Obama signs hate crimes bill into law

[DiamondDog]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/28/hate.crimes/index.html

Obama signs hate crimes bill into law
October 28, 2009 7:39 p.m. EDT

Washington (CNN) -- President Obama on Wednesday signed a law that makes it a federal crime to assault an individual because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity.

The expanded federal hate crimes law, hailed by supporters as the first major federal gay rights legislation, was added to a $680 billion defense authorization bill that Obama signed at a packed White House ceremony.

The hate crimes measure was named for Matthew Shepard, a gay Wyoming teenager who died after being kidnapped and severely beaten in October 1998, and James Byrd Jr., an African-American man dragged to death in Texas the same year.

Shepard's mother, Judy, was among those at the ceremony that also included Vice President Joe Biden, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Attorney General Eric Holder and leading members of Congress and the Pentagon, who were on hand for the appropriations bill signing.

To loud applause, Obama hailed the hate crimes measure in the bill as a step toward change to "help protect our citizens from violence based on what they look like, who they love, how they pray."

He cited the work of the late Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and others "to make this day possible."

Later Wednesday, Obama stood with Shepard's parents and relatives of Byrd at a separate White House event honoring passage of the expanded hate crimes law.

Noting reports of 12,000 crimes based on sexual orientation over the past 10 years, Obama called the bill another step in the continuing struggle for protecting human rights.

"Because of the efforts of the folks in this room, particularly those family members standing behind me, the bell rings even louder now," Obama said. When he finished his remarks, he hugged the weeping relatives as the audience applauded.

Several religious groups have expressed concern that a hate crimes law could be used to criminalize conservative speech relating to subjects such as abortion or homosexuality. However, Holder has said that any federal hate-crimes law would be used only to prosecute violent acts based on bias, not to prosecute speech based on controversial racial or religious beliefs.

Former President George W. Bush had threatened to veto a similar measure, but Obama brought a reversal of that policy to the White House.

When the bill won final congressional approval last week, Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese called the hate crimes measure "our nation's first major piece of civil rights legislation for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people."

Earlier this month, Obama told the Human Rights Campaign, the country's largest gay rights group, that the nation still needs to make significant changes to ensure equal rights for gays and lesbians.

"Despite the progress we've made, there are still laws to change and hearts to open," he said in an address at the group's annual dinner. "This fight continues now and I'm here with the simple message: I'm here with you in that fight."

Among other things, Obama has called for the repeal of the ban on gays serving openly in the military -- the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. He also has urged Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and pass the Domestic Partners Benefit and Obligations Act.

The Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage, for federal purposes, as a legal union between a man and a woman. It allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages. The Domestic Partners Benefit and Obligations Act would extend family benefits now available to heterosexual federal employees to gay and lesbian federal workers.

However, some advocates for stronger rights for the lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender community have complained that Obama's administration is moving too slowly on his legislative promises.

Opponents of the expanded hate crimes bill challenged the need to specify one particular community in federal legislation. They contended that existing federal hate crimes laws were sufficient to protect the rights of people based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

More than 77,000 hate-crime incidents were reported by the FBI between 1998 and 2007, or "nearly one hate crime for every hour of every day over the span of a decade," Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee in June.

At Wednesday's signing, Obama also praised what he called a bipartisan effort to start changing the culture of military spending through the annual appropriations bill. He noted that Gates had worked with congressional leaders to end what Obama called wasteful projects like the F-22 fighter bomber and a new presidential helicopter that would have cost "almost as much as Air Force One."

"I won't be flying on that," the president said.

Noting that cost overruns in military projects total tens of billions of dollars, Obama called for further "fundamental" reforms in how the government and Pentagon do business.

"We all know where this kind of waste comes from," he said, citing "indefensible" no-bid contracts and special interests pushing unneeded weapons systems.

Such actions are "inexcusable", "unconscionable" and an "affront to the American people" as the nation faces two wars and an economic recession, Obama said.

"Today I'm pleased to say that we have proved that change is possible," he said.

[Long Duck Dong]

.

