Attention Wal-Mart Customers...

[lungs]

I know this would have no legal bearing but when I think of hate crime, I think of three white guys in Mississippi tying up one of those darned negroes that dared to try and vote or sleep with one of our white women and shooting him.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

I'm a very firm believer in the 1st amendment and as much as I hate the KKK, what they say is protected, as ugly and despicable as it is. So, what this law in NJ is saying that if the KKK went marching down the street with their traditional signs and slogans and racist talk, would they get arrested now?

I support the first amendment too, but just because speech is protected doesn't mean there are not consequences sometimes. (same would apply to slander, a bomb threat, etc)

And again I think this is likely being blown out of proportion with the threatened boycotts and media coverage, but it doesn't mean the kid who said it should not face some form of punishment.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Hey, don't hate us for being smart.

Nah, we don't hate lawyers for being smart. We had them for being slimy, manipulative, and money grubbing.

SI

[molson]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

I support the first amendment too, but just because speech is protected doesn't mean there are not consequences sometimes. (same would apply to slander, a bomb threat, etc)

I think the answer to speech we don't like is always more speech. Aside from those exceptions you noted (things that are not really speech), if someone says something that as a society, we reject, the answer is to respond with different speech. The media coverage, boycotts, protests, while annoying, aren't as troubling to me as the government penalizing someone for what they say. When it's illegal to say something critical about an ethnic group, it isn't really TOO far away for it to be illegal to say something critical about a political party, or religious belief.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JimboJ

Did anyone but me bother to look up the definition of hate crime.

Hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, class, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation.[1]

"Hate crime" generally refers to criminal acts which are seen to have been motivated by hatred of one or more of the listed conditions. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters (hate mail).

But you still need a crime that was motivated by the hate, and a victim that was chosen because of his protected trait. A "hate crime" is really just a sentencing enhancement for a something that would be a crime anyway. It doesn't make non-criminal conduct criminal.

There's no hate crime here, because if want to call this trespassing, Walmart is the victim and they don't have a protected trait. If it's harassment, who's the victim? Any black people that happen to be in the store? If he was specifically trying to harass or intimidate a specific black individual or group that he knew was there, we might have something, but I don't think these laws cover pranks.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by JimboJ

Did anyone but me bother to look up the definition of hate crime.

Hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, class, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation.[1]

"Hate crime" generally refers to criminal acts which are seen to have been motivated by hatred of one or more of the listed conditions. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters (hate mail).

I think we can all agree this could be considered bullying and harrasment. The key to the definition of hate crime is "motivated by hatred". You all assume that was not the case here, but you don't really know.

First of all, I hate political correctness with a passion. I will be the first one to come out against some trumped up racism charge just because the victim happens to be black.

But folks, racism doesn't get any more blatent than this. Put yourself in the position of a black person shopping in that store. You hear that announcement and you don't know what to think. Is it the store manager? A disgruntled employee? A KKK member? Or just some stupid kid trying to be funny? At that moment in time, all you know is that you have been asked to leave a store because of your race. How is that any different than being asked to sit in the back of the bus?

I agree that chances are it was just a stupid prank. But you can't assume that. You need to do an investigation, find the guy, and determine the motivation. Either way, it has to be considered a crime, and the offender needs to be punished in some way. If there is no deterent, what's going to stop others from doing the same thing? You now how copycats work. I don't want to have to listen to some jackass on the intercom telling me to smell his butt every time I walk into a store.

Let me start with point #1. . . racism doesn't get any more blatant than this? You are joking, right? I mean, even if you think this is blatant, it doesn't get any more blatant? Please.

And how is a jackass on a mic different than being asked to sit in the back of the bus? It's a dumbass kid pulling a dumb ass prank.

When people take things like this and try to turn it into a hate crime, discrimination, racism, etc. . . it lessens the impact of truly horrible things that happen to minorities. Something tells me this wouldn't have even got national press if it were a black kid who had went on the intercom and said "All white people leave the store" It would have been treated exactly like what it was. An idiotic prank gone wrong.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

but I don't think these laws cover pranks.

They will if the alleged victim happens to have been black. Or whines loudly enough.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

They will if the alleged victim happens to have been black. Or whines loudly enough.

That's painting with far too broad a brush. Just like ignorant white racist fuckers are a small minority, the handful of exploitive, ignorant blacks that look to turn this into a major issue are a small minority as well. Yet both of these groups create far too much noise for their numbers in relation to who the rest of us, black and white feel.

