RSSEqual Rights Under the Law … Three Lesbians Charged With Hate Crime for Assaulting a Gay Man in Boston, MA
If it is good for the goose, it should be good for the gay as well … They gay community wanted equal rights under the law, looks like they got it. However, when hate crimes on pinned on gays, they cry foul.
Three woman who have been described as lesbians were charged with assault and a hate crime for beating a gay man at the Forest Hill T in Boston, MA. Now the question will arise as to whether a gay on gay attack can be considered a hate crime. This does show just how foolish hate crime laws are. An assault is an assault. Now we have to make some assaults more important than others because of a perceived hate?
Three women identified by their lawyers as lesbians were arraigned yesterday on a hate crime charge for allegedly beating a gay man at the Forest Hills T station in an unusual case that experts say exposes the law’s flawed logic.
“My guess is that no sane jury would convict them under those circumstances, but what this really demonstrates is the idiocy of the hate-crime legislation,” said civil liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate. “If you beat someone up, you’re guilty of assault and battery of a human being. Period. The idea of trying to break down human beings into categories is doomed to failure.”
Prosecutors and the ACLU of Massachusetts said no matter the defendants’ sexual orientation, they can still face the crime of assault and battery with intent to intimidate, which carries up to a 10-year prison sentence, by using hateful language.
Sounds like a she said, she said argument. What, do you mean that if some one who uses a gay slur who happens to be gay should not be treated the same in the eyes of the law? So if the girls were straight and hurled insulting homophobic slurs that would be considered a hate crime? I think we are beginning to see the flaws of hate crimes.
She said the victim, who suffered a broken nose, told cops he believed the attack was “motivated as a crime because of his sexual orientation” since the three women “called him insulting homophobic slurs.”
But attorney Helene Tomlinson, who represented Sanford, told the judge her client is “openly identified as a lesbian … so any homophobic (conduct) is unwarranted.” She said the alleged victim was the aggressor and used racial slurs: “He provoked them.”
Felicia Stroud’s attorney, C. Harold Krasnow, said, “They don’t know what his sexual orientation is, just like he doesn’t know what theirs is.”
If you liked this post, you may also like these:
Comments
5 Responses to “Equal Rights Under the Law … Three Lesbians Charged With Hate Crime for Assaulting a Gay Man in Boston, MA”
Leave a Reply
All this crazy talk about a hate crime and the laws began in Texas when three white thugs killed a black man a drug his body behind their truck.
The black community wanted some extra punishment for this crime, so the game was on. What a foolish way to make a point. The crime was first degree murder regardless of the motivation. Should have been and was a slam dunk death penality case.
We can thank the black welfare pimps and rabble rousers for this development.
[...] Scared Monkeys: who would win a fight between thee Lesbians and a Gay dude? [...]
I think the “hate crime” status should only be applied (if ever) if there is no motivation other than the persons race/circumstances.
For example, if a “gang of thugs” finds a random person and beats them up, that is different than if there is some prior history between the thugs and that particular man; even if the thugs are racist at their core, there is a history to provoke the violence.
Probably holes in that logic too…hard to make anything a special case, as you said.
Assault is assault. Murder is murder. I don’t see the need for a “Hate Crimes” law.
But apparently assault isn’t assault in PA where a Muslim judge excused a Muslim who attacked an atheist. The atheist was walking in a parade dressed as a zombie Mohammed. The Muslim ran from the sidewake and attacked him. He was charged with assault. The judge, a Muslim himself, said the victim was lucky he wasn’t in a Muslim country and challenged him to find a passage where Mohammed rose from the dead. The verdict was in favor of the Muslim who was the attacker because he said he didn’t know it was against the law in this country to attack someone who insulted Mohammed. He said he did it for his young son. If this wasn’t a hate crime, I don’t know what is. Judge should be impeached. Sharia law is taking over, folks. Ignore it at your peril.
Here is an article about the judge’s decision and the threats against the life of the person who was assaulted.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/26/hundreds-of-threats-for-assault-victim-in-case-dismissed-by-quran-minded-judge/