To loud applause, Obama hailed the hate crimes measure in the bill as a step toward change to "help protect our citizens from violence based on what they look like, who they love, how they pray."


Several religious groups have expressed concern that a hate crimes law could be used to criminalize conservative speech relating to subjects such as abortion or homosexuality. However, Holder has said that any federal hate-crimes law would be used only to prosecute violent acts based on bias, not to prosecute speech based on controversial racial or religious beliefs.



interesting that they refer to controversial racial or religious beliefs..... what about personal beliefs...

I know that sounds like I am supporting peoples rights to be anti LGBT, but I am supporting their right to freedom of speech in the same way I ask for the same right...... with the understanding that my opinions and statements do not infringe upon the rights of others to live in the same manner I do...( homing, employment, health care etc etc )

the other aspect I have concerns about, is the way the law is applied... I want to see proof of hate crime violence,.... not a simple * that person hit a LGBT, so its hate crime violence *....but * that person hit a LGBT person, their phone messages, personal statements, facebook comments etc, indicate a strong dislike of LGBT and the intention to inflict harm upon one *

again I know that sounds strange, but its important to me that the LGBT have the same protection as the rest of society and it doesn't become a catchphrase for every issue involving LGBT and violence.....
there are some LGBT people in my town that would happily use a law like this to go piss off the locals and then claim hate crime.....in the name of personal agenda and activist issues

[TaylorMade]

interesting that they refer to controversial racial or religious beliefs..... what about personal beliefs...

I know that sounds like I am supporting peoples rights to be anti LGBT, but I am supporting their right to freedom of speech in the same way I ask for the same right...... with the understanding that my opinions and statements do not infringe upon the rights of others to live in the same manner I do...( homing, employment, health care etc etc )

the other aspect I have concerns about, is the way the law is applied... I want to see proof of hate crime violence,.... not a simple * that person hit a LGBT, so its hate crime violence *....but * that person hit a LGBT person, their phone messages, personal statements, facebook comments etc, indicate a strong dislike of LGBT and the intention to inflict harm upon one *

again I know that sounds strange, but its important to me that the LGBT have the same protection as the rest of society and it doesn't become a catchphrase for every issue involving LGBT and violence.....
there are some LGBT people in my town that would happily use a law like this to go piss off the locals and then claim hate crime.....in the name of personal agenda and activist issues

I think those are legitimate concerns. Every group has assholes who would use the law as a cudgel.

*Taylor*

[FalconAngel]

The law will not curtail 1st Amendment rights at all, but the hate speach of an individual or group can be used against them should they be involved in the commission of a hate crime.

The 1st Amendment does not support or protect speech which encourages or induces violence. It does, however protect speech which is unpopular or even controversial.

It is legal to go out and say "(insert group here) is a plague on the Earth", but it is not protected to say "(insert group here) is a plague on the Earth and they must all be destroyed".

Now, before that gets picked up by LDD and taken to an unreasonable extreme (you know that you do that sometimes:tong:), it only pertains to civil issues, not as it applies to any soldiers in war that our nation is at war with (the Geneva Convention and our rules of engagement apply there), so it does not apply to conditions during an active war against a foreign nation, but is applied to civilians using hate as justification for violence against other civilians; nor does it apply to our military personnel against any members of an opposing military force in combat, here or anywhere else.

As our laws apply to the conduct of soldiers in an occupation force and during battle, the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) covers that, and the UCMJ holds US Constitutional standards at it's core, so this act will also apply to the conduct of our own soldiers here and abroad as they deal with civilian populations.

[Long Duck Dong]

The law will not curtail 1st Amendment rights at all, but the hate speach of an individual or group can be used against them should they be involved in the commission of a hate crime.

The 1st Amendment does not support or protect speech which encourages or induces violence. It does, however protect speech which is unpopular or even controversial.

It is legal to go out and say "(insert group here) is a plague on the Earth", but it is not protected to say "(insert group here) is a plague on the Earth and they must all be destroyed".