Add to that a media that salivates over anything considered controversial and that is the reason we are even having this discussion.

Punish the kid for being a Jackass, but don't demean the more serious issues that affect race relations in this country by turning this into something on par with physical violence or destruction of property.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

the handful of exploitive, ignorant blacks that look to turn this into a major issue are a small minority as well.

I might go along with it being less than 50%. I have a real tough time going along with it being a number much smaller than that though.

but don't demean the more serious issues that affect race relations in this country by turning this into something on par with physical violence or destruction of property.

Why not? We've certainly demeaned plenty of other things in the interest of so-called race relations, why should this be any different?

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I might go along with it being less than 50%. I have a real tough time going along with it being a number much smaller than that though.



Why not? We've certainly demeaned plenty of other things in the interest of so-called race relations, why should this be any different?

I think you don't give enough credit to people with your first statement Jon. Maybe it is different in the south (I was in Georgia for a time, but that was almost 30 years ago, so I can't speak on attitudes there) but in the western united states it is nowhere near 50%, in fact I would be surprised if it was even close to 20% in Arizona.

And that's my point, we need to stop that mentality of and put efforts toward the truly important issues, not every little trivial thing that gets far too much coverage.

[JimboJ]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Let me start with point #1. . . racism doesn't get any more blatant than this? You are joking, right? I mean, even if you think this is blatant, it doesn't get any more blatant? Please.

And how is a jackass on a mic different than being asked to sit in the back of the bus? It's a dumbass kid pulling a dumb ass prank.

When people take things like this and try to turn it into a hate crime, discrimination, racism, etc. . . it lessens the impact of truly horrible things that happen to minorities. Something tells me this wouldn't have even got national press if it were a black kid who had went on the intercom and said "All white people leave the store" It would have been treated exactly like what it was. An idiotic prank gone wrong.

Again, you're assuming the motivation was idiocy. But you don't really know that, do you?

[TroyF]

Why would I automatically "assume" that something is the worst thing it could be? I am making an assumption based on these things:

1) It's a 16 year old. 16 year olds are stupid. Some of them are violent. . . but that gets me to point two.

2) "All black people leave the store" He didn't say the N word. he didn't threaten violence. He did what I would expect a moronic 16 year old looking for attention to do.

3) Charge him with being a moron. Make him go to some racial training. Call it good. This is not something that should have been a national story. Nobody got hurt, everyone now knows it wasn't even a Wal-Mart employee who made the statements. This is a non story.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

Maybe it is different in the south (I was in Georgia for a time, but that was almost 30 years ago, so I can't speak on attitudes there)

Apparently so. Perhaps the differences lie in the makeup of state/regional population. Arizona is between 3-4%, Georgia is right at 30%. Over half the black population in the US is in the South, only 10% is in the West.

DISCLAIMER: I have no idea what the website I'm about to cite is - black racist, white racist, or totally neutral - I found it by Googling "us demographics by region" but I'll tentatively use it here for this purpose since the information in their tables seems to match what I see on wiki and elsewhere & it's in the most readable format I've seen tonight.

African American Population Demographics



It isn't that big a stretch to think there might be clues to the attitudes found in both ethnic groups in those figures.

[RedKingGold]

Are you trying to say that whites are more likely to sink in water?

[MJ4H]

only the gulf of mexico. looks like they float in the pacific

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Why would I automatically "assume" that something is the worst thing it could be? I am making an assumption based on these things:

1) It's a 16 year old. 16 year olds are stupid. Some of them are violent. . . but that gets me to point two.

2) "All black people leave the store" He didn't say the N word. he didn't threaten violence. He did what I would expect a moronic 16 year old looking for attention to do.

3) Charge him with being a moron. Make him go to some racial training. Call it good. This is not something that should have been a national story. Nobody got hurt, everyone now knows it wasn't even a Wal-Mart employee who made the statements. This is a non story.

+1

Should the kid get in trouble? yes

Should the kid get arrested? HELL NO!!!

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by JimboJ

Again, you're assuming the motivation was idiocy. But you don't really know that, do you?

Are you freaking serious? If the motivation was more than a freaking prank I would be pretty certain the language and tone would have been a hell of a lot different.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

So true, it could have even turned out to be not so harmless for him if the wrong person saw him make the announcement and kicked the shit out of him.

