if I kill you because I want to steal your car? Either way I'm a killer and you are dead.


I once thought that way too. If you look at just the singular victim himself, hate crimes legislation might be seen as piling on.

But if you consider that the effect of a hate crime is wider in scope, then it makes sense to make the punishment more severe. It has not been that long that large swaths of blacks lived in fear because of a crime against but one of their number.

Forsyth County Georgia near me was essentially a white enclave until recently because of intimidation and crimes against just a few in the early 1900's, and blacks were run out of the county and were too fearful to return. In the 70's, a family friend was building a house there, and the black construction workers insisted on leaving before nightfall.

So you have to go back decades in our history to justify it? When do we move on Brock?

When hate crimes stop.

Do you think the hate crime designation is effective in detering this type of crime?

 

____________________
When some folks agree with my opinions I begin to suspect I'm wrong.

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11304
(11309 all sites)
Registered: 8/21/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/3/2012 at 08:02 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
I have never gotten the "hate crime" thing. A crime is a crime. Assault is assault and murder is murder. Am I a worse person if I kill you because you're gay than if I kill you because I want to steal your car? Either way I'm a killer and you are dead.


I once thought that way too. If you look at just the singular victim himself, hate crimes legislation might be seen as piling on.

But if you consider that the effect of a hate crime is wider in scope, then it makes sense to make the punishment more severe. It has not been that long that large swaths of blacks lived in fear because of a crime against but one of their number.

Forsyth County Georgia near me was essentially a white enclave until recently because of intimidation and crimes against just a few in the early 1900's, and blacks were run out of the county and were too fearful to return. In the 70's, a family friend was building a house there, and the black construction workers insisted on leaving before nightfall.

So you have to go back decades in our history to justify it? When do we move on Brock?

When hate crimes stop.

Do you think the hate crime designation is effective in detering this type of crime?


As much as any criminal sanction is, and probably a bit more, because of the extra attention the prosecutions bring.

Do you think that non-victims of the class are unintimidated by a crime against one of their group? Use gays if racial crime is too ancient for you.

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 10411
(10854 all sites)
Registered: 1/8/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/3/2012 at 08:20 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
I have never gotten the "hate crime" thing. A crime is a crime. Assault is assault and murder is murder. Am I a worse person if I kill you because you're gay than if I kill you because I want to steal your car? Either way I'm a killer and you are dead.


I once thought that way too. If you look at just the singular victim himself, hate crimes legislation might be seen as piling on.

But if you consider that the effect of a hate crime is wider in scope, then it makes sense to make the punishment more severe. It has not been that long that large swaths of blacks lived in fear because of a crime against but one of their number.

Forsyth County Georgia near me was essentially a white enclave until recently because of intimidation and crimes against just a few in the early 1900's, and blacks were run out of the county and were too fearful to return. In the 70's, a family friend was building a house there, and the black construction workers insisted on leaving before nightfall.

So you have to go back decades in our history to justify it? When do we move on Brock?

When hate crimes stop.

Do you think the hate crime designation is effective in detering this type of crime?


As much as any criminal sanction is, and probably a bit more, because of the extra attention the prosecutions bring.

Do you think that non-victims of the class are unintimidated by a crime against one of their group? Use gays if racial crime is too ancient for you.

No, I agree with you that they are intimidated. But I also doubt that the hate crime designation is any more of a deterrent than the normal criminal sanction, and I think the downside is that it is open to politicization and abuse.

If it's not a significant deterrent then what is the point? To make the offending class feel less guilty by increasing the punishment of one of their bad guys? To make the non-victims of the class feel less intimidated? Do you really think it accomplishes that? What does it really accomplish other than complicate the legal system and give an opening for abuse?

Sorry Brock. I get your point but I just can't see any benefit to it.

 

____________________
When some folks agree with my opinions I begin to suspect I'm wrong.

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11304
(11309 all sites)
Registered: 8/21/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/3/2012 at 08:37 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
I have never gotten the "hate crime" thing. A crime is a crime. Assault is assault and murder is murder. Am I a worse person if I kill you because you're gay than if I kill you because I want to steal your car? Either way I'm a killer and you are dead.


I once thought that way too. If you look at just the singular victim himself, hate crimes legislation might be seen as piling on.

But if you consider that the effect of a hate crime is wider in scope, then it makes sense to make the punishment more severe. It has not been that long that large swaths of blacks lived in fear because of a crime against but one of their number.