Now, before that gets picked up by LDD and taken to an unreasonable extreme (you know that you do that sometimes:tong:), it only pertains to civil issues, not as it applies to any soldiers in war that our nation is at war with (the Geneva Convention and our rules of engagement apply there), so it does not apply to conditions during an active war against a foreign nation, but is applied to civilians using hate as justification for violence against other civilians; nor does it apply to our military personnel against any members of an opposing military force in combat, here or anywhere else.

As our laws apply to the conduct of soldiers in an occupation force and during battle, the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) covers that, and the UCMJ holds US Constitutional standards at it's core, so this act will also apply to the conduct of our own soldiers here and abroad as they deal with civilian populations.

I know that religion uses the terms from the bible that god dislikes all homosexuals...... and to me that is freedom of speech..... same with religions that call for death of all homosexuals and adulterers ( tho there we are refering to other countries )

my concern is where is the dividing line between hate speech and *religious* speech......

between quoting a book, and actively making your own statement......

to me hate speech, is when a person is actively and freely preaching violence of self creation..... not when a person is quoting from a bible,
most bible readers may quote it but few act on it.....

as much as I disagree with the bible being quoted against any person, I do support the right to preach it......

but the only answer that will clarify that is actually the anti hate crime law being used in a case...... and a trial by jury......

[MarieDelta]

It doesnt stop people from preaching the bible. The speech issue is a whole different deal.

What it does do is add another level of punishment to those who would actively hurt us(glbt and others). Like the individuals who attacked Mathew Sheppard, Gwen Araujo, Brandon Teena, Angie Zapata and so many others. Its not perfect, hell its not even close, but it is a start.

Hate Crime: A legal term that describes criminal acts motivated by prejudice. The term ethnoviolence is a broader term that describes acts of intimidation whether or not deemed illegal. Emphasis on criminal acts.

[Long Duck Dong]

I am thinking in terms of lawyers and judges, not in terms of detectives and activists here......
we define hate speech and hate crime... but how does the legal system define it, thats where people are missing the point....

the law gives added power to convict and punish criminals, now lets see if it works, or if other defenses and plea bargains are used that make the law as useless as a torn condom

we have a law that doesn't stop hate crime, we have a law that places pressure on the legal and court system to PROVE it is a crime of hate and prejudice....

WHERE are the legal definitions of hate crime, the legal guidelines that separate a crime of passion from a crime of prejudice.... premeditated murder from man slaughter.....

I want to see how in hell the lawyers, judges, DA's and courts are going to use this new law

and as you say, marie.... if hate speech is totally different, then by rights, anything said in the way of hate speech / discrimination speech, could not be used in a court of law during a court case dealing with a hate crime,

in the case of matthew shepard and brandon teena, the hate speech was used to illustrate the nature of the crime as prejudice driven and to separate it from a random mugging / man slaughter ( matthew )... and sexual assault / manslaughter ( brandon )
it is the hate speech that the community as a whole, used to cement the defination of hate crime against LGBT people.....

this is why I want to see the legal definitions under the new law, not the new law but the legal definations under it..... to see what defines hate crime and hate speech.....

[JP1986UM]

This is nothing more than a move toward criminalizing thoughts. Its really hysterical that people try and make a crime more a crime by saying, "well She doesn't like me because I am gay therefore she hit me." SO rack up more of a penalty? Assault is assault. Period. The motive is to inflict pain. Motive of thought makes it extra special? DO you think the little old lady who is 89 and got mugged in her own home thinks the bastard who did it to her deserves something extra special because he dissed old people for sucking up too much oxygen? GTFOOH. Put the rat in a hole where he belongs.

Or this one:

He murdered X because he was gay. Therefore, let's really make him pay for it!

Uh, if the victim is dead, in most states the penalty for murder is the death penalty. Yet, these same far left-wingers deplore the death penalty, unless its against one of their own, then its ok. The hypocrisy is stunning.

Frankly, if we'd just penalize CRIME and not have lawyers plea bargaining horrible crimes down to misdemeanors, we'd be better off. I am in favor of bringing back hard labor. Make them really pay for the crime if its not a capitol offense. I guess HDTV is really difficult to tolerate.