Harmless all to often = something bad is about to happen.

Then he learns his lesson. Story over.

Maybe harmless was the wrong word but it sure as hell isn't a "hate crime".

He did a prank and he should be punished but arrested is just plain stupid.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

I support the first amendment too, but just because speech is protected doesn't mean there are not consequences sometimes. (same would apply to slander, a bomb threat, etc)

And again I think this is likely being blown out of proportion with the threatened boycotts and media coverage, but it doesn't mean the kid who said it should not face some form of punishment.

Definitely agree with you regarding slander, libel and the like, but, as dumb and not cool as what the kid did, other than humiliation and ridicule, I really don't see what can be legally doled out.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Definitely agree with you regarding slander, libel and the like, but, as dumb and not cool as what the kid did, other than humiliation and ridicule, I really don't see what can be legally doled out.

It will be a minor charge, a slap on the wrist, but hopefully it at least sends a message not to be so stupid.

[RendeR]

I'm still looking for the "Crime" here?

he picked up a phone (there are dozens in each store) dialed the intercom number (workers never bother to hide it when they use it) and tried to do something he thought funny.

The fact that it wasn't funny isn't a Crime.

The fact that people might have been offended isn't a crime.

The fact that he used the phone isn't a crime.

I don't defend the act, but trying to arrest him for pretty much anything is an act in absurdity. Try to scare him, tell his parents, ban him from the store. maybe. But arrested? I'm thinking they'd best have their own lawyers on hand if they tried that.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

It will be a minor charge, a slap on the wrist, but hopefully it at least sends a message not to be so stupid.

Other than maybe trespassing, I can't figure out what else he could be charged with. There's no laws against being stupid, if there were, oh boy, you think the prisons are crowded now.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by RendeR

The fact that he used the phone isn't a crime.

How is picking up a phone that you do not own not a crime? Other than degree, how does this differ from "borrowing" someone's car for a joyride and returning it when you are done? The phone isn't yours, leave it alone.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

How is picking up a phone that you do not own not a crime? Other than degree, how does this differ from "borrowing" someone's car for a joyride and returning it when you are done? The phone isn't yours, leave it alone.

Huh? Did you actually just say that?

How is that different than, say, changing the channel on the TV in the electronics department so you can watch basketball while the missus shops? You own neither device, you used them both for your own purposes without express permission, etc. Same would be true if you tossed your receipt into the trash can behind the cashier after check out (rather than one by the door intended for customer use).

You have not denied anyone the use of the item, you have not removed it from their possession, you have not damaged the functionality of the item, you have simply used the unsecured device without authorization and I can't recall ever seeing a general law that covers that in & of itself (i.e. nothing that might put a store intercom in the same protected class as something such as unauthorized use of a police radio)

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Huh? Did you actually just say that?

How is that different than, say, changing the channel on the TV in the electronics department so you can watch basketball while the missus shops? You own neither device, you used them both for your own purposes without express permission, etc. Same would be true if you tossed your receipt into the trash can behind the cashier after check out (rather than one by the door intended for customer use).

I would argue that both examples are clearly public access. The TV is there to be demoed for you, the trash can is publically available.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You have not denied anyone the use of the item

Actually, you did, as it was unavailable for any store personnel to use during the time you were on it (and it blocks use from any other intercom acccess point while you are talking).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I would argue that both examples are clearly public access. The TV is there to be demoed for you, the trash can is publically available.

Depending upon the location of the intercom (I haven't seen whether it was behind closed doors or if it was one of the ones hanging on the support beams in the aisles)

Actually, you did, as it was unavailable for any store personnel to use during the time you were on it (and it blocks use from any other intercom acccess point while you are talking).

But unless someone attempted to use it then no one was actually denied anything.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

But unless someone attempted to use it then no one was actually denied anything.

And if you're asleep at midnight I'm not denying you the use of your car.

This wasn't the kids' phone, he should have just left it the heck alone. No matter how "harmless" it allegedly was or he thought it was, he violated the store's property rights by screwing with it.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

And if you're asleep at midnight I'm not denying you the use of your car.

This wasn't the kids' phone, he should have just left it the heck alone. No matter how "harmless" it allegedly was or he thought it was, he violated the store's property rights by screwing with it.

Its not illegal to use someone elses phone without their permission. its rude and its asinine, but its not illegal.

it IS illegal to drive someone elses car without their permission for 2 reasons, first its called grand theft auto, a felony offense, second you're not insured, which them becomes reckless endangerment, another felony offense.

bad argument.

