A criminal is a criminal and a violent, hateful, racist criminal is still a violent , hateful criminal regardless of his or her race.

The truth is nobody does anything for just one reason. Someone may hate another because of their race but assault them for an unrelated reason. So "they always get away" and "that's for Trayvon" could just be rationalized embroidery for other motives.

And the hype is more embroidery still with another layer of convoluted motives.

that "hate crime" is an unnecessary distinction?

"hate crime" is a made up, difficult to prove, unnecessary charge, think crime. Many murders are committed because the murderer hated the victim. Why does what a person was thinking matter?

As opposed to killing him because he likes other guys?

But that really wasn't the main point for my thread.

both were robbed of their life. Both are equally dead. Both lives are equally important.

distinct and provable thresholds for conviction.

and by statue adds years to sentences.

It does not mean it should be thrown out. IN the case of Zimmy. and no, neither you or I could serve in that jury, we know way too much, I think it was a component of it based on 911 tapes.

with any degree of fairness, thus equal protection is nearly impossible. Dead is dead, murdered is murdered, no ambiguity should be inserted into a criminal case, it should be avoided.

violations in some cases. Yes, they could and do include others who victimize whites. A denial of your civil rights, where technically these things fall under, is a denial of your civil rights.

If you go burn a building... it is one thing, if you go burn a church, and leave "love notes" behind, or a synagogue, or a mosque, then that is a civil rights violation and a hate crime.

I know in an ideal world this would not be added, but in that ideal world racial or religious hate would NOT enter the equation. That is the ideal of one Martin Luther King, we are so far from that ideal it is not even funny.

If you kill somebody it is one thing, if we can prove you did because you hated gays, blacks, hispanics, or rarely whites, that is another thing and under the law it is actually worst.

Yes, the people who have been attacking whites in revenge of Trayvon SHOULD also face penalties under hate crimes statues, that is a gimme.

If you kill somebody it is one thing, if we can prove you did because you hated gays, blacks, hispanics, or rarely whites, that is another thing and under the law it is actually worst.

Why is it worse? Why is it worse than killing your BIL because he divorced your sister?

it was not your BIL you were killing, somebody you knew, but one of "them" and you would kill another one of "Them" because they are different.

By the way in some cases civil rights is actually involved if it happens to be "one of them."

Criminal law, which I understand you cannot grasp, does distinguish between crimes of passion, and crimes that actually threaten social order.

Hate crimes fall under the latter category.

It is not an easy concept to grasp either.

and there are few areas of criminal law as ambiguous as 'hate crime'.

but it is clear as day to me.

Perhaps because of family experience.

What it is not easy to do, is PROVE IT... but in this case the 911 tapes "They always get away with it," and "Fucking Coons," will go a long way.

Such crimes are done to send threat to a wider group than just the direct recipients of the cross.
If dead is dead was the standard, why then is 'laying in wait' a factor in prosecution? It is in fact legally worse if a killer lies in wait to commit the crime, although no one is more dead due to that planning and lying in wait. Murder as part of a kidnapping, also legally worse than 'mere' murder, although again, no one is 'more dead'.
We could do this all day.

Racial intimidation is vastly, obviously different from the use of "hate crime" attempted in the OP.

A burning cross is not a campfire. It's a threat. Murder is murder, and it's no more or less heinous if the perpetrator is biased.

Hate crime statutes that simply increase penalties for existing crimes are a legal quagmire with endless unintended results, not the least of which is they're disproportionately used against members of minority groups. They solve nothing for society and open the door to punishing speech and thought.

differently than other crimes.
While you harp on murder, the fact is that bias crimes are far more often beatings, theft and damage to physical property. Acts of intimidation. Like cross burnings.
Your arguments are thin and not consistent, you are focused on murder and on race, when the actual crimes tend toward assault and religious bias.

Cross burning is not penalized under penalty enhancement statutes. It was criminalized as an act of intimidation because of its symbolic content. It was challenged on First Amendment grounds and passed.

This thread is about penalty enhancement for Zimmerman. It shouldn't apply, and the laws contemplated that might apply are problematic.

Penalty enhancement statutes are typically about things like race and murder. The Supreme Court case finding them acceptable was about a group of black teens who beat a white kid into a coma after watching "Mississippi Burning."

These laws are frequently aimed at racial minorities. Think of the non-white suspect screaming epithets at the white police officer.

put in order prior to so much as discussing any particular case. So, on the thread you were claiming there is no such thing as people getting prosecuted for civil rights when that is simply false.
None of my comments are specific to Zimmerman. They are regarding the reasons for the statutes, and regarding the fact of civil rights prosecutions. If you can claim in error that there is no such thing in this thread, I can certainly counter that point. To do so requires no commentary on this or any particular case.
Most hate crimes prosecutions are not for murder. They are not mostly race related, more religion and sexuality related, and so on and so on.

9/11 was just 3,497 counts of murder?

"Hate crimes" aren't about the murderer "hating" the victim even more than usual. It's about the murderer trying to send a message through the crime to an entire group of people that he/she hates.

In that sense, "hate crimes" are garden variety, small scale acts of terrorism and they are different from "murders" in that they impact an entire target community to a far greater extent.

Intent is already factored into the classification of crimes. Is the difference between first degree murder and manslaughter a made up, difficult to prove, unnecessary, "think crime" distinction? No. It is a necessary recognition that intent is an important thing to try to get at when it comes to prosecution and sentencing of certain crimes.