All this does is create ill will because we now create special crimes for special people. Seriously, this is fucked up.

(Flame suit on) :flag3:

[MarieDelta]

OK look,

Hate speech is not criminal, but taking action on that speech is criminal. The speech itself may not be a crime, but it is evidence if a crime occurs.
I am not a lawyer, by the way. The way I understand this law to read is that if you commit violence against a person, and you have been shown to have prejudice against persons of that group, then the federal law enforcement may step in if local law enforcement does not. How do you show a person has prejudice against a group? By what they say and do. You cant randomly pick someone up and prosecute them for hate crimes.

Under current law(prior to this) you can (and people have been) prosecuted for inciting violence against a group, that has been illegal for some time.

As I said the law isnt perfect, but its better than nothing.

The problems with the law as I see them:

Violence against anyone is illegal, unless its in self defense. This law only strengthens that. In other words it only makes the punishment worse, on top of a life sentence, big deal.

It does nothing to eliminate the "gay panic" defense used in so many of these cases. If this person feels that they were being seduced into homosexual situation, then they can beat and kill you, and in many cases get away with it.

Its not real protection, as such, but then what is?

As far as hate speech, I don't care what you say just keep out of my life.

The good things about this law:

It will help educate law enforcement about the frequent hate violence against GLBT people and the need to prevent and appropriately address it;

It will help provide federal expertise and resources when they are needed to overcome a lack of resources or the willful inaction on the part of local and/or state law enforcement;

It will help educate the public that violence against anyone, including GLBT people, is unacceptable and illegal.

The first successful prosecution of a hate crime against a criminal wasnt far from here, it was shown that: Angie Zapata's killer knew that she was transsexual/ transgender before they had sexual relations and that he had prejudices against gay people. In that he mentioned killing "it" and that it wasnt like he had killed a "normal person" or something.


Last month, a judge threw out Andrade's confession to police, saying it came after the suspect told them he was through answering questions. Prosecutors say they intend to use statements he made to others, including, "It's not like I . . . killed a straight, law-abiding citizen."

[MarieDelta]

This is nothing more than a move toward criminalizing thoughts. Its really hysterical that people try and make a crime more a crime by saying, "well She doesn't like me because I am gay therefore she hit me." SO rack up more of a penalty? Assault is assault. Period. The motive is to inflict pain. Motive of thought makes it extra special? DO you think the little old lady who is 89 and got mugged in her own home thinks the bastard who did it to her deserves something extra special because he dissed old people for sucking up too much oxygen? GTFOOH. Put the rat in a hole where he belongs.

Or this one:

He murdered X because he was gay. Therefore, let's really make him pay for it!

Uh, if the victim is dead, in most states the penalty for murder is the death penalty. Yet, these same far left-wingers deplore the death penalty, unless its against one of their own, then its ok. The hypocrisy is stunning.

Frankly, if we'd just penalize CRIME and not have lawyers plea bargaining horrible crimes down to misdemeanors, we'd be better off. I am in favor of bringing back hard labor. Make them really pay for the crime if its not a capitol offense. I guess HDTV is really difficult to tolerate.

All this does is create ill will because we now create special crimes for special people. Seriously, this is fucked up.

(Flame suit on) :flag3:

Well that's fine except:

1. Sometimes the local law enforcement don't want to bother with tracking down the criminal. They have no interest in someone who kills a person who was likely on the fringe of their community anyway. It would be nice if this weren't so, but it is.

2. Sometimes the DA doesnt want to push a case because it involves "queers" or other fringe folk.

3. Jurys sometimes aren't sympathetic to someone who has a lifestyle different from their own.

So if the criminal gets found, the DA might prosecute, and the jury might give them an appropriate sentence, but dont count on it.


At a packed hearing at the Hayward Hall of Justice, Superior Court Judge Harry Sheppard sentenced Michael Magidson, 25, and Jose Merel, 26, to 15 years to life in prison for second-degree murder in the killing of Gwen Araujo. Jason Cazares, 26, who struck a deal with prosecutors last month by pleading no contest to a lesser charge, received a six-year sentence.

