How can two seventeen year olds be charged as juveniles?
Who should be held responsible....
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20120130_Thugs_whup_up_on_cabbie__passenger.html
"IN A HORRIFIC assault in Center City on Saturday night, three teenagers who were spouting racial slurs pulled a man out of a cab to beat him. And when the cabdriver intervened to stop the assault, the teens turned their rage on him, police said yesterday.
About 8:25 p.m., a cab was stopped at a red light at 15th and Chestnut streets when two 17-year-old boys and a 15-year-old boy approached and started calling the male passenger in the back seat racially derogatory names, police said.
The boys then threw an unknown liquid at the cab before they opened the door, pulled the passenger out and started to pummel him, police said.
When the cabbie got out of the car to see what was going on, the passenger ran away and the teens turned on the cabbie. They punched him in the face, kicked him and threw a liquid on him, police said.
Despite being outnumbered, the cabbie grabbed a tire iron from his trunk, at which time the teens ran away. The driver flagged down a police officer, and the three boys were arrested. They were charged as juveniles with aggravated assault and related offenses.
The cabbie suffered an injury to his right eye and had abdominal and side pain, police said. The passenger remains unidentified.
Police said the three teens were black and the cabbie and passenger were white. Police did not immediately know whether the teens would or could face hate-crime charges.
According to police records, the cabbie worked for Liberty Taxi Co., but a dispatcher working there yesterday was surprised none of the drivers he'd spoken with were aware of the assault. Police declined to provide the name of the driver, so the dispatcher could not confirm whether he was an employee.
"This would be something that would be big news," the dispatcher said. "It would have been a highly charged moment that drivers would be talking about.""
When I read stories like this, I cant help but think about who should be held ultimately responsible for crimes like this, and if the right people WERE being held responsible, would things change? In a country where McDonald's is responsible for you spilling hot coffee on yourself, where GM is responsible for leasing a car to someone who got in an accident, where a drug company is responsible for 1 person having a bad reaction to a drug that saved 1000 lives........how is the government not held responsible for denying/limiting our constitutional right to defend ourselves? Since the cops can not clearly be there to protect us every time, how is this argument not made over and over again in lawsuit after lawsuit against local/state governments? If the enviro-nuts can bury an energy company to make political points, if unions can cripple companies in labor disputes or governments in recall elections, how come victims or senseless crimes and pro-2A organisations cant fight fire with fire and hold these liberal idealists responsible for willfully allowing such assaults to take place? And if they did, couldnt it change the tide in our favor? Theoretically, all it would take is one win to change things forever.
"IN A HORRIFIC assault in Center City on Saturday night, three teenagers who were spouting racial slurs pulled a man out of a cab to beat him. And when the cabdriver intervened to stop the assault, the teens turned their rage on him, police said yesterday.
About 8:25 p.m., a cab was stopped at a red light at 15th and Chestnut streets when two 17-year-old boys and a 15-year-old boy approached and started calling the male passenger in the back seat racially derogatory names, police said.
The boys then threw an unknown liquid at the cab before they opened the door, pulled the passenger out and started to pummel him, police said.
When the cabbie got out of the car to see what was going on, the passenger ran away and the teens turned on the cabbie. They punched him in the face, kicked him and threw a liquid on him, police said.
Despite being outnumbered, the cabbie grabbed a tire iron from his trunk, at which time the teens ran away. The driver flagged down a police officer, and the three boys were arrested. They were charged as juveniles with aggravated assault and related offenses.
The cabbie suffered an injury to his right eye and had abdominal and side pain, police said. The passenger remains unidentified.
Police said the three teens were black and the cabbie and passenger were white. Police did not immediately know whether the teens would or could face hate-crime charges.
According to police records, the cabbie worked for Liberty Taxi Co., but a dispatcher working there yesterday was surprised none of the drivers he'd spoken with were aware of the assault. Police declined to provide the name of the driver, so the dispatcher could not confirm whether he was an employee.
"This would be something that would be big news," the dispatcher said. "It would have been a highly charged moment that drivers would be talking about.""