It includes property destruction for political or religious reasons. In my opinion, killing people and destroying logging equipment are two very different things.

that there is an important distinction between killing your wife because you caught her in bed with another man and killing a random person on the street because he/she is gay/black/Jewish/etc.? Those aren't both the same crime and they shouldn't be dealt with by the justice system in the same way.

The murder itself - the crime against the black man - and the act of terrorism against the African American community - the "Hate Crime" portion of the act. Both victims deserve justice and both crimes deserve to be prosecuted.

hate crimes are committed to intimidate, harm or terrify not only a person but an entire group to which the victim belongs.

It really is that simple, imo.

then a gang murder would fit too, no?

Zimmerman killed a black guy after becoming suspicious of him because of his race.
Now, some folks here are linking incidents of black on white crime as if that exculpates Zimmy.
White, black, brown, a victim is a victim and a perp is a perp.
That's my point.

"hate crime" is an unnecessary diversion which always results in an over emphasis on race when the crime itself is really all that is needed to convict a person.

result in an over emphasis on race. Crimes coming from religious hate are perhaps the top sort. Anti gay hate crimes are also a large factor.
So it is not always race. Odd in a way you'd claim that it is....

... to prove that George Zimmerman was trying to send a message to other black people (using the standard a few posts up.)

The victim (or victims) have to be targeted because of the protected group they are part of.

If a temple is vandalized and robbed, is it a hate crime? Maybe, maybe not. If a temple is vandalized and robbed, and swastikas and Anti-Semitic slurs are spraypainted on the walls, then it's a hate crime.

committed against a person, property, or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin.

If not, then it would not 'qualify' under the hate crime definition.

Usually gang murders aren't against the above listed, they are turf wars or retaliation murders, imo.

I now see threads highlighting incidents of racially motivated attacks on whites by blacks in an attempt to mitigate Zimmerman's action. The reaction among some here is to poo poo the incident or attack the poster.

My point is if you attack someone because he or she is different from you, you are garbage, regardless of your race, religion, sexual orientation, et cetera.

to mitigate Zimmerman's action? Or are they trying to show the inequality of application of these laws? This is why 'hate crime' shouldn't be, IMO, because it is almost impossible to apply evenly or fairly..equal protection and all that...

.

"A hate crime, also known as a bias crime, is a criminal offense committed against a person, property, or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin."

The definition is taken directly from the FBI site, it is worth reading the whole thing, looking at the graphs, collected statistics, etc, imo:

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/hate_crime/index.html

Do you believe the hate crime law as written is a good law? I certainly do.

Do you believe if one kills someone solely because of their bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin it qualifies as a hate crime? I do.

Maybe I am not understanding what you mean by "different than you" if you aren't meaning the same "differences" listed under the hate crime law.

Everyone except for Mr. Owens' sister and a friend has said so, including the Mayor and law enforcement.

and murky is bad for a criminal prosecution. 'Think crimes' are murky by definition short of some very overt aspect to the crime...a swastika carved into the victim, an admission by the accused, or some other undeniable act. Speculation about intent may be used during the sentencing maybe if there is judicial discretion in sentencing to try to get the judge to go toward the more severe end of the sentencing range, it shouldn't be a separate charge IMO.

if there is any murkiness it is doubtful the charge, if made, will be successful. I don't see the problem.

The "tribe" needs to be expanded so people stop categorizing the "other".

How can we ever see people as individuals when we are encouraged to classify people and assume motivation constantly?

if he wasn't fixated on Martin's race....

It dehumanizes people into "The Other."

If they want to check they should check everyone or randomly.

I'm not feeling encouraged to classify people and assume motivation. Not sure what the angle is saying this in the context of a hate crimes thread. Anyways, it is important to think of race somewhat otherwise we ignore the institutionalized decriminalization and disadvantages and therefore won't do anything about it. I notice people often say similar things and then argue against things that protect minorities or level the playing field.

there is a risk of confusing the case with too much emphasis on the "race" aspect, true as it might be. The known fact is that Zimmerman shot and killed Martin with no apparent cause.
Murder is the basic crime, not racism. He should be prosecuted for murder not racism.

Now, as it stands, if the hate crime isn't proven, he might get off on the murder charge.
That would be a bad thing.

was a hate crime. It is the State of Florida that has charged Zimmerman with 2nd degree murder. They have not charged him with a hate crime so if the DOJ decides not to charge him with a hate crime, that does not affect the State 2nd degree murder charge.

weaken the civil case. In any event, I favor concentrating on prosecuting the primary crime of which is murder in the first degree.

... that if George Zimmerman is found not guilty, as per Stand Your Ground, then he is immune to civil prosecution as well.

“Zimmerman will have to show that he has a reasonable belief that it was necessary, not just desirable, to use that deadly force in order to prevent death to himself or serious bodily injury or [to prevent the] commission of a forcible felony,” Allred explained.

She added though, "If he prevails at this hearing and then prevails on appeal … he'll have complete immunity, even from a civil case by the parents.”

http://www.hlntv.com/video/2012/04/16/how-zimmerman-could-have-immunity-civil-trial

case. I was in too big of a hurry to precisely spell out all of my related thoughts.

Well, this is Democratic Underground so...no to the 'all' part of that.

Society has a collective interest in protecting minorities from bias crimes, which often come in waves and can terrorize the communities they are taking place in. Prosecuting the crimes as simply bias-free "murder" doesn't send a message to society that targeting victims on the basis of their inborn characteristics isn't going to be tolerated. Prosecuting as hate crimes does.

a very poor job of it. (That doesn't mean that I believe your statement to be untrue.)