Forsyth County Georgia near me was essentially a white enclave until recently because of intimidation and crimes against just a few in the early 1900's, and blacks were run out of the county and were too fearful to return. In the 70's, a family friend was building a house there, and the black construction workers insisted on leaving before nightfall.

So you have to go back decades in our history to justify it? When do we move on Brock?

When hate crimes stop.

Do you think the hate crime designation is effective in detering this type of crime?


As much as any criminal sanction is, and probably a bit more, because of the extra attention the prosecutions bring.

Do you think that non-victims of the class are unintimidated by a crime against one of their group? Use gays if racial crime is too ancient for you.

No, I agree with you that they are intimidated. But I also doubt that the hate crime designation is any more of a deterrent than the normal criminal sanction, and I think the downside is that it is open to politicization and abuse.

If it's not a significant deterrent then what is the point? To make the offending class feel less guilty by increasing the punishment of one of their bad guys? To make the non-victims of the class feel less intimidated? Do you really think it accomplishes that? What does it really accomplish other than complicate the legal system and give an opening for abuse?

Sorry Brock. I get your point but I just can't see any benefit to it.


Any criminal sanction is subject to abuse, and this is no different. Hopefully our system prevents that in most cases.

Remember that penalties are not only to deter, but as societal retribution for the crimes committed, and this certainly achieves that, and, if nothing else, takes this one scumbag off the streets for a longer period, so that's a definite deterrent for him.

If I was running against you for office, I'd accuse you of being soft on crime!

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 10411
(10854 all sites)
Registered: 1/8/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/3/2012 at 08:40 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
I have never gotten the "hate crime" thing. A crime is a crime. Assault is assault and murder is murder. Am I a worse person if I kill you because you're gay than if I kill you because I want to steal your car? Either way I'm a killer and you are dead.


I once thought that way too. If you look at just the singular victim himself, hate crimes legislation might be seen as piling on.

But if you consider that the effect of a hate crime is wider in scope, then it makes sense to make the punishment more severe. It has not been that long that large swaths of blacks lived in fear because of a crime against but one of their number.

Forsyth County Georgia near me was essentially a white enclave until recently because of intimidation and crimes against just a few in the early 1900's, and blacks were run out of the county and were too fearful to return. In the 70's, a family friend was building a house there, and the black construction workers insisted on leaving before nightfall.

So you have to go back decades in our history to justify it? When do we move on Brock?

When hate crimes stop.

Do you think the hate crime designation is effective in detering this type of crime?


As much as any criminal sanction is, and probably a bit more, because of the extra attention the prosecutions bring.

Do you think that non-victims of the class are unintimidated by a crime against one of their group? Use gays if racial crime is too ancient for you.

No, I agree with you that they are intimidated. But I also doubt that the hate crime designation is any more of a deterrent than the normal criminal sanction, and I think the downside is that it is open to politicization and abuse.

If it's not a significant deterrent then what is the point? To make the offending class feel less guilty by increasing the punishment of one of their bad guys? To make the non-victims of the class feel less intimidated? Do you really think it accomplishes that? What does it really accomplish other than complicate the legal system and give an opening for abuse?

Sorry Brock. I get your point but I just can't see any benefit to it.


Any criminal sanction is subject to abuse, and this is no different. Hopefully our system prevents that in most cases.

Remember that penalties are not only to deter, but as societal retribution for the crimes committed, and this certainly achieves that, and, if nothing else, takes this one scumbag off the streets for a longer period, so that's a definite deterrent for him.

If I was running against you for office, I'd accuse you of being soft on crime!

And I'd respond by saying I want maximum penalties for ALL criminals, not just those few convicted of hate crimes.

 

____________________
When some folks agree with my opinions I begin to suspect I'm wrong.

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8185
(8186 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/3/2012 at 08:50 PM
This is nothing more than political correctness run amok. We've divided ourselves into ever-finer groups and sub-groups, and now want legal recognition of the "special-ness" of each individual group.

quote:
When hate crimes stop.
Do you really think that will ever happen, now that we've opened the door to these highly subjective amplifiers to crimes? It's politically advantageous for prosecutors to seek the use of this designation. That alone will ensure the creative application of these concepts will only expand.

Just like the foolish beliefs that so many now assume are their "rights" (the right to have others pay for their health care, college, food, housing, etc), hate crime defines a new avenue for the heightened politicsm of acts perceived as offensive to some group. Who is going to judge the criteria between normal and hate crime, and isn't that judgment highly subjective? Which groups does this apply to versus those it does not? Is that potential individual judgment about when to apply the "hate" designation good or bad for the goal of equal application of the law?

