Double Standard? Or not so much?

there would be a riot of some kind if this were the other way around. horrible.

elgoats wrote:

***IMAGINE ME DROPPING THE "N BOMB" IN CH-...

Nosh?

We don't know if there is a double standard or not. The police department of late has a spotty record on dealing with things appropriately, if the down grading of felonies and refusal to take reports for other violent incidents is any indication.

mr. met, how do you know there would be a riot? There were several incidents last year of black kids being taunted by hasidic youth, but nothing escalated to that level.

So do you see yeshiva students as a criminal gang, equivalent to the Latin Kings? Here it is almost certain that the Jewish kids were picked on specifically because they were Jewish, not because they were members of a rival gang intruding on the black kids' turf.

If that is why it happened, then it's the very definition of a hate crime.

It is worth noting that the article points to a site targeting an Orthodox Jewish audience. The metatags for the site include: Jewish News, Chabad News, Lubavitch News, Chabad-Lubavitch News. Certainly that points to a strong bias in the reporting.

My impression is that some members of both groups in question have behaved badly at times. Mr. met's history of antagonism goes both ways.

shake wrote:

elgoats wrote:

***IMAGINE ME DROPPING THE "N BOMB" IN CH-...--I wonder how the cops would handle THAT....Sheeeeesh

I don't think it would be the cops handling that.

agreed. Such things are usually handled -ahem- informally and quickly.

And, I think Shomrim will be the first called by the next Hasid kid who gets harassed. Lately, Shomrim has had a good relationship with the police.

The recent incident in which a Hasid tackled a black guy who had just mugged a black woman ....and then the Hasid community then held the mugger until police arrived was somewhat thought provoking.

Hopefully the police and Shomrim figure out how each will react when and if the next incident occurs (whether is hasid kids harrassing a black kid, OR black kids harassing a hasid kid).

The NYS definition of what consitutes a "hate crime"

http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/legalservices/ch107_hate_crimes_2000.htm

In addition to selecting one's victim based on one of the criteria, it seems one must also meet a standard regarding the severity of the act (i.e. one of the crimes listed).

....it likely falls on the victim to convince the police (and/or district attorney) that both standards are met.

Gather your evidence, get good representation. The below may be of particular interest:

§ 3. Subdivision 3 of section 240.30 of the penal law, as amended by chapter 345 of the laws of 1992, is amended to read as follows:

3. Strikes, shoves, kicks, or otherwise subjects another person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same because of [the ] a belief or perception regarding such person's race, color, [reli-gion or ] national origin [of such person ], ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation, regardless of

whether the belief or perception is correct; or

§ 4. The opening paragraph of section 240.31 of the penal law, as amended by chapter 958 of the laws of 1983, is amended to read as follows:

A person is guilty of aggravated harassment in the first degree when with intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm another person, because of [the ] a belief or perception regarding such person's race, color, [religion or ] national origin [of such person ], ancestry, gender, reli-gion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation, regard-

less of whether the belief or perception is correct,

Racism is racism and hate is hate. It doesn't matter who it's coming from or directed at. Having a double standard is racist itself. We are all equal. Therefore we know that everyone can choose to be compassionate and respectful.

As a liberal, I will say that this is what is problematic about hate crimes legislation.

From reading the Crown Heights piece, I get the unmistakable impression that the police WOULD have charged the assailants with a hate crime, IF the injuries were serious, BUT because the injuries weren't serious, it's not a hate crime, even if anti-Semitic slurs were uttered. In other words, as a matter of policy, calling something a hate crime itself is so loaded with implications that it could set off a powderkeg "worse" than the underlying act itself, therefore we will implement it selectively.

Now, were I to disgracefully use the "N" word to an African American, there might be a very good chance I'd get my head bashed in. And if the person who assaulted me got arrested, he presumably would say in his defense that he was responding to my "hate crime". But then, from this precedent, I could argue, "Well, I used a racial slur, but I didn't physically hurt anyone, so where's the hate crime?"

Anyone else see the Pandora's Box at work here?

I apologize. I wasn't aware of this. Did the taunting get physical, as it did in these cases (beating with a stick)?

Yes. Not sure if a stick we involved and the police were equally unhelpful in those incidents.

The sina qua non of most hate crime statutes is that the victim was chosen because of his color, ethnicity, sexual preference, or other such characteristic.

Hatred of another person, not seated in that other person's ethnicity, color, etc., does not qualify.

So Black on Black crime would not normally qualify, unless you had a Black Christian or Jew beating a Black Muslim, because of the victim's religion, or a Black person of any religion beating on another Black person because of the latter's sexual preference.