8circles Posted November 10, 2017 Share Posted November 10, 2017 1. The preppie did this to make it seem like there was a rash of anti-Black written aggression on campus due to racism from other nationalities or races. 2. That was not true. 3. Hence it was a hoax. Obviously. How polite, civil, and respectful of you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted November 10, 2017 Share Posted November 10, 2017 I agree with you about the hoax part of the equation, but I chuckled quietly to myself at your first sentence. He might not (legally) hate black people but he's got a heck of a way of showing it if he's got love in heart for black people. What piece of work. Yeah, clearly he don't care about being a dick to people. That might be true, but anyone who lives in a military environment for more than 5 minutes knows that civilians can get away with things that you can’t. I don’t know if UCMJ has any jurisdiction in an Academy situation with the students, but they all know they’re held to higher and different standards. The victims were just as victimized and I’m not sure the intent makes it better for them. ETA: I’m kinda glad for the kid’s sake that there is a legal distinction. He’s probably facing enough consequences for this. I'm not sure what your point is? The environment doesn't change that it was fake. Again, if you don't care about intent, there is no point having a special category for hate crimes. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8circles Posted November 10, 2017 Share Posted November 10, 2017 (edited) More accurately, it would be called a hate crime hoax, not a racial slur hoax. The racial slurs were real, the hoax was that it was (or rather, wasn't) a hate crime. It's misleading. ETA: Obviously. Edited November 10, 2017 by 8circles 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmseB Posted November 10, 2017 Share Posted November 10, 2017 More accurately, it would be called a hate crime hoax, not a racial slur hoax. The racial slurs were real, the hoax was that it was (or rather, wasn't) a hate crime. It's misleading. ETA: Obviously. Maybe, except as someone pointed out, writing the n-word on a whiteboard is likely not a crime at all, even if it is a horrible thing to do. On a college campus they could likely consider it a violation of a code of conduct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KungFuPanda Posted November 10, 2017 Share Posted November 10, 2017 Yeah, clearly he don't care about being a dick to people. I'm not sure what your point is? The environment doesn't change that it was fake. Again, if you don't care about intent, there is no point having a special category for hate crimes. My point was to respond specifically to the person that informed me that,in the eyes of the law, intent is how a crime is classified as a hate crime. I did not know this before. I thought the crime itself would make it a hate crime or not. My second point was to mention that military installations sometimes have their own laws that apply to their own people so the law could be different there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8circles Posted November 10, 2017 Share Posted November 10, 2017 Maybe, except as someone pointed out, writing the n-word on a whiteboard is likely not a crime at all, even if it is a horrible thing to do. On a college campus they could likely consider it a violation of a code of conduct. How does this apply to my comment at all? Whether or not writing the n-word is a crime is irrelevant to anything I've posted. The racial slurs happened. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmseB Posted November 10, 2017 Share Posted November 10, 2017 How does this apply to my comment at all? Whether or not writing the n-word is a crime is irrelevant to anything I've posted. The racial slurs happened. I was just clarifying a previous point from someone else, riffing off of your post. I wasn't really disagreeing with you, just pointing out that it probably wasn't technically a crime. No one here has disagreed with the fact that racial slurs were actually written. Maybe my tone is off in my posts, or I'm reading you wrong, but it seems like you're irritated with various people in this discussion and I can't figure out why? As far as I can see it's been been pretty benign. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted November 10, 2017 Share Posted November 10, 2017 My point was to respond specifically to the person that informed me that,in the eyes of the law, intent is how a crime is classified as a hate crime. I did not know this before. I thought the crime itself would make it a hate crime or not. My second point was to mention that military installations sometimes have their own laws that apply to their own people so the law could be different there. In this case the individuals weren't military members, so I don't think military law would apply to them. When hate crime legislation was first being discussed in various places, it was rather controversial because of this element. Intent is a factor in many laws, but it was such a big one in these cases. Some people felt it was too difficult to dig into people's minds to that extent, or that we really should stick to the more direct, measurable effects which were already criminalized. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KungFuPanda Posted November 10, 2017 Share Posted November 10, 2017 In this case the individuals weren't military members, so I don't think military law would apply to them. When hate crime legislation was first being discussed in various places, it was rather controversial because of this element. Intent is a factor in many laws, but it was such a big one in these cases. Some people felt it was too difficult to dig into people's minds to that extent, or that we really should stick to the more direct, measurable effects which were already criminalized. Right. Civilians aren’t really subject to UCMJ, but living on military property can have unique regulations that don’t exist off-post. These rules apply to spouses and children. For example, in a state that doesn’t have a law against talking on the phone while driving, you can still get a ticket for doing this on post. I don’t know. I’m asking here in case anybody KNOWS if this is one of those situation where legal military consequences apply to actions taken on military property. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawthorne44 Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 Another reason to distinguish between an actual hate crime vs. a hoax incident is because the number of hate crimes or racist incidents (or whatever you want to call it) every year on a campus or in a town tells us something very different about the climate of the setting than the number of faked hate crimes every year. This is true despite the fact that the victims' feelings are very much identical in both situations, even if the incidents are in different categories. Which is why both types of incidents should be taken seriously. And, I think the reaction of the community tells us a good things about this community. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.