I don't disagree with you, although the gaudy horrors of yesteryear have died down slightly. Things like whites burning down entire towns of black folk are less common. We have millions of miles to go as a society to truly improve things, agreed.

fear of prosecution. The Zimmerman case doesn't seem that much different to me.

There's no hope anyway? Would there have been a public response sixty years ago to a white on black murder like the way there has been this year to Trayvon's murder? I'm saying, things are still sick, but the fact that we have laws means that we can and do shift societal response. Zimmerman is now in the hands of the law. I'm not trying to be pollyanna about this, he could get off without much punishment. But he's not being allowed to just have things all his way, either.

What I've been trying to say is that the primary crime in the Martin case was murder. Racial
hatred was very likely to be a major contributing factor and most definitely should also be
dealt with.

However, I'm a bit uneasy that the racial aspect has overshadowed the horror of the fundamental crime that was murder. I recognize that if the incident had been between two individuals of the same race, it would have hardly made the news. To me that shows that
people are more emotional about hate crime than they are about murder.

Anyway, I think that Zimmerman is guilty of both charges, i.e. murder and hate crime.

was that Zimmerman almost *didn't* get charged with anything, including murder. That wasn't even considered by the police who first picked him up, but the killing was considered almost a routine work of housekeeping under the SYG law.

Not only do we have the racial bias aspect, there is the system that hastened to smooth it over. Usually in murders that are picked up by the public, there isn't this hesitancy to do anything to the perpetrator by law and order. I don't think people are *more* emotional about the racial aspect, there are discussions here all the time of high-profile killings. People got emotional about the Meredith Kercher murder here, and also the Casey Anthony trial.

isn't tolerated regardless the justification. But in actuality, criminal punishment is just that, punishment for a crime, not a message to society...it is justice for society.

Of course justice is a message. You say in your first sentence that the message that "criminal activity isn't tolerated regardless the justification"--that is one form of a message. However, we as a society decided that this message wasn't far-enough reaching to prevent bias crimes. Hate crimes enhancements are becoming more common. I'm not sure what the basis for the objection is.

Penalty enhancement statutes aren't the same as racial intimidation crimes. So the rationale that any crime wherein you can accuse the perpetrator of bias is a larger societal threat is a fallacy.

Assuming the scenario that seems most obvious -- that Zimmerman judged Martin a thug based at least in part on his skin color -- was Zimmerman sending a "message" that black teenagers would simply be murdered for walking around?

But no one thinks that. His (presumed) bias was in that he actually thought Martin was a criminal. His bias caused him to believe something that wasn't true. It was a mistake. We can punish him more than that?

I don't think any hate crime statute is going to be applied to Zimmerman. Barring the unlikely confirmation of the supposed "c**n" comment, there's no evidence race was his motive for killing.

Which gets us, in a way, to the heart of the problem. The suggestion here is that Zimmerman should be punished more harshly because he was stupidly racist, not because he set out to commit a racist attack.

That's not what the hate crime statutes contemplate, and even what they contemplate is problematic.

I think that Zimmerman thought Trayvon was a criminal because he was a black teenager walking in his vicinity. If a white teenager wearing a hoodie had been walking down the street with tea and Skittles, I think the chances of Zimmerman stalking and killing Trayvon would have been reduced to zero.

His bias cause him to kill a young person. It was more than a mistake, it was a travesty. Yes, we can punish him more than just the presumed pain for his "mistake". Other people need to know there are consequences for this "mistake". Bias is not itself a crime, but bias leading to violence sure as hell should be.

The suggestion that you suggest was not part of my suggestion, so there's no value in my responding to what I perceive as a strawman.

There's no indication Zimmerman sought out a black person to kill. What we all assume is that he was looking to confront a criminal, and racial bias factored into his assumption he'd found one in Martin.

The penalty enhancement laws are bad enough as they are, wherein someone with the intent to commit a crime selects a victim on the basis of group status. They're problematic because they in effect make bias a crime, and because they require looking into someone's political, religious, or cultural views, which are never supposed to be punished.

But what you're suggesting -- that Zimmerman's bad judgment in mistakenly assuming someone was a criminal (presumably) in part because of his race is also subject to punishment -- goes much further. That's more like prejudice, which even more ambiguous.

In housing, employment, public facilities and businesses, pay rate, and using bias to target someone for a crime.

I don't think Zimmerman will be charged with a hate crime, although I think he did target Trayvon because of his race.

These laws that purport to examine a person's biased thoughts and punish them for it are a new idea. And a problematic one.

frank taaffe has pointed out OVER AND OVER, ad nauseum, that the reason that this murder happened was because of the break-ins in the neighborhood that supposedly committed by people who looked like Trayvon. Because we know that Trayvon WASN'T A TWIN, the only thing that he had in common with those "burglars" was the COLOR OF HIS SKIN!

It wouldn't be less of a crime somehow if Zimmerman had relied just on the hoodie, or just on his age, or just on the fact he didn't recognize him.

Our assumptions about what was going on in Zimmerman's head that we don't like don't make the killing worse.

There's no indication Zimmerman set out to simply murder a black person. Under the scenario most of us are assuming, he wanted a confrontation with a criminal, and it appears part of Zimmerman's internal picture of a criminal included race. That's despicable, if true, but it's not a crime until he gets out of the car and follows, confronts and kills someone.