[TroyF]

I don't even care if the use of the phone was illegal. Charge him with unauthorized use of a store intercom system. That'd be, what, a one hour class on how not to be a moron?

It's still a far different game than a "hate crime"

Maybe someone could help me out here: What does everyone talking about how horrible the kid is think he deserves?

1 month in jail? 1 year in jail? $25,000 donation to the NAACP? Publicly flogged? Death penalty?

I'll throw in my two cents: Zero jail time or fines. A 2 hour class on racial relations at the community center next Saturday.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Maybe someone could help me out here: What does everyone talking about how horrible the kid is think he deserves?

I think the arrest and having the parents come down to pick him up is probably enough. Make a note though so the next time he does something stupid we can start cranking it up before he does something serious and hurts someone.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Charge him with unauthorized use of a store intercom system.

Problem being is that there's almost certainly no such offense to charge him with, if he didn't violate any applicable statute then he can't be charged with anything.

Basically it appears to be a case where if he had picked up the phone & said "Go Northern Iowa" then there's no crime at all. As it happens, there's nothing but the invented crime of being an asshat & offending a minority to charge him with.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I think the arrest and having the parents come down to pick him up is probably enough. Make a note though so the next time he does something stupid we can start cranking it up before he does something serious and hurts someone.

Of course you make a note. Instead of saying before he does something serious, I would change it to IF he does something serious. I still don't see how we can auto jump to putting the kid into the klan for being a moron.

[Pumpy Tudors]

black man posting in this thread

[RedKingGold]

Lock it up.

[JediKooter]

Pumpy should ask the kid if he has stairs.

[Lathum]

I wonder if the kid has outlook

[ISiddiqui]

Attention FOFC posters, all blacks must leave the thread...

[Pumpy Tudors]

daaaaamn shit just got real

[sabotai]

How "black" do you have to be to be considered black? Because I think I might be 1/1024th black. Not 100% on it, but I might be.....do i have to leave?

[sabotai]

dola,

If you want to get technical about it, we're all black (if you go back far enough)....

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by sabotai

dola,

If you want to get technical about it, we're all black (if you go back far enough)....

Wasn't there a Meryl Streep movie by the same name?

[molson]

Originally Posted by sabotai

How "black" do you have to be to be considered black?

I think its somewhere between Tiger Woods and Samuel L. Jackson.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

black man posting in this thread

I swear I read this and heard it in the "Dead Man Walking ... !!!" voice.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by sabotai

dola,

If you want to get technical about it, we're all black (if you go back far enough)....

Well, you know the old saying, "Once you go back, you're black".

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Wasn't there a Meryl Streep movie by the same name?

Was there a Meryl Streep movie called "Dola, If You Want To Get Technical About It, We're All Black (If You Go Back Far Enough)..."?

...I'll check imdb.com.

Actually yes, there is!

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Was there a Meryl Streep movie called "Dola, If You Want To Get Technical About It, We're All Black (If You Go Back Far Enough)..."?

...I'll check imdb.com.

Actually yes, there is!

Ahhh, I see you found it.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by sabotai

How "black" do you have to be to be considered black?

This is a good question. I am really wondering about my qualifications as I look up and see that I wore a Cincinnati Mighty Ducks baseball cap to work today. So let's see here. I wore the cap of...

A hockey team
A minor-league hockey team
A defunct minor-league hockey team
A defunct minor-league hockey team in a city that I've only passed through without stopping

I think you'd actually have to be much blacker than this to be considered black.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

This is a good question. I am really wondering about my qualifications as I look up and see that I wore a Cincinnati Mighty Ducks baseball cap to work today. So let's see here. I wore the cap of...

A hockey team
A minor-league hockey team
A defunct minor-league hockey team
A defunct minor-league hockey team in a city that I've only passed through without stopping

I think you'd actually have to be much blacker than this to be considered black.

Pumpy saves the day again

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Attention FOFC posters, all blacks must leave the thread...

The funny thing is, this is actually worse than what that kid did, because more people will be subject to your expression of "hate" here than were in that Walmart store at the time he did that. And that ended up being front-page news.

I just checked CNN.com, and there's no mention of your hate crime yet. I'll let you know if I see anything.

[ISiddiqui]

Perhaps, but I, as a minority myself, cannot be racist