| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:53 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
The charges are not absurd...if anything it is the law that is absurd. It was explained in the link above.
| Quote: |
Leverett said he initially doubted that Ravi had committed a hate crime, but after reading the statute of law presented to the jury, everyone agreed Ravi's crimes met the criteria.
"In my opinion I didn't think it was a hate crime until we were presented with an indictment (that explained the law)," Leverett said |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
So then the "crime" was simply distributing a video of the roommate without their permission?
That seems beyond absurd. |
Nope he was convicted on 15 counts as stated in the video.
Several of them are explained in the link above.
| Quote: |
| Ravi, 20, was convicted of invasion of privacy, bias intimidation, witness tampering and hindering arrest... |
As stated in the video bias intimidation is the most serious charge...under the law it is viewed as a hate crime which carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison. But it wasn't the only one.
| Quote: |
| Three of the convictions carry a sentence of five to 10 years in prison |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rollo
Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 3:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I agree with others who have posted. I just do not like the hate crime thing unless it is an organization that has a history of harming or threatening certain groups. How can you prove "hate" was the motive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 11:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rollo wrote: |
| I just do not like the hate crime thing unless it is an organization that has a history of harming or threatening certain groups. |
Why is it worse for a skinhead to gun down a black guy for being black than for a Blood prospect to gun down a white guy as part of his initiation? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| rollo wrote: |
| I just do not like the hate crime thing unless it is an organization that has a history of harming or threatening certain groups. |
Why is it worse for a skinhead to gun down a black guy for being black than for a Blood prospect to gun down a white guy as part of his initiation? |
Because the killing white people for gang initiation is an urban myth that doesn't really happen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 2:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Because the killing white people for gang initiation is an urban myth that doesn't really happen. |
Killing people for gang initiation is not an urban myth. Killing white people specifically was not what I meant, as I was creating a distinction between one murder motivated by race (the skinhead) and one not (the gang prospect). Apologies if that wasn't clear. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 2:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Because the killing white people for gang initiation is an urban myth that doesn't really happen. |
Killing people for gang initiation is not an urban myth. Killing white people specifically was not what I meant, as I was creating a distinction between one murder motivated by race (the skinhead) and one not (the gang prospect). Apologies if that wasn't clear. |
Well, the white person part was what I meant. The distinction is the intimidation factor. It's used to make a specific group feel unsafe. One diminishes a groups role in society, one doesn't. I think that if one group is systematically targeted, such as what the kkk used to do, than I think it's appropriate. I think that it should be reserved for rare cases though, and not used in situations like this one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 8:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Well, the white person part was what I meant. |
By that I simply meant that the victim being of a different ethnicity was incidental, unlike with the skinhead. I can see how my post could have been confusing; apologies again.
| Quote: |
| The distinction is the intimidation factor. |
We have other laws against intimidation already. So again, I ask: why is it worse to intimidate, murder, assault, etc someone for being of a specific ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc than it is to intimidate, murder, assault, etc someone for any other reason (well, any other reason that wouldn't fall under some form of legally defined insanity)? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 9:34 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
I'm of two minds.
I think, if he had a female roommate, he might have done the same thing.
I don't see actual evidence of homophobia.
Pragmatically speaking, he could've got off with parole and community service. He should've done that.
He might have played the role of civil rights hero if he didn't have all the other counts against him. Even if he were acquitted of hate crimes, he'd still be going to jail.
Bullying is an interesting new venue for criminal punishment. Not that I subscribe to Hammurabi's code, but can we film his life with his cellmate?
Sorry for that. I lament his being sent into our prison system, which needs to be fixed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