If I'm not mistaken, you were very focused on the supposed "c**n" comment, which the police have apparently dismissed. It's important as to whether Zimmerman is racist, but was it ever evidence of a crime? Should his conviction on murder charges turn on whether he made a racist comment, or on whether he attacked someone?

why was he "SUSPICIOUS"? BECAUSE OF THE COLOR OF HIS SKIN AND THE HOODIE HE WAS WEARING IN THE RAIN WAS JUST THE CHERRY ON THE CAKE OF zimmy the giggling sociopath's FUCKING SUSPICION! He not only needs to take lying ass to gaol because he murdered that BOY, (WHO WILL NEVER GET UP AGAIN. A dirt nap is permanent!) but he needs to pay extra for OPENLY profiling a BLACK KID and calling him a mother fucking COON!! I know what the fuck I heard! I have Very GOOD EAR, seeing as how I now only am a pianist BUT speak a few languages! I KNOW WHAT I HEARD!!!

You know, it's REAL EASY for you to talk like this when you haven't walked ONE.DAMN.INCH. in the shoes of people who look like me and Trayvon. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN FOLLOWED THROUGH A STORE BY SECURITY SIMPLY BECAUSE YOUR SKIN IS A DIFFERENT COLOR??!! Have you ever had people treat you differently in person because on the phone you don't "sound black", (whatever the fuck that is) and suddenly, a place you wanted to rent became unavailable when they see your face?
Have you ever had people clutch their cheap ass purses closer because they see you getting into an elevator with them SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE COLOR OF YOUR SKIN?? Because unless you have experienced just one of these things BASED ON A PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTE, DON'T TRY TO TELL ME THAT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL I'M TALKING ABOUT!!


I know shit when I see it, hear it or smell it and I am sick ans tired of people trying, (IN VAIN, BTW) to convince their fellow Americans whose experience and life has been everything short of being actually shot that we're imagining what we see as clear as day! I hope that son of a bitch lives the rest of his LYING MISERABLE MURDERING AND BIGOTTED LIFE in a prison where he's afriad that every other imnmate is PROFILING his ass to potentially MURDER him in the same way he did TRAYVON BASED ON HIS APPEARANCE, whatever that may be!!!

I'm not diminishing the apparent racist thinking here in the slightest. But trying to show cause and effect by looking at what Zimmerman mumbled into the phone is a much bigger mess than showing he stalked, confronted, and shot and innocent kid.

You don't think a guy with Zimmerman's outlook would shoot someone of some other color because of some other idiot idea in his head? That he was some kind of neighborhood "watchman?" That he thought was qualified and authorized to get out of his car with a gun and demand to know what someone was doing? To start a fight and kill someone when it didn't go his way? If we limit what we say went wrong here to the apparent race bias, we let the rest of that go.

This is one of the few issues in which I find myself staring at other liberals across the fence. But it is not for lack of fury over bigotry of any stripe. I think trying to pin this type of crime on a racial motive is simply not workable, and introduces more problems than it solves, and I do not believe it either punishes or discourages the wrong that was done.

SKIN...PERIOD. END of story and that's all! He was a vigilante AGAINST people who happened to be too brown. Do you HONESTLY think that he would have been as "SUSPICIOUS" if he was lily white? This was the "watchman" who called the police last summer on another "suspicious" person who was a black male but that suspicious black male happened to be 9 YEARS OLD AND PLAYING IN HIS PARENTS DRIVE!!

You do realise that this "watchman". ( of a NW program that DID NOT EXIST-IT WAS NOT REGISTERED AND YOU HAVE TO BE TO BE A n.W.), made over 40 calls to police about 'SUSPICIOUS" people who just happened to be, I'm sure , black males? Now, you want me to believe that in addition to the crime that he committed by murdering an innocent, it wasn't precipitated by his demonstrable bigotry against all "suspicious" human beings who just happened to look like me?

You're partially correct that the crime his committed was murder after causing a confrontation BUT the enhancement is the reason it happened that that is because TRAYVON'S.HAIR.WAS.TOO.WOOLY,HIS.TAN.WAS.TOO.DARK AND.PERMANENT! period. ABSOLUTELY A HATE CRIME...........................The very Eseence of what it means to commit a hate crime!

Now you can him and haw all you want BUT NOTHING changes that fact..NOTHING!!

Inherent in a hate crime for some reason. I don't get it.

It's murder and a crime.

The rob someone and shoot them just because it's opportune. You rob and shoot someone because they are gay. Or an interracial couple. Or Muslim. Or Jewish. Or in a wheelchair. Or TG.

They think bad things happen because of personalized reasons, and not from being conditioned by societal biases and station in society.

So yeah, you're not getting it. The supposed legal justification for hate crime laws has zero to do with civil rights. Nothing.

The rationale is that a greater harm is done, and so a greater crime committed, if it is done out of group bias, or that there is some deterrent effect to punishing such crimes more harshly.

Civil rights is a distinct concept having to do with what the government can and cannot do.

You aren't getting it. By a country mile.

Why do you think there is a "protected classes" clause on employment applications? Or why landlords can't refuse to rent to an unmarried couple, or why a business can't make Blacks use a different entrance? And, if civil rights is only to protect people from government and not other people, why is it illegal to refuse to sell a house )or show a house) to people of color?

Some jurisdictions and companies also add LGBT folks into the mix, but the Federal government rarely does, although the Matthew Shepherd Act does make it a hate crime to target LGBT folks because of their LGBT status.