A fourth defendant, Jaron Nabors, 22, who testified against the others, is expected to be sentenced on May 22 to 11 years in prison.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/27/MNGT3GTKOG36.DTL#ixzz0VRXrvTP2



"This crime was a brutal beating of a vulnerable victim," the judge said.



Does that seem right for a group of men who planned and then viciously killed and disfigured a young woman? It doesn't to me.

[Long Duck Dong]

Well that's fine except:

1. Sometimes the local law enforcement don't want to bother with tracking down the criminal. They have no interest in someone who kills a person who was likely on the fringe of their community anyway. It would be nice if this weren't so, but it is.

2. Sometimes the DA doesnt want to push a case because it involves "queers" or other fringe folk.

3. Jurys sometimes aren't sympathetic to someone who has a lifestyle different from their own.

So if the criminal gets found, the DA might prosecute, and the jury might give them an appropriate sentence, but dont count on it.



gives marie a hug and kiss.....you hit my concerns on the head right there..... with seeing charges laid and followed thru

as you has posted, plea bargaining and deals can be made that can make the new law ineffective....... tho I will admit that it is a justice system wide issue, its not confined to LGBT bashing / hate crime cases......

I showed this to a friend of mine and they reacted by saying, its a waste of time, that the lawyers have a phrase * prove it and we will use it, but we are paid to make sure that it can not be proven or used against our clients *

hard hitting statement from a lawyer.... a admission that they are not out to see justice served but to make sure their client is either not found guilty, or not convicted of serious offending.... but that is why we have lawyers,.... to defend us in court

unfortunately, the lawyers are doing what they are hired to do in LGBT bashing crimes as well, and thats disprove the prosecutions case

at the end of the day, we are burying friends family and loved ones, no law will stop that and no law will take away the pain and suffering...
we may be LGBT / straight / intersex / gender undefined...... but sadly there is no protection under the law as the law is there to deal with the guilty and in order for there to be guilty people, the crime has to be committed......and that is one thing we will never stop

people know its not ok to commit crimes, but that has never stopped people doing it.....all we can hope for.... is justice to be served...... and in some cases it never will.....

[Donkey_burger]

I just want to say that I'm glad this law exists now.

DB :bipride:

[JP1986UM]

First, Maricle was murdered by a group known as the Nazi Low Riders.

Second, this is a group bent on racism and violence period.

And I ask again, Robert Maricle is dead. You can't bring him back.

Harsher sentences should be placed on them for what they did not why. I don't care about why. When you ask why you also open the door up to allow a crime because "well he was driven to it". Kinda like saying drinking and driving is ok, because he couldn't help his alcoholism. No, don't take the drink and get help to stop it. Otherwise, you drove, hit a family, killed them, now spend you life in prison. I don't know that adding 300 yrs to a life sentence without parole is going to affect the relatives who lost the family.

Of course, someone will say it makes them feel better. Goody for you. The family is still dead. And what I am trying to get at, is that feel good prosecutions lead to less feel good outcomes.

[JP1986UM]

AZN, you are missing the point.

I don't know that I can make it any clearer. The left wing uses this to criminalize thought. Soon, merely thinking improperly and not in line with political correctness will lead to more laws making the threat of the thought a criminal act. I guess Orwell was lost on you.

I am not saying horrible crimes don't happen. They do and they deserve to be punished harshly. But saying that a white guy gets beaten up is NOT AS BAD as a black guy that got beaten up merely because the guys didn't like the color of his skin, is and of itself, a racist proposition. It sets aside one group as being more special and deserving of special laws for the same criminal activity. PERIOD. End of story.

A black female getting raped is now not as bad as a white female getting raped because she was a lesbian. An asian storekeeper getting shot is not as bad as an asian shoemaker getting shot because the skin heads did it.