When I read stories like this, I cant help but think about who should be held ultimately responsible for crimes like this, and if the right people WERE being held responsible, would things change? In a country where McDonald's is responsible for you spilling hot coffee on yourself, where GM is responsible for leasing a car to someone who got in an accident, where a drug company is responsible for 1 person having a bad reaction to a drug that saved 1000 lives........how is the government not held responsible for denying/limiting our constitutional right to defend ourselves? Since the cops can not clearly be there to protect us every time, how is this argument not made over and over again in lawsuit after lawsuit against local/state governments? If the enviro-nuts can bury an energy company to make political points, if unions can cripple companies in labor disputes or governments in recall elections, how come victims or senseless crimes and pro-2A organisations cant fight fire with fire and hold these liberal idealists responsible for willfully allowing such assaults to take place? And if they did, couldnt it change the tide in our favor? Theoretically, all it would take is one win to change things forever.
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
You make some good points. The only thing is the story takes place in PA. They are "Shall Issue" already. I have an unrestricted PA CCW license, as do alot of our members. The cabbie or the passenger, could have been armed, if they wanted to be.
The part that got my attention in that article was deciding if they should be charged with a hate crime. I hate the double standard with this garbage. If that were reversed, Rev Al and his gang would be screaming and protesting in the streets. But when its a bunch of Black teens attacking a White person, no mention of hate crimes. I am surprised that the race was posted. Most of the time when a story revolves around black youths doing something stupid, the article labels them as "Unruly Teens". I am tired of the double standard.
(stepping off my soap box now)
(stepping off my soap box now)
I was under the impression that Philly had a different set of rules from PA state, similar to NYC? Even if not, it wasnt just this story but all stories like it. Sports fans getting beat/killed simply for being a fan of the other team, any random assault/murder/robbery/car-jacking/rape/looting/riot/etc, if you dont have the complete right to protect yourself and law enforcement was not there to prevent it, I see the argument that those responsible for not having the complete right to protect yourself being directly responsible.
agree 100%. I personally think any unprovoked crime against someone of different race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation should automatically be treated as a hate crime. Maybe if the penalties were a bit stiffer, some crime may be deterred.Mike the Marine said:The part that got my attention in that article was deciding if they should be charged with a hate crime. I hate the double standard with this garbage. If that were reversed, Rev Al and his gang would be screaming and protesting in the streets. But when its a bunch of Black teens attacking a White person, no mention of hate crimes. I am surprised that the race was posted. Most of the time when a story revolves around black youths doing something stupid, the article labels them as "Unruly Teens". I am tired of the double standard.
(stepping off my soap box now)
I have a hard time with the bias that comes from the media (cue hipster, college liberal voice). The political correctness sickens me.BillyBonds said:agree 100%. I personally think any unprovoked crime against someone of different race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation should automatically be treated as a hate crime. Maybe if the penalties were a bit stiffer, some crime may be deterred.
It is only a hate crime if it's white on ? Not ? on white.
Prove me wrong! I did a Wescheter and couldn't find any hate crime against a white other than a white jew or gay white. So unless one of those victims is a jew or gay then no hate crime will be charged.
Prove me wrong! I did a Wescheter and couldn't find any hate crime against a white other than a white jew or gay white. So unless one of those victims is a jew or gay then no hate crime will be charged.
They don't want you to think about how you could defend yourself, they'd rather use it to justify spending increases for community programs and police budgets... Anything to grow the machine.
(Fyi I don't mean that as police bashing, it's policy bashing)
(Fyi I don't mean that as police bashing, it's policy bashing)
I strongly disagree- I think "hate crime" is BS. an attack is an attack- why the "extra" penalty for a "hate crime"? Remember the NYU student that was beaten nearly to death because some miscreants thought he was a muslim? He was Hindu, so now do you apply the "hate crime"? Racial, religious prejudice was clearly a factor. However, what about where it's not causary? What if I beat up a guy and rob him, am I supposed to pay for a "hate crime" if he turns out to be a Jew?BillyBonds said:agree 100%. I personally think any unprovoked crime against someone of different race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation should automatically be treated as a hate crime. Maybe if the penalties were a bit stiffer, some crime may be deterred.
I think you are free to hate anybody you want (makes you an idiot but so what) it's the ations that you do that determine the parameters of the crime.
I think these "kids" need to be dealt with severely. If I were the cab driver they probably would have found them with tire tracks on their backs laying face down in the road. Hate crime is a BS term- but to show them the merits of racial tolerance and the copnsequences of a lack thereof, I would make SURE they were incarcerated alongside some white supremacists so each group could see the error of their ways, and maybe save the taxpayers some money in the process.
No one will be held responsible! It'll be sloughed off as boys blowing off steam. After all, there are no jobs to keep them busy, schools have failed them, their parents are too busy to raise their children, and government can't help.