I'll also toss in Title IX and Lily Ledbetter Act in here, too.

Try bringing a civil rights case against a private person sometime. Can't do it.

Because you are so off base you aren't even in the infield anymore.

We have some limited restrictions on public facilities and employers, based on equal protection and commerce. We do not have laws contemplating the violation of one individual's "civil rights" by another.

The latest available data from the Justice Department show that during December 2011 the government reported 39 new civil rights prosecutions. The largest number were filed in the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland) and concerned religiously-motivated assaults on practitioners of the Amish religion. Another large case was filed in the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) and involved sex trafficking of children by force, fraud or coercion, which may be evidence of this district's strategy to identify and prosecute such cases."
At the link you will find much,much information which address civil rights prosecutions in a way which I think might enlighten you as to the scope and scale of the crimes so prosecuted.
You are really far afield and in the weeds and all that....
http://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/crim/276/

They're citing the Matthew Shepherd hate crime law, along with a host of specific federal statutes against everything from child sex trafficking to evidence tampering, all handled out of DOJ's Civil Rights Division.

The problem with the penalty enhancement statutes remains. They contemplate an additional harm based on what someone is thinking, and open the door to abuse. Zimmerman's apparent crime is a particularly bad example of people wanting to punish bias, rather than the actual bad act.

I'd say your opinions are not well informed at all. And again, not speaking of Zimmerman, I am merely pointing out that you are wildly incorrect regarding civil rights prosecutions, and also regarding exactly what those crimes are. Additionally, the repetition of the concept that it is always 'what people are thinking' when it is usually what they say and do that indicates their reasons for committing the crime.
So I think what you need, again, is more information on the particulars of these issues.
And incidentally, I am not saying that civil rights prosecution and hate crimes prosecutions are the same thing, as some civil rights cases are not hate crimes at all, they are simply for profit enterprises which in the course of their crimes deny a person of their civil rights, such as keeping people prisoner, for sexual or other exploitation.

Who else would it be?

That's what civil rights are. You have no civil rights against the actions of a private person. Think of the Bill of Rights. There's no First Amendment action against a private person restricting your right to speech. Etc.

Why did restaurants, etc. need to be desegregated by law? The Civil Rights movement was aimed at both kinds of restrictions, public and private. People absolutely can violate civil rights.

In America, your civil rights come from the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. An individual person cannot violate anyone's civil rights. We have legislation that prevents some forms of discrimination by public facilities and employers, based on equal protection or interstate commerce.

You are talking about bigotry or discrimination and it's not the same thing. And that misapprehension is part of the problem with the arguments some are making regarding hate crime laws. It is not generally illegal to be biased. And it shouldn't be. What we as a society have tried to prevent is inequality of rights under the law, and inequality of access to employment and public services. We have never attempted to punish people for being biased. I think too much of the support for so-called "hate-crime" penalty enhancement laws comes from a desire to punish people for thinking or feeling the "wrong" thing. That's a dangerous road to travel, and lends itself easily to abuse and overreach.

If you have an example of someone in their individual capacity having been found to have violated someone's civil rights, please provide it.

Any landlord who is found to have violated this law will have violated Civil Rights. Landlords are often individuals. You are splitting hairs. These laws exist, deal with it. http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2009/June/09-crt-610.html

Justice Department Files Lawsuit Alleging Racial Discrimination at Mobile Home Park in Gulfport, Mississippi
Federal Civil Rights Complaint Filed on Behalf of a Family Displaced by Hurricane Katrina

The Department today filed a lawsuit against the former owner and managers of Homestead Mobile Home Village, a mobile home park in Gulfport, Miss., for violating the Fair Housing Act by discriminating against black tenants on the basis of race or color.

The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi charges that Edward and Barbara Hamilton, the former managers of the mobile home park, unjustly sought to evict a black couple and their five minor children who had moved there after being displaced by Hurricane Katrina. According to the complaint, the Hamiltons attempted to evict the family and other black residents for allegedly violating the rules of the park, but did not attempt to evict white residents for as many or more violations. The complaint also alleges the Hamiltons harassed and intimidated black tenants. The suit names as a defendant Indigo Investments LLC, the owner of Homestead Mobile Home Park at the time the Hamiltons managed the park.

"No one should have to suffer harassing, unequal treatment from a landlord based on one’s race or color," said Loretta King, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. "The Justice Department will vigorously prosecute any landlord who engages in racial discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing Act."

The lawsuit arose from a complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) by two black residents of Homestead. The complainants also sought assistance from the Gulf Coast Fair Housing Center, a private, non-profit fair housing organization which provided additional information to HUD. After investigating the complaint, HUD issued a charge of discrimination and after one of the respondents named in HUD’s charge elected to have the case heard in federal court, the case was referred to the Justice Department. The suit also alleges that the defendants’ conduct constitutes a pattern or practice of discrimination or a denial of rights to a group of persons.

"It’s hard enough for families recovering from catastrophic events like Hurricane Katrina to put their lives back together, without also having to face housing discrimination," said John Trasvina, HUD’s Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. "HUD in partnership with the Department of Justice works to ensure there is no room for racial discrimination in a Mississippi mobile home park or anywhere else in the nation."

The lawsuit seeks monetary damages for those harmed by the defendants’ actions, civil penalties and a court order barring future discrimination.