If you can't see that simple example of why hate-crime laws are wrong, I can't help you. So here is an excellent article from RealClearPolitics from a Washington Post writer:
-------

The Folly of Hate-Crime Laws
By Richard Cohen

James von Brunn, who is alleged to have opened fire and killed a guard at the Holocaust Memorial Museum, is apparently a consummate bigot. His former wife said that his hatred of blacks and Jews "ate him alive like a cancer," so it might seem appropriate that in addition to having been indicted last week for murder and gun law violations, he was also charged with hate crimes. At age 89, he proves that you are never too old to hate.

He also proves the stupidity of hate crime laws. A prime justification for such laws is that some crimes really affect a class of people. The hate-crimes bill recently passed by the Senate puts it this way: "A prominent characteristic of a violent crime motivated by bias is that it devastates not just the actual victim ... but frequently savages the community sharing the traits that caused the victim to be selected." No doubt. But how is this crime different from most other crimes?

First, let us consider the question of which "community" von Brunn was allegedly attempting to devastate. He rushed the Holocaust museum, which memorializes the 6 million Jews killed by the Nazis and their enablers. There could be no more poignant symbol for the Jewish community. Yet von Brunn killed not a Jew, but an African-American -- security guard Stephen Tyrone Johns.

So which community was affected by this weird, virtually suicidal act? Was it the Jewish community or the black community? Since von Brunn hated both, you could argue that it does not matter. But since I would guess that neither community now gives the incident much thought, the answer might well be "neither one." So what is the point of piling on hate crimes to what von Brunn has allegedly done? Beats me. He already faces -- at age 89, remember -- a life sentence and, possibly, the death penalty.

The real purpose of hate-crime laws is to reassure politically significant groups -- blacks, Hispanics, Jews, gays, etc. -- that someone cares about them and takes their fears seriously. That's nice. It does not change the fact, though, that what's being punished is thought or speech. Johns is dead no matter what von Brunn believes. The penalty for murder is severe, so it's not as if the crime is not being punished. The added "late hit" of a hate crime is without any real consequence, except as a precedent for the punishment of belief or speech. Slippery slopes are supposedly all around us, I know, but this one is the real McCoy.

Let us assume that the "community" is really affected by what we call a hate crime. I am Jewish. But even with von Brunn's attack, I am more affected by a mugging in my neighborhood that might keep me from taking a walk at night that I am by a shooting at the Holocaust museum. If there's a murder in a park, I'll stay out of it for months. If there's a rape, women will stay out of the park. If there's another and another, women will know a real hater is loose. Rape, though, is not a hate crime. Why not?

I doubt that any group of drunken toughs is going to hesitate in their pummeling of a gay or an African-American or a Jew on account of it being a hate crime. If they are not already deterred by the conventional penalties -- prison, etc. -- then why would additional penalties deter them? And if, in fact, they kept their mouths shut, refrained from the N-word or the F-word or the J-word and simply made the beating or the killing seem one triggered by dissing or some other sound reason, then they would not be accused of hate -- merely of murder or some such trifle. If, though, they gave vent to their thoughts, they would be in for real trouble.

For the most part, hate-crime legislation is just a sop for politically influential interest groups -- yet another area in which liberals, traditionally sensitive to civil liberties issues, have chosen to mollify an entire population at the expense of the individual and endorse discredited reasoning about deterrence.

In von Brunn's case, the hate-crime counts are an obscenity. To suggest that the effects of this attack were felt only by the Jewish or the black communities -- and not, for instance, by your average Washington tourist -- ghettoizes both its real and purported victims. It's a consequence that von Brunn himself might applaud.
-----

I am sure my banning will be forthwith for not towing a leftist line.

[MarieDelta]

First, Maricle was murdered by a group known as the Nazi Low Riders.

Second, this is a group bent on racism and violence period.

And I ask again, Robert Maricle is dead. You can't bring him back.

Harsher sentences should be placed on them for what they did not why.

Amen, but what if the locals choose not to prosecute, because of bias? What if its the local police force who beats you up?

As far as die-ing so far its us (1/12th chance that I will be killed everytime I step out my door) tell it to these people (http://www.gender.org/remember/about/core.html)

It is about time we told people that we aren't expendable.

If the sheriff had done his job, Brandon Teena would still be alive.


