Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What is a hate crime?
chicago tribune ^ | 10, 2007 | Howard Witt

Posted on 06/14/2007 11:13:10 PM PDT by stainlessbanner

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. -- What happened to Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom, a young Knoxville couple out on an ordinary Saturday night date, was undeniably brutal. The two were carjacked, kidnapped, raped and finally murdered during an ordeal of unimaginable terror in January.

< snip >

But whether the attack was a racial hate crime worthy of national media attention is another question, one that has now ignited a fierce dispute over the definition of hate crimes and how the mainstream media choose to cover America's most discomfiting interracial attacks.

< snip >

Country music star Charlie Daniels, who lives 150 miles from Knoxville, contrasted scant coverage of the Christian-Newsom murders with the national media frenzy that erupted last year when a black woman accused three white members of the Duke University lacrosse team of raping her at a party. The white players were cleared in April after the accuser proved unreliable and no evidence corroborated a crime.

< snip >

"If this [Knoxville case] had been white on black crime, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and their ilk would have descended on Knoxville like a swarm of angry bees," Daniels wrote on his Web site. "I guess the lack of TV cameras discouraged them."< snip >

Authorities say the couple's assailants, some of them ex-convicts, forced their victims to drive at gunpoint to a clapboard house in one of Knoxville's roughest neighborhoods, where both victims were raped and then killed. Newsom's body, shot and burned, was found dumped beside nearby railroad tracks, while Christian, who was strangled, was found bundled in plastic garbage bags inside the house.

(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events; US: Tennessee
KEYWORDS: channonchristian; christian; christophernewsom; crime; hate; hatecrimes; mediabias; newsblackout; newsome

1 posted on 06/14/2007 11:13:11 PM PDT by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner

Anything that White people do.


2 posted on 06/14/2007 11:14:59 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~~~Jihad Fever -- Catch It !~~~ (Backup tag: "Live Fred or Die"))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

from the article:
"In 2005, there were more than 645,000 victims of cross-racial violent crimes between blacks and whites in the U.S. In 90 percent of those crimes, black offenders attacked white victims."

3 posted on 06/14/2007 11:15:31 PM PDT by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Here's a CNN video clip about the murders [YouTube]

The NAACP representative says thinks it occurred in Cincinnati (instead of Knoxville)

4 posted on 06/14/2007 11:20:40 PM PDT by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj
"Anything that White people do."

A good brief definition. A more complete one might be along the lines of:

A crime committed by a white male or designated substitute therefor;

upon a person or object that is politically or materially considered to be inherently an object having ownership claimed by the political far-left;

wherein propagandistic benefit is believed to exist in potential demagogic efforts and related political advertisements of assertable criminal affronts; and/or wherein said benefit(s) may exist in the execution of extraordinary methods of punishment of said white male.

5 posted on 06/14/2007 11:48:13 PM PDT by Nova
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
In 2005, there were more than 645,000 victims of cross-racial violent crimes between blacks and whites in the U.S. In 90 percent of those crimes, black offenders attacked white victims.

Combine that stat with these from the article

Blacks are also the overwhelming majority of victims of attacks recorded by the FBI as hate crimes. In 2005, blacks were the victims in 68 percent of nearly 5,000 hate-crime incidents nationwide, while whites were the victims in 20 percent of the cases. Whites accounted for 60 percent of known hate-crime offenders, while blacks accounted for 20 percent.

and it's pretty obvious that something is seriously out of whack with how "hate crimes" are determined. This is political correctness at its most vicious.

6 posted on 06/15/2007 1:04:57 AM PDT by GATOR NAVY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner

I know what a hate crime is, it’s stupid, and at its best is moronic symbolism and multi-culturalism run a muck. If you kill me or take a crap on my lawn, I am going to apply some logic and guess you didn’t do it because you liked me. If you did it because I was NDN or whatever, I couldn’t care less. All I want is for you to be brought to justice for killing me or hope that I have my mini-14 handy the next time you take a crap on my lawn.


7 posted on 06/15/2007 1:27:51 AM PDT by WildcatClan (Duncan Hunter '08 'Doing the jobs Americans aren't willing to do.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner

I still cannot believe what those animals did to Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom has had no coverage in the MSM.


8 posted on 06/15/2007 1:37:06 AM PDT by youngamerecan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: youngamerecan

Write or call the MSM outlets and hold them accountable for their racist non-coverage of this story. As we saw in the OJ case, the lives of white people are worth less than those of others in this country. Call the Knoxville DA and charge him with cowardice.