Individuals who may have information related to this lawsuit should contact the Justice Department at 601-965-4480 or toll free at 1-800-896-7743. Fighting illegal housing discrimination is a top priority of the Justice Department. Visit the Civil Rights Division’s Web site at http://www.usdoj.gov/crt for more information about the laws it enforces.

The complaint is an allegation of unlawful conduct and the defendants are presumed innocent unless proven guilty. The allegations must still be proven in federal court.
09-610
Civil Rights Division

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/hce/housing_coverage.php

The Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq., prohibits discrimination by direct providers of housing, such as landlords and real estate companies as well as other entities, such as municipalities, banks or other lending institutions and homeowners insurance companies whose discriminatory practices make housing unavailable to persons because of:

race or color
religion
sex
national origin
familial status, or
disability.

In cases involving discrimination in mortgage loans or home improvement loans, the Department may file suit under both the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Under the Fair Housing Act, the Department of Justice may bring lawsuits where there is reason to believe that a person or entity is engaged in a "pattern or practice" of discrimination or where a denial of rights to a group of persons raises an issue of general public importance. Where force or threat of force is used to deny or interfere with fair housing rights, the Department of Justice may institute criminal proceedings. The Fair Housing Act also provides procedures for handling individual complaints of discrimination. Individuals who believe that they have been victims of an illegal housing practice, may file a complaint with the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] or file their own lawsuit in federal or state court. The Department of Justice brings suits on behalf of individuals based on referrals from HUD.


Discrimination in Housing Based Upon Race or Color
One of the central objectives of the Fair Housing Act, when Congress enacted it in 1968, was to prohibit race discrimination in sales and rentals of housing. Nevertheless, more than 30 years later, race discrimination in housing continues to be a problem. The majority of the Justice Department's pattern or practice cases involve claims of race discrimination. Sometimes, housing providers try to disguise their discrimination by giving false information about availability of housing, either saying that nothing was available or steering homeseekers to certain areas based on race. Individuals who receive such false information or misdirection may have no knowledge that they have been victims of discrimination. The Department of Justice has brought many cases alleging this kind of discrimination based on race or color. In addition, the Department's Fair Housing Testing Program seeks to uncover this kind of hidden discrimination and hold those responsible accountable. Most of the mortgage lending cases brought by the Department under the Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act have alleged discrimination based on race or color. Some of the Department's cases have also alleged that municipalities and other local government entities violated the Fair Housing Act when they denied permits or zoning changes for housing developments, or relegated them to predominantly minority neighborhoods, because the prospective residents were expected to be predominantly African-Americans.

Discrimination in Housing Based Upon Religion
The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing based upon religion. This prohibition covers instances of overt discrimination against members of a particular religion as well less direct actions, such as zoning ordinances designed to limit the use of private homes as a places of worship. The number of cases filed since 1968 alleging religious discrimination is small in comparison to some of the other prohibited bases, such as race or national origin. The Act does contain a limited exception that allows non-commercial housing operated by a religious organization to reserve such housing to persons of the same religion.

Discrimination in Housing Based Upon Sex, Including Sexual Harassment
The Fair Housing Act makes it unlawful to discriminate in housing on the basis of sex. In recent years, the Department's focus in this area has been to challenge sexual harassment in housing. Women, particularly those who are poor, and with limited housing options, often have little recourse but to tolerate the humiliation and degradation of sexual harassment or risk having their families and themselves removed from their homes. The Department's enforcement program is aimed at landlords who create an untenable living environment by demanding sexual favors from tenants or by creating a sexually hostile environment for them. In this manner we seek both to obtain relief for tenants who have been treated unfairly by a landlord because of sex and also deter other potential abusers by making it clear that they cannot continue their conduct without facing repercussions. In addition, pricing discrimination in mortgage lending may also adversely affect women, particularly minority women. This type of discrimination is unlawful under both the Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act.

Discrimination in Housing Based Upon National Origin
The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination based upon national origin. Such discrimination can be based either upon the country of an individual's birth or where his or her ancestors originated. Census data indicate that the Hispanic population is the fastest growing segment of our nation's population. The Justice Department has taken enforcement action against municipal governments that have tried to reduce or limit the number of Hispanic families that may live in their communities. We have sued lenders under both the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act when they have imposed more stringent underwriting standards on home loans or made loans on less favorable terms for Hispanic borrowers. The Department has also sued lenders for discrimination against Native Americans. Other areas of the country have experienced an increasing diversity of national origin groups within their populations. This includes new immigrants from Southeastern Asia, such as the Hmong, the former Soviet Union, and other portions of Eastern Europe. We have taken action against private landlords who have discriminated against such individuals.

Discrimination in Housing Based Upon Familial Status
The Fair Housing Act, with some exceptions, prohibits discrimination in housing against families with children under 18. In addition to prohibiting an outright denial of housing to families with children, the Act also prevents housing providers from imposing any special requirements or conditions on tenants with custody of children. For example, landlords may not locate families with children in any single portion of a complex, place an unreasonable restriction on the total number of persons who may reside in a dwelling, or limit their access to recreational services provided to other tenants. In most instances, the amended Fair Housing Act prohibits a housing provider from refusing to rent or sell to families with children. However, some facilities may be designated as Housing for Older Persons (55 years of age). This type of housing, which meets the standards set forth in the Housing for Older Persons Act of 1995, may operate as "senior" housing. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has published regulations and additional guidance detailing these statutory requirements.