I'm all for punishment to the fullest extent, but this adds a political element that can only pollute the ideal of the fair and equal application of justice.


So by the definition of hate crimes, would this now be considered as such...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc_SgpyJWRY

Or does it not apply to anyone who's part of the majority?

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6082
(6082 all sites)
Registered: 8/16/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/3/2012 at 08:52 PM
quote:
I love the liberal mindset- so should hate crime laws be continued so that the prosecution of the Occupy thugs go forward??

Hilarious.
because they were "on the streets of oakland" they are part of the occupy movement?. how about just a roving band of punks??

 

____________________
"Unions are the only counterweight to the raw greed of corporate power." Tom Morello

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 10411
(10854 all sites)
Registered: 1/8/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/3/2012 at 09:15 PM
quote:
quote:
I love the liberal mindset- so should hate crime laws be continued so that the prosecution of the Occupy thugs go forward??

Hilarious.
because they were "on the streets of oakland" they are part of the occupy movement?. how about just a roving band of punks??

Looks like a case of hate crime legislation being used for political purposes, doesn't it?

 

____________________
When some folks agree with my opinions I begin to suspect I'm wrong.

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11304
(11309 all sites)
Registered: 8/21/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/3/2012 at 09:18 PM
quote:
This is nothing more than political correctness run amok. We've divided ourselves into ever-finer groups and sub-groups, and now want legal recognition of the "special-ness" of each individual group.

quote:
When hate crimes stop.
Do you really think that will ever happen, now that we've opened the door to these highly subjective amplifiers to crimes? It's politically advantageous for prosecutors to seek the use of this designation. That alone will ensure the creative application of these concepts will only expand.

Just like the foolish beliefs that so many now assume are their "rights" (the right to have others pay for their health care, college, food, housing, etc), hate crime defines a new avenue for the heightened politicsm of acts perceived as offensive to some group. Who is going to judge the criteria between normal and hate crime, and isn't that judgment highly subjective? Which groups does this apply to versus those it does not? Is that potential individual judgment about when to apply the "hate" designation good or bad for the goal of equal application of the law?

I'm all for punishment to the fullest extent, but this adds a political element that can only pollute the ideal of the fair and equal application of justice.


So by the definition of hate crimes, would this now be considered as such...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc_SgpyJWRY

Or does it not apply to anyone who's part of the majority?


Nearly every crime requires the prosecutor to prove intent, and that requires looking into the mind of the accused, which is difficult, perhaps subjective. Our Constitution requires trial by jury, and that usually (not always) prevents abuse.

It's not the class of the victim that defines it, it's whether the accused hates him for it, and acts. If blacks attack a white, that can be a hate crime too. If marauding bands of man-hating lesbians attack a man, that can be a hate crime. If an atheist is attacked by angry church-goers, that's one too. We are all protected by these laws, even if we are less likely to be victims.

If any of you guys have an actual example of hate-crime overreach, I'm interested.

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 12844
(12845 all sites)
Registered: 10/13/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/3/2012 at 09:34 PM
quote:
I have never gotten the "hate crime" thing. A crime is a crime. Assault is assault and murder is murder. Am I a worse person if I kill you because you're gay than if I kill you because I want to steal your car? Either way I'm a killer and you are dead.


x2

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 10411
(10854 all sites)
Registered: 1/8/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/3/2012 at 09:39 PM
quote:
If any of you guys have an actual example of hate-crime overreach, I'm interested.

Maybe this case is an example. A woman confronts 3 thugs. They attack her. They call her names. They take her wallet.

Could the motivation be that they were mad because she confronted them? Could the motivation be that they wanted her wallet? If so, would this be a hate crime? No, this is a hate crime because they called her a lesbian during the attack. I have pissed people off before and been called worse than that, but as far as I can tell that is the only possible reason to call this a hate crime. In spite of the fact that these guys did not seek her our because she was a lesbian. She sought them out because she didn't like them protesting in her neighborhood.

So now we have a hate crime charge levied against three "occupy protesters". How political is that? These guys should be charged with assault and whatever other charges are applicable. They should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. This would be true whether or not the victim is a man, woman, gay, straight, black or white. She approached some street thugs and they attacked her. It has nothing to do with anything but criminals acting as criminals, and it certainly has nothing to do with the occupy movement. Politics.

[edited to add}:

From the article posted by DFC below:

quote:
A hate crime is any criminal act or attempted criminal act directed against someone based on the person's actual or perceived race, nationality or religion, sexual orientation, disability or gender, police said.

