3 lesbians charged with 'hate crime' for beating up gay man...

Lawyer: Lesbians’ assault on gay man can’t be hate crime


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.

“Someone who is Jewish can be anti-Semitic,” said ACLU staff attorney Sarah Wunsch. “The mere fact that someone is a member of the same class doesn’t mean they could not be motivated by hatred for their very own group.”

But Carolyn Euell, 38, mother of two of the defendants, Erika Stroud, 21, of Dorchester and Felicia Stroud, 18, West Roxbury, told reporters the alleged attack “can’t be hateful” because both her daughters are lesbians.

Prosecutor Lindsey Weinstein said the two sisters and one of their domestic partners, Lydia Sanford, also a defendant, viciously beat the man Sunday, repeatedly punching and kicking him after he bumped them with his backpack on a stairwell.

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.”

Krasnow later noted the low bail the judge gave the women, $100 to $500 cash, and suggested the prosecution’s case was weak.

Civil-rights attorney Chester Darling agreed. “No one should go to court. It’s knuckle justice,” he said. “It’s a fair exchange.”

But Jake Wark, a spokesman for Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley, said prosecutors will have no problem proving the women committed a hate crime, even if they are lesbians.

“The defendants’ particular orientation or alleged orientations have no bearing on our ability to prosecute for allegedly targeting a person who they believe to be different from them,” he said.

http://bostonherald.com/news/region...y_man_cant_be_hate_crime/srvc=home&position=2


So, in Boston, if lesbians use anti-gay slurs as they beat someone, they can be charged with a hate crime, but in Philly Blacks can use racial slurs as they beat a white and not be charged with a hate crime. Do you progressives finally see the problem with these laws?

_

 

Bingo! Progressive ideology is hypocritical and senseless emotional hatred dressed up as an attempt at egalitarianism.


_

 

Here's the difference. She believes her statement to be true..He doesn't know what he believes.

 

No.

Your analysis that ignores reality is what is the problem.

It sounds like the women specifically beat the man because he was gay, the backpack "bump" was simply a trigger.

Even of the black men used racial slurs, if the point of assault was personal issue with THAT man, or a generic robbery NOT targeted at white people in general, then it would not be a "hate crime", whether black on white or white and black.

What charges to file is ALWAYS a mixture of specific circumstance and PROVABLE intention. PROVABLE is a key and required part, too, charging a hate crime.

One reason we see some hate crimes charged to some whites is that many whites who attack blacks have publicly written they wish to drive all blacks out of the country. That makes a "hate crime" charge rather easy to prove when that bigot assaults a black person, just as announcing you were going to kill your wife would make it hard for you to defend yourself for killing her because your "gun went off while cleaning it".

The difference between 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, manslaughter are ALL "intention". You have to not only prove someone actually KILLED someone, you have to show they INTENDED to for 2nd degree murder, you have to show the murderer PLANNED to do so in 1st degree murder.

The same is true for assault. You can't just show that I actually punched someone in the nose, you have to show I INTENDED to punch them in the nose, and further, that I was free of fear or other influence that would show I was indulging in self defense, for instance.

As a defense, if I can show I tripped and as a result punched you by accident, or had a reasonable reason to think you were attacking me, I also am not guilty of assault.

You are suggesting a world where a gang of bigots could be grabbing and just "roughing up" regular people but issuing death threats etc. because they are Jews or blacks or whites or whatever. The problem is all you can charge these people with is a trivial charge yet they are running decent people out of town.

 

Weird. I thought that all gays & lesbians were peaceful, loving people.

 

Weird that you would think such an odd thing!

 

Butch lesbians are some of the meanest people on the planet.

 

You mean bull-dykes

 

LOL, yeh, they can be a scary bunch sometimes. The drag queens freak me out also but that's another point all together...

All crime is a hate crime the last time I checked, you don't beat/kill/ect someone you like (usually).

 

Does the reason it was done really matter? I am starting to think that hate crime laws should just be abolished. They do more harm than good.

A beat down is a beat down. It shouldn't matter what the reasoning is because the result is the same.

 

That is not what a hate crime is.

A hate crime is a crime committed based on intimidating/abusing etc, a particular CLASS of victims based on race, religion, sex or sexual orientation of the victims.

The result is NOT "the same".

All the gays/whites/blacks.women etc. int he vicinity or neighborhood of someone attacking those groups SPECIFICALLY can feel SPECIFICALLY intimidated and threatened by the campaign being conducted.

The assailant doesn't need to "hate them" either, although that is typical basis - to intimidate and/or get rid of the particular class person attacked.

It makes it a crime of felony threat against the MANY people of the victim CLASS, instead of just ONE person.

It does a LOT of good because it allows escalating a SINGULAR or series of minor crimes into the more serious offense of what attacking members of a group REALLY is - attacks on the ENTIRE group!

I am going to bet that the lesbians told the gay man they want men to leave the building/area/school/bar or whatever. That is a hate crime, not just a fight in a stairwell.

 

LOL! Man, you sure nailed that one!.....

Carrie Perjean.... she refused to be politically correct and what a beating she took just b/c she voiced her opinion about marriage should be b/t one man and one woman......

Obama ...... what can I say, except ...... never mind. I've already said it.

 

Ha,, They need to give these Conanites an award. I sure hope that girlie man didn't scuff his purse up too bad....WHEN HE HIT THE GROUND!

 

I agree, but the Lefties will not.

_

 

Hate Crime laws having nothing to do with the reason a crime was committed or what was done or said. It has to dow ith whether or not the victim is a member of a victim group. Of course, it gets tricky when both the victim and the perpertrator are members of a victim group. Then liberals are faced with deciding which victim group is more worthy.

 

Perfectly summarized. It's time to do away with hate crimes legislation. It's ridiculous and is clearly not applied evenly.

 

I disagree, but fascist cretins will not.

 

Calling people fascist, because you don't agree with them, grow the (*)(*)(*)(*) up.

 

The "hate crime laws" SPECIFICALLY address the DEMONSTRATED REASON for the crime committed as the basis of the enhanced penalties, a reason that matches the requirements of the law.

That is what a "hate crime law" IS!

If the REASON can't be determined, then can be NO "hate crime".

 

Police: Lesbian fakes hate crime...

Lesbian who reported 'hate crime' attack staged incident, Nebraska police say
Wed August 22, 2012 - The woman pleads not guilty to lying to police, her attorney says; "This has been kind of a kick in the gut as a victim to ... be charged," lawyer says; Charlie Rogers told police she was attacked in her home last month; Authorities now say the incident was staged

 

So exactly how far did the doc drop you when you came out of your mothers womb?

 

You surprise me Don. I've seen you criticize white people for hating their own race, but now you agree that it is absurd to think lesbians could express some kind of hatred for their own. I can understand Munsch's argument that it is possible to harbor hatred for your own kind, but I find it pretty funny that she thinks she's going to convince 12 people that's the case here.

But yes, hate crimes are a problem--far too subjective.

 

Hate crime legislation is so stupid.

 

Hate crimes are NOT "subjective" at all!

The laws require specific evidence that attack is based on the classification of the victim, and requires MUCH more than just saying a offhanded comment, or that the attackers and victim be of different categories.