So they will get a slap on the wrist, and go on their merry way. However, had the cabbie or passenger been armed, and there were three fewer criminals in this world, the sturm und drang would have been heard all over America! The headlines would have read "Trigger happy gun owners shoot innocent children!" Or some such nonsense.
So they will get a slap on the wrist, and go on their merry way. However, had the cabbie or passenger been armed, and there were three fewer criminals in this world, the sturm und drang would have been heard all over America! The headlines would have read "Trigger happy gun owners shoot innocent children!" Or some such nonsense.
I am for equal protection under the law. What on earth does motivation have to do with rape? how about assault. If someone is killed, their race does not matter, they were deprived the right to life (barring aggression or initiation of force on the part of the deceased) unjustly. Having government section us off by race, color and creed is another means of the distracting us from the fact they are operating outside the constitution and our economy has a sucking chest wound
Either any violent crime perpetrated on a person of another race is a "Hate Crime" or none is. I prefer none. The crime is the crime, no matter why you did it.
This was kind of my point in my previous statement, great choice of words.NRATC53 said:Either any violent crime perpetrated on a person of another race is a "Hate Crime" or none is. I prefer none. The crime is the crime, no matter why you did it.
Seriously? No one knows the correct answer?
It's George W Bush's fault of course!
It's George W Bush's fault of course!
To charge a crime as a "hate" crime - there has to be evidence the crime was perpetrated BECAUSE of a different race, religion, sexual preference, etc. Just because the bad guy was a different race/religion than the victim has nothing to do with a "hate" crime.NRATC53 said:Either any violent crime perpetrated on a person of another race is a "Hate Crime" or none is. I prefer none. The crime is the crime, no matter why you did it.
A guy has words with another of a different race over a girl, a dirty look, etc then an assault - NO hate crime.
A guy beats and robs another of a different religion for money - NO hate crime.
The bad guy(s) yelling racial slurs toward the victim BEFORE an assault - getting closer to a hate crime charge.
How many times have you seen guys from different races fighting over something like a parking spot, where racial epithets were thrown as the sitiuation escalated? So, when they get out of their cars and beat on each other, do you go to the witnesses and try to determine who slurred who first to make it a "hate crime"?Dan 0351 said:To charge a crime as a "hate" crime - there has to be evidence the crime was perpetrated BECAUSE of a different race, religion, sexual preference, etc. Just because the bad guy was a different race/religion than the victim has nothing to do with a "hate" crime.
A guy has words with another of a different race over a girl, a dirty look, etc then an assault - NO hate crime.
A guy beats and robs another of a different religion for money - NO hate crime.
The bad guy(s) yelling racial slurs toward the victim BEFORE an assault - getting closer to a hate crime charge.
I have heard some people that I do not even think are actual bigots say some really effed up stuiff in the heat of the moment to people that had some characteristic they could latch onto for their purpose of defamation. Black skin, a yarmukle, a ladyman, or a turban are pretty obvious characteristics.
I believe the argument would be intent. In this case the teens were heard shouting racial slurs. That's why the hate crime issue was brought up, by their motivation. They attacked simply because the cabbie/fare were a different race. That was their point.Captain Will said:I strongly disagree- I think "hate crime" is BS. an attack is an attack- why the "extra" penalty for a "hate crime"? Remember the NYU student that was beaten nearly to death because some miscreants thought he was a muslim? He was Hindu, so now do you apply the "hate crime"? Racial, religious prejudice was clearly a factor. However, what about where it's not causary? What if I beat up a guy and rob him, am I supposed to pay for a "hate crime" if he turns out to be a Jew?
I think you are free to hate anybody you want (makes you an idiot but so what) it's the ations that you do that determine the parameters of the crime.
I think these "kids" need to be dealt with severely. If I were the cab driver they probably would have found them with tire tracks on their backs laying face down in the road. Hate crime is a BS term- but to show them the merits of racial tolerance and the copnsequences of a lack thereof, I would make SURE they were incarcerated alongside some white supremacists so each group could see the error of their ways, and maybe save the taxpayers some money in the process.
As per your example, ff you happened to rob someone who is Jewish, the motivation is robbery. If you attack them because you believe they are Jewish, and shout racial slurs while you do it, your motivation is clearly different. Or so would go the argument. Now I agree it can be a gray area, and abused and thrown around, but if someone decides, let's attack a ___ or a ___ based only on their race/orientation that is clearly what we would call a "hate crime". Proving the intent can be more tricky, of course.