But then it goes on to say this act was directed against this person because she expressed her opinion about the Occupy movement...

quote:
The confrontation happened about 6 p.m. Feb. 22 in the 4000 block of Piedmont Avenue. Police said that some Occupy Oakland protesters were demonstrating against a Wells Fargo Bank branch there when a woman across the street expressed her opinion about the Occupy movement and the way it's being handled, Wingate said.

Wingate said a handful of protesters quickly surrounded her and prevented from leaving the area. Her wallet was taken from her purse, and protesters yanked a Barack Obama pin from her clothing, police said.

It seems clear that his was motivated by their displeasure with her comments. If you or I had made the same comments in the same situation is there any reason to believe we wouldn't have suffered the same outcome?


[Edited on 3/4/2012 by bob1954]

 

____________________
When some folks agree with my opinions I begin to suspect I'm wrong.

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8185
(8186 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/3/2012 at 09:41 PM
As to overreach, I don't know if this qualifies per se, but Mike Nifong and the Duke Lacrosse case is an example of a prosecutor working a racial angle to amplifying it with the apparent intent helping his political career. Now of course it all backfired, and he's now a broken man because of it (to your point: the system eventually worked).

However, go back in time to the events and recall all the political furor. We had all the usual suspects who exploit race opportunities, rushing in front of every camera that would have them. Marches, protest, outrage, etc.

I agree with your basic point that cases often require subjective elements to be determined. But why make a difficult job harder by adding more?

This is about politics far more than about law, and it runs counter to the fundamental concept of "united" that our country is founded on. It may be idealistic of me to think that we can actually apply the law along the lines of "all men are created equal". But undermining that by adding these distinctions which come only from conditions of birth seem to be more harmful than helpful, IMO.

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 19136
(19150 all sites)
Registered: 6/10/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/3/2012 at 10:03 PM
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
I love the liberal mindset- so should hate crime laws be continued so that the prosecution of the Occupy thugs go forward??

Hilarious.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----

because they were "on the streets of oakland" they are part of the occupy movement?. how about just a roving band of punks??





Actually, it is pretty specific that they were Occupy Woodsy boneheads who didn't like to hear that somebody didn't want their BS in their neighborhood. In other words - not exactly the brightest bulbs in the box, who buy into whatever liberal BS somebody feeds them at any given time. Their fellow Occupy protester filmed it and put it on the internet, and two of the Occupy criminals were arrested at ANOTHER OCCUPY PROTEST!! Hello!!!!!????!!!

quote:
http://www.mercurynews.com/occupy/ci_20091165?source=rss


By Harry Harris and Kristin J. Bender
Oakland Tribunemercurynews.com

Posted: 03/02/2012 05:48:43 PM PST


OAKLAND -- Three Occupy Oakland protesters suspected of stealing an Oakland woman's wallet and making offensive remarks about her perceived sexuality were charged Friday with robbery and committing a hate crime, both felonies, authorities said.

Michael Davis, 32, Nneka Crawford, 23, and Randolph Wilkins, 24, all of Oakland, were charged with the felonies by Assistant District Attorney Paul Hora. All remain jailed at Santa Rita Jail in Dublin. Bail for Crawford and Wilkins is $105,000 and Davis is being held on $100,000 bail.

Other possible suspects are being sought by police, said Sgt. Randy Wingate, the lead investigator.

Among the evidence against the three, besides the 42-year-old victim identifying them, is a video of the confrontation taken by a fellow Occupy Oakland protester.

"In the department we have zero tolerance for hate crimes," Wingate said.

A hate crime is any criminal act or attempted criminal act directed against someone based on the person's actual or perceived race, nationality or religion, sexual orientation, disability or gender, police said.

The confrontation happened about 6 p.m. Feb. 22 in the 4000 block of Piedmont Avenue. Police said that some Occupy Oakland protesters were demonstrating against a Wells Fargo Bank branch there when a woman across the street expressed her opinion about the Occupy movement and the way it's being handled, Wingate said.

Wingate said a handful of protesters quickly surrounded her and prevented from leaving the area. Her wallet was taken from her purse, and protesters yanked a Barack Obama pin from her clothing, police said.

Wingate said she was also verbally abused, including making derogatory remarks about her perceived sexuality. A protester punched the woman, and she was bruised and scratched in the altercation. Hora charged the three with a felony robbery and a felony hate crime because the woman was injured in addition to being verbally insulted.