9 posted on 06/15/2007 2:05:14 AM PDT by Judges Gone Wild
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner

A hate crime must be a crime which is neither a love crime or an indifference crime.


10 posted on 06/15/2007 2:08:47 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
"If this [Knoxville case] had been white on black crime, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and their ilk would have descended on Knoxville like a swarm of angry bees,"

Lack of rabble rousers. That's the reason. Don'tcha know that news is just entertainment in disguise.

11 posted on 06/15/2007 2:10:34 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
Hate Crime is ThoughtCrime.

Remember: once you make a particular Thought a crime, or even an "aggravating factor" in another more active crime (like rape), and claim to be able to determine its existence at trial, any unpopular thought can be criminalized.

Hence Orwell's 1984, which apparently doesn't get read or taken seriously any more, perhaps because the "prophecy" was "wrong" (or just ahead of schedule).

12 posted on 06/15/2007 2:19:57 AM PDT by ExGeeEye (Any means, fair or foul, to defeat the islamic filth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner

I don’t think the replies in this thread address the issue correctly.

While assault, battery, murder, whatever, should be treated equally in all circumstances, hates crimes are a different breed.

As I understand it, a hate crime is terrorism against a particular group - an act designed to intimidate and cause fear against a whole class of people. While the hate crimes laws may not be applied perfectly, it’s understandable why attempts are being made to curtail these actions.

The arguments made by other posters are simply that they give groups special “rights”. I don’t buy that. In order to show an action was terrorism against a group, the criminal act must be shown to reinforce a reasonable, preexisting perception of ferocity - like a “I could be next” - in the entire victim class.

For example, a serial murderer who goes after skinny people only because he *hates* skinny people would not typically be considered a hate crime because, in general, skinny people do not feel persecuted or threatened.

On the other hand, a member of the gay community - which already has a higher rate of being murder victims and is continually condemned for who they are by entire religions, governments, and neighborhoods - who is murdered for being what they are is a different crime. It can reignite fear in an entire group of people and could easily be considered terrorism.

*flame suit on*


13 posted on 06/15/2007 3:00:10 AM PDT by UndauntedR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner

The entire concept of “Hate” crime is stupid. It is a socialist-liberal invention to exagerate a crime’s impact for more sensational media coverage. The crime is the crime. Murder carries with it the highest punishment anyway. Hate crime is just a media defination that has been perverted into a crime exaggerator by liberals with the power to vote and make themselves feel good.


14 posted on 06/15/2007 3:08:59 AM PDT by BuffaloJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuffaloJack
I don’t think the concept of hate crimes is stupid, for the reasons noted above. Ideally, all crimes should be equally punished, but the history of the civil rights movement in the South, where local juries refused to indict persons involved in killing local blacks or Northern civil rights workers, led to the creation of special laws to Federalize the crime.

What worries me is the tendency to try to criminalize not only acts, but speech. The tendency of the left to shrilly cry “hate crime!” every time they hear what they don’t want to hear is annoying; worse, sometimes the leftists access the prosecutors.

So, do we provide special defenses to groups that have a documented history of persecution? Do we protect free speech? What are the limits? Both are ideals; but the ideas clash. Such is democracy.

15 posted on 06/15/2007 3:52:21 AM PDT by GAB-1955 (being dragged, kicking and screaming, into the Kingdom of Heaven....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: UndauntedR
...skinny people do not feel persecuted or threatened.

How a skinny, or gay, or fat, or white a non-victim of a particular crime "feels" about it is, or should be, entirely irrelevant, IMO. This goes beyond my previous post about the dangers of prosecuting people for their own thoughts or emotions, and travels into the uncharted and perilous region of prosecuting people for other peoples' thoughts or emotions.

That's a very bad place.

16 posted on 06/15/2007 4:00:20 AM PDT by ExGeeEye (Any means, fair or foul, to defeat the islamic filth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner

A good example of a hate crime: passing legislation which considers crimes against Democrat voting blocs to be more serious than crimes against non-Democrat voting blocs.


17 posted on 06/15/2007 4:18:18 AM PDT by Jack Wilson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Judges Gone Wild

bump


18 posted on 06/15/2007 4:25:25 AM PDT by Plains Drifter (If guns kill people, wouldn't there be a lot of dead people at gun shows?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj
A hate crime is failing to spend twenty four hours a day seven days a week working for the Hillary! Presidential campaign.