Discrimination in Housing Based Upon Disability
The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in all types of housing transactions. The Act defines persons with a disability to mean those individuals with mental or physical impairments that substantially limit one or more major life activities. The term mental or physical impairment may include conditions such as blindness, hearing impairment, mobility impairment, HIV infection, mental retardation, alcoholism, drug addiction, chronic fatigue, learning disability, head injury, and mental illness. The term major life activity may include seeing, hearing, walking, breathing, performing manual tasks, caring for one's self, learning, speaking, or working. The Fair Housing Act also protects persons who have a record of such an impairment, or are regarded as having such an impairment. Current users of illegal controlled substances, persons convicted for illegal manufacture or distribution of a controlled substance, sex offenders, and juvenile offenders are not considered disabled under the Fair Housing Act, by virtue of that status. The Fair Housing Act affords no protections to individuals with or without disabilities who present a direct threat to the persons or property of others. Determining whether someone poses such a direct threat must be made on an individualized basis, however, and cannot be based on general assumptions or speculation about the nature of a disability. The Division's enforcement of the Fair Housing Act's protections for persons with disabilities has concentrated on two major areas. One is insuring that zoning and other regulations concerning land use are not employed to hinder the residential choices of these individuals, including unnecessarily restricting communal, or congregate, residential arrangements, such as group homes. The second area is insuring that newly constructed multifamily housing is built in accordance with the Fair Housing Act's accessibility requirements so that it is accessible to and usable by people with disabilities, and, in particular, those who use wheelchairs. There are other federal statutes that prohibit discrimination against individuals with disabilities, including the Americans with Disabilities Act, which is enforced by the Disability Rights Section of the Civil Rights Division.

Discrimination in Housing Based Upon Disability Group Homes
Some individuals with disabilities may live together in congregate living arrangements, often referred to as "group homes." The Fair Housing Act prohibits municipalities and other local government entities from making zoning or land use decisions or implementing land use policies that exclude or otherwise discriminate against individuals with disabilities. The Fair Housing Act makes it unlawful --

To utilize land use policies or actions that treat groups of persons with disabilities less favorably than groups of non-disabled persons. An example would be an ordinance prohibiting housing for persons with disabilities or a specific type of disability, such as mental illness, from locating in a particular area, while allowing other groups of unrelated individuals to live together in that area.
To take action against, or deny a permit, for a home because of the disability of individuals who live or would live there. An example would be denying a building permit for a home because it was intended to provide housing for persons with mental retardation.
To refuse to make reasonable accommodations in land use and zoning policies and procedures where such accommodations may be necessary to afford persons or groups of persons with disabilities an equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing. What constitutes a reasonable accommodation is a case-by-case determination. Not all requested modifications of rules or policies are reasonable. If a requested modification imposes an undue financial or administrative burden on a local government, or if a modification creates a fundamental alteration in a local government's land use and zoning scheme, it is not a "reasonable" accommodation.

There has been a significant amount of litigation concerning the ability of local governmental units to exercise control over group living arrangements, particularly for persons with disabilities. To provide guidance on these issues, the Departments of Justice and Housing and Urban Development have issued a Joint Statement on Group Homes, Local Land Use and the Fair Housing Act.


Discrimination in Housing Based Upon Disability -- Accessibility Features for New Construction
The Fair Housing Act defines discrimination in housing against persons with disabilities to include a failure "to design and construct" certain new multi-family dwellings so that they are accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities, and particularly people who use wheelchairs. The Act requires all newly constructed multi-family dwellings of four or more units intended for first occupancy after March 13, 1991, to have certain features: an accessible entrance on an accessible route, accessible common and public use areas, doors sufficiently wide to accommodate wheelchairs, accessible routes into and through each dwelling, light switches, electrical outlets, and thermostats in accessible location, reinforcements in bathroom walls to accommodate grab bar installations, and usable kitchens and bathrooms configured so that a wheelchair can maneuver about the space.

Developers, builders, owners, and architects responsible for the design or construction of new multi-family housing may be held liable under the Fair Housing Act if their buildings fail to meet these design requirements. The Department of Justice has brought many enforcement actions against those who failed to do so. Most of the cases have been resolved by consent decrees providing a variety of types of relief, including: retrofitting to bring inaccessible features into compliance where feasible and where it is not -- alternatives (monetary funds or other construction requirements) that will provide for making other housing units accessible; training on the accessibility requirements for those involved in the construction process; a mandate that all new housing projects comply with the accessibility requirements, and monetary relief for those injured by the violations. In addition, the Department has sought to promote accessibility through building codes.

General Information Housing and Civil Enforcement Section

Leadership
Steven H. Rosenbaum
Chief
Contact
Housing & Civil
Enforcement Section
(202) 514-4713
TTY - 202-305-1882
FAX - (202) 514-1116
Fair Housing Tip Line (to report an incident of housing discrimination):
1-800-896-7743
Mailing Contact
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Housing and Civil Enforcement Section, NWB
Washington, D.C. 20530

Email: fairhousing@usdoj.gov

The Civil Rights Act deals with public facilities like housing and restaurants. It doesn't deal with your "civil rights" per se.

The landlord can't violate your right to free speech or your right to assemble, or your right a fair trial. All civil rights. Your next-door neighbor can't violate your right to freedom from discrimination on the basis of group status either, unless she's your landlord or your employer.


Edit: Let's back up and simplify: You suggested hate crime laws are about civil rights. If that's the case, why do we have hate crime laws, and why do they not mention civil rights, at all?

Done with this conversation. Hate crime laws exist and are good things. Go bug someone else.