One of the protesters shot a video of the altercation, which police viewed on the Internet. It has since been removed. Davis was arrested Wednesday and was arraigned on Friday.? Crawford and Wilkins were arrested Thursday during a rally in downtown Oakland


 

____________________

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11304
(11309 all sites)
Registered: 8/21/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/3/2012 at 10:12 PM
quote:
quote:
If any of you guys have an actual example of hate-crime overreach, I'm interested.

Maybe this case is an example. A woman confronts 3 thugs. They attack her. They call her names. They take her wallet.

Could the motivation be that they were mad because she confronted them? Could the motivation be that they wanted her wallet? If so, would this be a hate crime? No, this is a hate crime because they called her a lesbian during the attack. I have pissed people off before and been called worse than that, but as far as I can tell that is the only possible reason to call this a hate crime. In spite of the fact that these guys did not seek her our because she was a lesbian. She sought them out because she didn't like them protesting in her neighborhood.

So now we have a hate crime charge levied against three "occupy protesters". How political is that? These guys should be charged with assault and whatever other charges are applicable. They should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. This would be true whether or not the victim is a man, woman, gay, straight, black or white. She approached some street thugs and they attacked her. It has nothing to do with anything but criminals acting as criminals, and it certainly has nothing to do with the occupy movement. Politics.


I agree w/ you on this case since she initiated the contact (dumb; that's what the cops are for lady). Hopefully, the DA dismisses the hate charge here. Police overcharge sometimes, but we still have the prosecutor, judge and jury before anything happens to these guys on the hate charge.

In the police's defense, there MAY be a hate crime, and so they charge and then gather evidence. I doubt these guys have much of a reputation that will be ruined here!

Rich, I was disgusted by the whole Nifong-lacrosse case, but everything turned out exactly right, including disbarrment of the DA, who allowed his political ambition to cloud his professional judgement. There's something to be said for appointing, rather than electing, DAs and judges for this very reason, but I'm torn on that.

Again, these laws do not create distinct protected classes, they punish actions by the defendant that are motivated by his hate of whoever.




 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 10411
(10854 all sites)
Registered: 1/8/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/3/2012 at 10:24 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
If any of you guys have an actual example of hate-crime overreach, I'm interested.

Maybe this case is an example. A woman confronts 3 thugs. They attack her. They call her names. They take her wallet.

Could the motivation be that they were mad because she confronted them? Could the motivation be that they wanted her wallet? If so, would this be a hate crime? No, this is a hate crime because they called her a lesbian during the attack. I have pissed people off before and been called worse than that, but as far as I can tell that is the only possible reason to call this a hate crime. In spite of the fact that these guys did not seek her our because she was a lesbian. She sought them out because she didn't like them protesting in her neighborhood.

So now we have a hate crime charge levied against three "occupy protesters". How political is that? These guys should be charged with assault and whatever other charges are applicable. They should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. This would be true whether or not the victim is a man, woman, gay, straight, black or white. She approached some street thugs and they attacked her. It has nothing to do with anything but criminals acting as criminals, and it certainly has nothing to do with the occupy movement. Politics.


I agree w/ you on this case since she initiated the contact (dumb; that's what the cops are for lady). Hopefully, the DA dismisses the hate charge here. Police overcharge sometimes, but we still have the prosecutor, judge and jury before anything happens to these guys on the hate charge.

In the police's defense, there MAY be a hate crime, and so they charge and then gather evidence. I doubt these guys have much of a reputation that will be ruined here!

Rich, I was disgusted by the whole Nifong-lacrosse case, but everything turned out exactly right, including disbarrment of the DA, who allowed his political ambition to cloud his professional judgement. There's something to be said for appointing, rather than electing, DAs and judges for this very reason, but I'm torn on that.

Again, these laws do not create distinct protected classes, they punish actions by the defendant that are motivated by his hate of whoever.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I fully agree with Rich. Why add this layer of complexity? Why make a difficult job harder? No need to answer...you already have. I'm just not buying it.

 

____________________
When some folks agree with my opinions I begin to suspect I'm wrong.

 
<<  1    2  >>  


Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software


Privacy | Terms of Service
The ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND name, The ALLMAN BROTHERS name, likenesses, logos, mushroom design and peach truck are all registered trademarks of THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. whose rights are specifically reserved. Any artwork, visual, or audio representations used on this web site CONTAINING ANY REGISTERED TRADEMARKS are under license from The ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. A REVOCABLE, GRATIS LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ALL REGISTERED PEACH CORP MEMBERS FOR The DOWNLOADING OF ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THE TRADEMARKS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROHIBITED AND ARE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO.,INC.
site by Hittin' the Web Group with www.experiencewasabi3d.com