You will find this out after the election. :-(
19 posted on 06/15/2007 4:28:43 AM PDT by cgbg (Hamas--killing the Pali terrorists Americans won't kill.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner

A hate crime is whatever the libs don’t want conservatives to do. Of course, a minority or jihadist can’t commmit such a crime.


20 posted on 06/15/2007 4:32:21 AM PDT by mathluv (Never Forget!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner

Anyone who asks what is a hate crime, or questions the validity of hate crime as a type of criminality, has committed a hate crime. I’ve reported this author to the PC police.


21 posted on 06/15/2007 4:37:08 AM PDT by Hardastarboard (DemocraticUnderground.com is an internet hate site.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner

Hate crime laws were created ONLY to give White Christian males more prison time for crimes that they commit against non-Whites, non-Christians and women. Prosecutors and police in EVERY state know this and always comply.


22 posted on 06/15/2007 4:49:55 AM PDT by Leftism is Mentally Deranged
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ExGeeEye

I disagree because I don’t agree with your framing.

Hate crimes (which are treated as additional crimes separate from the assault, vandalism, murder, etc) are a different beast because they are crimes which intend to cause fear in people other than the target of the crime. A hate crime, by virtue of motivation, intimidates a group of private citizens belonging to a certain category which is already subject to a Sword of Damocles.

The original crime is of course prosecuted, but any additional effects (social unrest, fear, terrorism) or intent of the crime, which compounds its abhorrence, will be prosecuted via a “hate crime”.


23 posted on 06/15/2007 4:54:10 AM PDT by UndauntedR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

That needs to be corrected. Anything white people are accused of doing. BTW, that includes anyone of a “minority” who are off the plantation, since they are really white anyway due to the lack of proper “mindset”.


24 posted on 06/15/2007 5:02:37 AM PDT by Fred Hayek (Liberalism is a mental disorder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ExGeeEye

bttt


25 posted on 06/15/2007 8:18:59 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: youngamerecan

Unbelievable. No coverage.


26 posted on 06/15/2007 8:19:30 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

Guess they were busy with Duke LAX


27 posted on 06/15/2007 8:20:10 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner

A hate crime is defined as an action that requires establishment of Federal police.


28 posted on 06/15/2007 8:21:55 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the Treaty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
In 90 percent of those crimes, black offenders attacked white victims

So what the article is saying is that, it happens enough, therefore it's not newsworthy, inversely, the same is true if a White attacks a black, it happens so little it is newsworthy. If that isn't blatant coddling and racism on the part of the MSM, I don't know what is.

29 posted on 06/15/2007 8:47:03 AM PDT by Malsua
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: All

“There is a discomfort level [in the national media] with stories that have black assailants and white victims,” said Michelle Malkin, a prominent conservative newspaper columnist and TV commentator who has featured the Knoxville case on her Web site. “If it doesn’t fit some sort of predetermined narrative of how we view taboo subjects like race and crime, there’s a disinclination to cover it.”


30 posted on 06/15/2007 8:50:09 AM PDT by Altura Ct.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy

Not sure if you’ve been following this one...


31 posted on 06/15/2007 9:08:21 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner

oh yea.....it’s an abomination

and on the flip side...no stone unturned

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1850588/posts


32 posted on 06/15/2007 10:28:44 AM PDT by wardaddy (on supervised release)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

I saw a clip on CNN a few weeks ago in which the DA (I think) adamantly DENIED that the victims were raped and tortured. The news story was basically saying that yes, these two were murdered, but that untrue rumors were swirling about the rape and torture.

Now, I wonder IF the DA is lying in saying that the rapes and tortures didn’t happen. If he IS lying, WHY?


33 posted on 06/15/2007 10:33:25 AM PDT by Muzzle_em (A proud warrior of the Pajamahadeen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
I read the prosecution dropped some federal charges against the perps - carjacking perhaps, I don't remember.

The perps are a bunch of sickos and the media willfully glosses over the torture, rape, and murder they committed.

But the MSM will railroad college kids at Duke and dig up a Klan story from 30 years ago ad nauseum.

34 posted on 06/15/2007 10:35:57 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
Unbelievable. No coverage.

BUMP

35 posted on 06/15/2007 10:38:10 AM PDT by Jakarta ex-pat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: UndauntedR
...they are crimes which intend to cause fear in people

Again, claiming to be able to determine the inner thought or intent of the alleged perpetrator; to assign criminality to particular thought or intent; and weighing the actual act as being of greater or lesser evil because of that thought or intent.

ThoughtCrime.