On December 31, 1993, John Lotter and Marvin Thomas Nissen murdered Brandon, Lisa Lambert, and Philip De Vine in a farmhouse in rural Richardson County, Nebraska. These multiple murders occurred one week after Lotter and Nissen forcibly removed Brandon’s pants and made Lana Tisdel, whom Brandon had been dating since moving to Falls City from Lincoln three weeks earlier, look to prove that her boyfriend was “really a woman.” Later in the evening of this assault, Lotter and Nissen kidnapped, raped, and assaulted Brandon.Despite threats of reprisal should these crimes be reported, Brandon filed charges with the Falls City Police Department and the Richardson County Sheriff, however, Lotter and Nissen remained free.

What about Tyra Hunter, who died while EMTs looked on and made jokes about her.


At this point, one of the caregivers said "This ain't no bitch. It's a nigger. He's got a dick and balls." The paramedics ceased treating Tyra and instead laughed and joked about her while onlookers demanded they get back to work on her.

Later, after treating another injured passenger, other emergency workers found Tyra gagging and trying to move away from the insulting paramedics. Finally, a supervisor demanded that her airway be cleared.

In addition to these insults and lack of care, she was received at the hospital as "John Doe", given a contraindicated medication, and was not given blood that had been ordered for her. She died from lack of oxygen in her blood.

what about Duanna Johnson who was beaten by a Nashville police officer while onlookers did nothing (by the way she was hand cuffed)


The former Memphis cop who used handcuffs like brass knuckles to beat a transgendered woman into insensibility found himself on the wrong side of a grand jury indictment Wednesday. Officer Bridges McRae, court documents say, used unreasonable force and a dangerous weapon to deprive Duanna Johnson of her Fourth Amendment rights after an arrest on a prostitution charge.

The unprovoked jail beat-down was caught on tape and broadcast by news stations in Memphis back in July. When Johnson declined to respond to some epithets hurled by McRae regarding her gender identity and sexual preferences, he meted out a little corporal punishment of his own. Sounds like a hate crime to me. It's too bad Duanna never got to see this. She was shot to death earlier this month. No arrests have been made.

I say again that this isn't about getting stiffer sentences for the criminals(but that is a nice bonus), its about getting something done for the victims of these crimes.

By the way there were no criminal charges in the Tyra Hunter case.

[JP1986UM]

Amen, but what if the locals choose not to prosecute, because of bias? What if its the local police force who beats you up?

Why should that be different than any other crime not prosecuted? Personally, if someone comes after me, my kids, wife, bf, or whatever, they better have kevlar. That's just me....LOL

There are federal laws that do kick in, one need only ask for federal DA to investigate, then it gets much harsher on the locals who declined due to their own bias, insensitivity, corruption, or lack of moral turpitude.


It is about time we told people that we aren't expendable.

But nobody is, you aren't special just because of your sexuality. You are special because you are human.

Do you think a hate-crimes law would have made John Lotter and Marvin Thomas Nissen stop and think, "OMG dude, if we kill these people their going to charge us with hate crimes"!

You cannot be serious.

[MarieDelta]

There weren't any federal laws on the books to prosecute these crimes until now, I think if there were, they would have been (prosecuted). Where do you go, when no one cares if you lived & were murdered?

I do try to be careful, but you know, it only takes once.

I'm not as strong as I used to be, but I've never believed in owning a handgun either.

[MarieDelta]

Do you think a hate-crimes law would have made John Lotter and Marvin Thomas Nissen stop and think, "OMG dude, if we kill these people their going to charge us with hate crimes"!

You cannot be serious.

No, but maybe the sheriff would have done something? Maybe? Before it became a murder case.

Note that he was raped & reported it to the sherrif( who ignored it) prior to his killing.

I agree that I'm not special, I dont think I am, but I am human & I wish to God these(including law enforcement) people would remember that.

By the way , the folly in generating laws (any law) is believing that it will stop a criminal, it wont. However, if the local law enforcement is worried about the feds showing them up, they may actually do their fricken job fer crying out loud.

I am for this, but I said in my earlier posts, its a long ways from perfect.