In this particular case it seemed the black teens attacked the cabbie and fare because they were white, and only for that reason. I would agree that on it's face is a "hate crime". This "stay out of our hood" mentality is not new in issues of racial tension. There have been many cases over the years of attacking an outsider simply cause they were a different race, and in the "wrong area". The primary motivation in such cases is always the racial component so hence a "hate crime".
(....and I think there are some clear examples of this. Many have lead to convictions and publicized cases. IF a bunch of skinheads has a meeting and says, lets go out tonight and find some black guy and kill him 'cause we hate black people, and they go out and do exactly that. And you have witnesses to the planning etc. then the motivation is clearly hate. There have been several examples of this scenario.
There was also an infamous TN case were the carjacking by a bunch of black career criminals from a "bad part of town" was said to be motivated by their hate of "******" and the system, so they picked a clean cut young white couple on purpose to torture, rape and terrorize as a way of getting back at the man.
Witness interviews, admissions, statements said while committing the crimes, etc. -- all the usual case work-- usually collaborates the motivation.)
I get what you are saying destro- but would you suffer a greater injurty because you were white, and attacked bny a black mob, than if you were attacked by a white mob? Is it twice as bad if, during a gang initiation rite, a guy says "Die Cracker MoFo!" before he shoots you in the head, vs. "Die MoFo!"?
It just seems to me too hard to apply an extra penalty based on what somebody SAID. Doesn't first amendment say even hate speech is legal? It makes you an A-hat sure. And how can you prove in spite ofg the "hate speech" that he was singled out SOLELY BECAUSE of his race, rather than singled out as an opoortunistic targetand then utterances made based on his race in the course of the attack? the big one for for me though, is that I see the EXTENT of the injurty to be reoughly equivalent (other than the aspect of racial insults, which again are legal)?
I don't know if there is a "right" answer to this. I think "hate crime" is overused, and often by guys like Mr. Sharpton, who like to use race to stir the pot even more. Crown heights was about race, but is an *extra* penalty beyond that of the actual deed fair?
It just seems to me too hard to apply an extra penalty based on what somebody SAID. Doesn't first amendment say even hate speech is legal? It makes you an A-hat sure. And how can you prove in spite ofg the "hate speech" that he was singled out SOLELY BECAUSE of his race, rather than singled out as an opoortunistic targetand then utterances made based on his race in the course of the attack? the big one for for me though, is that I see the EXTENT of the injurty to be reoughly equivalent (other than the aspect of racial insults, which again are legal)?
I don't know if there is a "right" answer to this. I think "hate crime" is overused, and often by guys like Mr. Sharpton, who like to use race to stir the pot even more. Crown heights was about race, but is an *extra* penalty beyond that of the actual deed fair?
Will, I agree that there is a gray area to it, and it gets misapplied and thrown out there a lot (often for the wrong reasons). I find the political twisting of the issue disgusting as well.Captain Will said:I get what you are saying destro- but would you suffer a greater injurty because you were white, and attacked bny a black mob, than if you were attacked by a white mob? Is it twice as bad if, during a gang initiation rite, a guy says "Die Cracker MoFo!" before he shoots you in the head, vs. "Die MoFo!"?
It just seems to me too hard to apply an extra penalty based on what somebody SAID. Doesn't first amendment say even hate speech is legal? It makes you an A-hat sure. And how can you prove in spite ofg the "hate speech" that he was singled out SOLELY BECAUSE of his race, rather than singled out as an opoortunistic targetand then utterances made based on his race in the course of the attack? the big one for for me though, is that I see the EXTENT of the injurty to be reoughly equivalent (other than the aspect of racial insults, which again are legal)?
I don't know if there is a "right" answer to this. I think "hate crime" is overused, and often by guys like Mr. Sharpton, who like to use race to stir the pot even more. Crown heights was about race, but is an *extra* penalty beyond that of the actual deed fair?
But I think there are some clear examples of "hate crimes" where hate is blindly and ignorantly the primary driving force (see my above examples). As with any crime it is up to the authorities/legal system to sort out the motivations, etc. through proper investigation and prosecution.
I think certain minorities who have a history of persecution are more sensitive to these motivations (and rightly so). I also think there is a big fundamental difference if say you or your family gets attacked in a robbery or other crime, rather than finding out you were jumped or yours were attacked just because the other group hated "your people".
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Long Island Shooters Forum
A forum community dedicated to Long Island firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top Contributors this Month
View All
Phoenix69
103 Replies
boosti
45 Replies
Peconic Paladin
33 Replies
Recommended Communities