"hate crime" laws because I don't think the society and/or the legal system has any business punishing people for what they think. I might beat the shit out of a homophobic asshole (have done it several times) but I quaver at the notion they could face criminal charges for believing as they do. That's about the worst bastardization of American principles I can think of.

"The largest number of prosecutions of these matters in December 2011 was for "Civil Rights-Slavery/Invol. Servitude", accounting for 66.7 percent of prosecutions. Prosecutions were also filed for "Civil Rights-Other" (28.2%), "Civil Rights-Law Enforcement" (5.1%).
The leading investigative agency for civil rights prosecutions in December 2011 was FBI, accounting for 79 percent of prosecutions referred."
And so forth, and so on....



http://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/crim/276/

Civil rights are only what the founding fathers say they were. No matter that the Constitution details all kinds of things that have been overturned as bigoted and archaic.

And BlueNW has reminded me we already call hate crime laws civil rights laws. So I concede that point. It's not what we used to mean by civil rights, but we have expanded the concept. That's okay.

But it's not the basis for whether hate crime laws are valid or not, or whether, as the OP suggests, the Zimmerman / Martin case is a hate crime. Even under the current concept of those laws, it's a bad example.

Sorry you lost your cool over this and found it necessary to start calling me a Libertarian and making up my point of view for me, but the OP is actually wrong.

incorrect. Hate crime laws are civil rights laws, as we've been trying to demonstrate. This is commonly known at DU and is not usually a point fought on for several posts.

I'm sorry you think hate crime laws are invalid. However, they exist. If you want to start a thread about how unjust they are, why don't you do that instead of getting into the faces of people who have the correct terminology for American laws on civil rights.

The OP is about Zimmerman / Martin. You raised the term civil rights as though this was a fundamental concept posters criticizing hate crimes laws did not understand. You were, and are, wrong about that.

Hate crimes penalty enhancement laws have been brought under the umbrella of civil rights. We call them that. But it's bootstrapping to suggest that because we do, they are fundamentally about civil rights. We do not have a tradition of protecting individuals from other individuals' biases. It's an expansion of the idea, and it's problematic when it's enforced by trying to examine the social and cultural opinions of someone accused of a crime, in order to punish them more harshly.

Please, claim victory on the issue of whether the Zimmerman / Martin case is a "hate crime" on the basis that hate crime laws have been called civil rights laws. Given that appears to be your only basis for arguing that they are valid, I can understand why you'd want to do that.

Thanks for being so sweet about all of this. Some people would get frustrated and start to be nasty.

Last edited Sat Apr 28, 2012, 11:18 PM - Edit history (2)

The courts will decide if Zimmerman's pattern of behavior leading up to the slaying of Trayvon Martin comes under a hate crime, that is why several us wanted him arrested, to have a court ruling. I have no place to claim victory on anything, I want to see justice done. I believe that Zimmerman slew Trayvon after a pattern of believing the absolute worst of Black people, based on his history of numerous 911 calls. You think it is just a coincidence, or a mistake. I call it pattern recognition. You call it "thoughtcrime".

The reason hate crime laws are called civil rights laws is hardly for shits and giggles. If you think the terminology is wrong, you are in selective company. Trying to marginalize my point of view on this is bizarre. My basis is the commonly accepted basis these days.

http://www.frc.org/content/q--a-whats-wrong-with-thought-crime-hate-crime-laws--

They are simply crimes in which a person's civil rights were denied or violated. So, with or without 'hate crime' laws, the US has always prosecuted violations of civil rights. Some civil rights crimes are also hate crimes. Not all. Some.
I think this is stuff you should read up on and then discuss with passion....

This is a no-brainer. Whites have never been the slaves, either literally or pragmatically through capitalistic destruction, of non-whites. So historically, there is a REASON to punish whites more for crimes against non-whites. If anything, an attack of a white by a non-white is a justifiable act to a certain degree BECAUSE of this historical outrage.

Yes, this may piss a lot of people off, but whites like myself have a special guilt that we must endure, and doubly so for whites with consciences whom are progressives like ourselves. To that end, NO crime should be considered a hate crime by a black against a white and should be judged on the merits of the actual crime itself, while ANY crime by a white against a non-white should ALWAYS merit a detailed racial investigation to warrant further hate crime charges.

For example, the attacks on whites to avenge Trayvon are a case of this.

I know the victims have a history as well, but they can be charged with it, and the prosecution should try to go there.

It is rare as hell, but as whites become a large minority in some states, it may even increase in frequency... granted, so will hate crimes by whites on other groups.

This is the kind of resistance that is historically predictable due to how it's gone down in other places. I think the clear enforcement of this will reduce the frequency of these crimes.

The OP got it right.

If anything, an attack of a white by a non-white is a justifiable act to a certain degree BECAUSE of this historical outrage.

That's an odd way of looking at things - You are essentially saying that people who are alive and innocent TODAY deserve to be punished for things that were done by DIFFERENT people, who are mostly dead, and mostly in the distant past.

WOW

If I embrace your logic does that mean "NO crime should be considered a hate crime by a Jew against a German"?

Excuse me while I go urinate in a holy water font.

anyone of British ancestry here better watch out.

You know, the white guy whose name is also on the hate crimes bill.

What a pantload being peddled here. Again.

Ah yes, we all bear the mark of Cain.

But to suggest we should be punished, even phyically punished, for the real or perceived sins of our ancestors is scary.

off the rails black and white (no pun intended), you come up with this.

Hopefully