36 posted on 06/15/2007 11:28:29 AM PDT by ExGeeEye (Any means, fair or foul, to defeat the islamic filth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ExGeeEye
claiming to be able to determine the inner thought or intent of the alleged perpetrator

which is to be proven in a court of law. Graffiti on a boxcar which reads "Kevin" is a different crime than graffiti on a synagogue which reads "Die Kykes" or a swastika or "Zyklon B", etc. The latter action creates a climate of fear in a whole group of people (as opposed to actions/threats against an individual, which can be prosecuted more easily) and should carry with it a greater punishment.

to assign criminality to particular thought or intent; and weighing the actual act as being of greater or lesser evil because of that thought or intent.

Only if that thought or intent was indeed successful at terrorizing an entire group of people. The logic being that a crime which ratchets up an already existing fear causes a greater social unrest than a crime that does not and should be punished appropriately.

I think the name "hate crime" is entirely misleading as well - as it does imply what you're arguing. But it is just not the intent of these laws.
37 posted on 06/15/2007 12:38:45 PM PDT by UndauntedR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
I've never believed in hate crimes and still don't.

It doesn't matter what the case is, whether its these two poor victims in this Tennessee case or anyone else victimized by whatever crime, the perpetrator certainly does not perform his actions based on love. The maximum penalty issued by our society is a relatively painless lethal injection. This is enough to eradicate the scum who did this.

What are we to do? Legally acknowledge what is already obvious to anyone with eyes? These two were victims of hatred. Hatred itself is not a crime. The statutes currently on the books are sufficient to punish the guilty. We don't need to execute them twice because of what these savages were thinking. We shouldn't care what was going through their tiny little minds as they were doing this. We're above them and we soil our own brains by trying to dissect their motives. What they did was enough for us to judge them savages and a danger to our society. They should be killed with all due process and speed. Hate legislation is not necessary.
38 posted on 06/15/2007 4:37:44 PM PDT by Live free or die
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UndauntedR
...creates a climate of fear in a whole group of people (as opposed to actions/threats against an individual, which can be prosecuted more easily) and should carry with it a greater punishment.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. In my view, how anyone feels about a crime must never be taken into account at all, and the idea of it being used to determine the punishment for the underlying act is abhorrent to me.

39 posted on 06/16/2007 2:20:37 AM PDT by ExGeeEye (Any means, fair or foul, to defeat the islamic filth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ExGeeEye
In my view, how anyone feels about a crime must never be taken into account at all

That's kind of absurd. We have a lot of good laws which do approximately this.

We prosecute criminal harassment or stalking - where we could say the only victim is a person's comfort; they're feelings.

Same with sexual harassment, racial harassment, polygamy, some drug laws - any crimes where there is no victim other than how people feel about it.

I think a lot of these victimless crime laws are to cut a problem in the bud. A stalker can turn violent, sexual harassment can turn rapist, racial harassment can turn violent, etc. Similarly, hate speech and hate crimes can encourage further violence against a group of people rather than an individual which, in the same spirit of the above examples, should be punished.

It sounds like you're coming from a libertarian perspective, which I can understand. But if someone makes you fear for your safety - directly or because of your religion, color, sexual preference - by making threats to you personally or committing or encouraging crimes against your category, then you have recourse. No one has the right to make you fear for your life.
40 posted on 06/16/2007 2:01:59 PM PDT by UndauntedR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: UndauntedR
That's kind of absurd.

Your subjective opinion, not an argument of fact.

No one has the right to make you fear for your life.

I guess there's the difference, and maybe I'm an oddball; no one can make me fear for my life without making a direct threat to my face. Even if they threaten my "category" through graffiti or whatnot, they don't know me or where to find me. Standing in front of me, with a weapon, and offering to use it on me the individual, that's another story; even then, permitted the use of my own defensive means, I will have not fear, but confidence.

Oh well. Guess some people can't "man up". Especially if they can wield government power as a weapon by calling themselves "oppressed" in some way.

I grow weary of this. Look for no further replies.

41 posted on 06/16/2007 2:18:36 PM PDT by ExGeeEye (Any means, fair or foul, to defeat the islamic filth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ExGeeEye
Oh well. Guess some people can't "man up".

Hand to hand combat is not exactly everyone's ideal problem solving situation.

Watch the black/gay/muslim/catholic/jew guy/girl try to fight back and then everyone who has been waiting for an excuse to pile on...

Not everyone is a big strong confident meatheaded man - and they shouldn't have to be in order not to be threatened or intimidated.
42 posted on 06/16/2007 2:40:40 PM PDT by UndauntedR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson