Is This a Hate Crime?

http://www.examiner.com/a-1089067~Woman_beaten_on_bus.html

Link to Article in the Baltimore paper.

"As Sarah Kreager, 26, tried to sit down on a Baltimore City bus Tuesday, police say, a middle-schooler told her she couldn’t. When she attempted to take another seat, a middle-schooler wouldn’t let her. Finally, according to police, Kreager just sat down.

She was “immediately attacked” by nine students — three females and six males — from Robert Poole Middle School. They punched and kicked her at 2:59 p.m. at the intersection of 33rd Street and Chestnut Avenue, according to Maryland Transit Administration police.
Kreager was dragged off the bus and her boyfriend, Troy Ennis, attempted to get her back on, police said.

She sustained “serious injuries” and had to be transported to the University of Maryland Shock Trauma Center, according to a police report. Kreager suffered two broken bones in her left eye socket, police said.
“She had eye muscles that were damaged,” a police report states. “She had deep lacerations on the top of her head and another above her neck.”

Two seats and the bus’ rear glass were destroyed during the attack, police said.

*snip*

All nine suspects, ages 14 and 15, were arrested and charged with aggravated assault. Greene said the investigation into the incident was ongoing and she didn’t know whether the attack had anything to do with the victim’s race. The suspects in the incident are black. The victim is white, according to the police report.

*snip*

What if all suspects were black or white and happened to be of different cliques? Or social levels?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

In the hate crime realm, often the immediate assumption is "hate crime" when the races are reversed. But who could know, thats why hate crimes laws are so fuzzy.

Hate Crime laws worry me a bit.

Let's treat crimes as crime, and stop trying to label or get in peoples head. Motivation is motivation....just process the crime and come to a fair judgement.


Look these kids are obviously disturbed on some level...they probably vented on her because she's white...but she could have been asian or whatever. Sometimes it's just frustration, what they did isn't worse because of her race. It's pretty heinous either way.

or were these just some nasty little s**ts who need some time in Juvie.

I'd be inclined to see it as a hate crime. It's hard, therefore, not to make the same judgment here.

As the most honest person on the thread ;)

What else would it be?

I've seen quotes from the different parents, claiming among other things, that the woman used the "N" word, spit on the children, and showed a knife. And that's why their little darlings were forced to defend themselves. And by "defend themselves", I mean gang up in a pack and batter the hell out of this poor woman and her boyfriend. :eyes: The stories, depending on which parent is telling them, contradict and are ridiulous.

There is no justification for this. The kids are thugs and the parents are liars. End of story.

this a hate crime, more info
is needed. It should at the minimum
be felony assault charges.

A crime rises to the level of a hate crime if it is perpetrated with the intent to intimidate, terrorize, or brutalize the identity community beyond the victim. If a white person kills a black person, it's murder. If the white person kills the black person and hangs a sign around the victim's neck to the effect that "This is what happens to niggers around here", it brings on the added aggravating factor of being a hate crime, because its effect is intended for the larger African American community in the area. According to the report, "Greene said the investigation into the incident was ongoing and she didn’t know whether the attack had anything to do with the victim’s race."

Is that such a difficult concept? We have all sorts of aggravating factors for crimes, including intent, motive and other circumstantial aspects. Or is there something larger at work here, including deliberate obtuseness?

though, by the sound of it, it's probably not the first time you've posted it. :hi:

Sid

It's not sufficient to infer 'hate' from the circumstance - it's necessary to have some evidence (the sign, words spoken, et.) that would compel a resonable person to conclude the INTENT was to threaten more than just the direct victim of the crime.

Intent has always been a factor in assessing the severity of a crime. Always.

A hate crime is not simply a crime when two different races are involved!! Jesus fucking Christ.

The actors in the crime have to DEMONSTRATE that their actions are racially motivated !!!

There was no such demonstration indicated in the quoted article. All that was mentioned was the race of the actors. AT NO TIME DID THE ARTICLE REVEAL ANY ACTIONS OR VERBAL STATEMENTS FROM THE ACTORS INDICATING RACE AS MOTIVATION FOR THE ATTACK.

Therefore, this is NOT A HATE CRIME until such evidence is discovered and introduced.

that if the races of the victims had been reversed, we wouldn't be hearing some sort of out cry that this was a hate crime?

I never said clueless people didn't exist.

Three people say it may be a hate crime and you freak out. Relax a bit. You should have waited until you had at least 20 people saying it is a hate crime before you posted your WTFs, OMFGs and Jesus Fucking Christs. I think that is the rule anyway.

I simply deduced that it is quite possibly a hate crime. If this woman was beaten because she was white, that would certainly intimidate other white people from riding this bus route. Why did I deduce that? In large part because I can't really see any other reason for the attack other than that she was a random target. Why did I not assume she was a random target? Because it was clear from the article that the perpetrators were taunting her and not allowing her to take a seat. Could I be wrong? Sure. But, btw, the city is now investigating whether it was racially based.

MTA looks at racial role in city bus attack
Inquiry finds no evidence victims provoked beating
By Michael Dresser | Sun reporter
December 7, 2007

Maryland Transit Administration Police said last night that they have found no evidence that the severe beating of a 26-year-old woman on a city bus this week was provoked and that they are investigating the attack as a possible racially motivated hate crime.

Nine middle school students have been charged as juveniles with aggravated assault and destruction of property in the Tuesday afternoon attack on a woman and her male companion on the No. 27 bus.

Police said yesterday that they have determined that there were two additional victims in the case - a third passenger and the bus operator who came to his assistance.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-te.md.mta07dec07,0,4653017.story?coll=bal-iraq-headlines

i.e. It is not logical to rule it out, as it clearly is possible that it was.

But there is no way to jump to the conclusion that it was based on the evidence in the article.

Sounds to me like just some little punks that beat up a woman for the hell of it.

Are white people all over the country now living in terror that they'll be attacked simply for the color of their skin?

on that particular bus route who heard this story will be thinking twice. Does that not fit into the intimidation factor?

For the record, I should say that I don't think this is a hate crime unless further evidence of it being such were brought to light.

You know, in addition to the usual caucasian fear of the Young Black Male.

This was a random beating, nothing more. Everyone will probably be nervous and rightfully so. But I see no indication that it was racially-motivated, and these types of arguments not only trivialize real incidents of violence against people of color or GLBT people, but show an incredibly amount of ignorance as to what the reasons behind the existence of hate crime laws actually are.

The kids say that she called them "the N word" first, but the couple's story is different.

http://www.examiner.com/a-1091394~Students_blame_beating_victim.html?cid=rss-Baltimore

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/baltimore_city/bal-te.md.mta07dec07,0,2761982.story?track=rss


Maybe I jumped to conclusions in my first post, but it didn't seem like a robbery, sexual assault or random beating to me from the OP's story. They wouldn't let her sit down for some reason, she sat down, they beat her ass. Seemed like hate to me, but I guess it doesn't fall into the category of a "hate crime" with what was presented.

I agree, at this point I don't think this would rise to the level of a hate crime. (not that their actions were justified in any way, regardless of what she called them) Of course, I'm just going off what the media says, and the police may be privy to some information that we don't have.

The disingenuous nature of arguments like OP's is the thing I have the problem with. Hate crimes are not as simple as "white guy beats up black guy," and arguments like those of the OP either purposely frame it that way to make a point, or they know so little about the issue that they shouldn't be commenting on it in the first place.

My question was simply whether or not others saw this as a hate crime. Anything you read into my OP after that is on you. My intent was neither disingenuous nor did I frame anything to "make a point," as I have no particular side in this case. I made no argument in my OP, either for or against classifiying this as a hate crime and further, stated in a response to another person that with the information presented in the article, I didn't think it should be classified as a hate crime.

Please point out what argument in my OP was disingenuous. At no point did I indicate that I think "white guy beats up black guy" is the grounds for a hate crime.

Then that's cool. Of course, I'd wonder where you were getting your information about these laws when the first thing that pops into your head in a case like this is "hate crime."

Even if you weren't yourself, the argument when used by others is disingenuous because it's never to foster a discussion about what constitutes a hate crime, it's to try and point out that hate crime laws are "reverse discrimination" or "PC" or some such nonsense. It's akin to "evolution is just a theory" as far as I'm concerned.

is suspicious? One of the parents claims that the woman called her kid the "N" word and then spit on him/her. You'll have to forgive me, but I'm more than a little skeptical about this claim.

The little thugs and their parents made this a racial issue, not the media, not DU, or anybody else.

The parents saw a convenient excuse and went for it. While that attitude may be part of the reason that their offspring turned into such upstanding citizens, this case is hardly the rallying cry to get rid of hate crime laws. (no matter how dishonest they are about it, that is truly the point of bringing up cases like this in the context of a discussion about hate crimes.)

but for it NOT to be a hate crime, there had to be an absence of racial motivation behind the attack. It seems to me that the kids and their parents put extra weight on the race of the victim here, by claiming she used a racial slur toward HER kids. The Kids/Parents made the race of the woman and themselves the issue by bringing the N word into it, which leads me to believe that race MIGHT have been a factor here. I can't be certain of course, but you must admit it's suspicious.

If the parents were smart liars (which they aren't obviously) they would have ignored the race issue completely and blamed it on the woman's rudeness, a bad misunderstanding of which seats were "claimed" on the bus, or claimed it was just a mugging for the woman's jewelry, etc. All colorblind crimes that would result in felonious assault/battery, without the ramped up hate crime punishment.

The dumbass parents/kids MADE this a racial issue. Now they can accept the consequences.

The fact that the victim and the people who assaulted her are different races isn't enough. It's possible it could be a hate crime, and it would only be able to be established in court. If there was something done or said or some history that would show it, then the prosecution should present that.

It is my understanding that Sarah Kreager provoked the attack by using the "N" word and by displaying a knife.

If that is true, then it seems to me that the Sarah Kreager was guilty of hatred.

By the way, I have a nice bridge to sell you in N.Y. Great condition. Earns lots of revenue in tolls.
Send me a PM for details. (Its in Brooklyn).

post 27. That the VICTIM provoked the attack in any way, has been ruled out by investigators. Some of the parents through that out there. Disgusting.

Post 28 provides a couple of links.

I followed the link to the Washington Examiner, and found this: "“School officials have to interview the students who were arrested before deciding whether to punish them,” said Vanessa Pyatt, a Baltimore City schools spokeswoman.

“We have not made a determination yet because we are getting conflicting reports,”

It sure sounds to me like there has not been any final determination, and that the inestigation is still on-going.

And the cooment about Kreager's use of the "N" word came from one of the girls who was on the bus.

By the way, it's "threw" -- not "through".

yes,yes. I used "through" when I should have used "threw". I clearly don't know the difference, and must simply be a total ignoramus. Hardly.

Look, I find it appalling that the school hasn't decided whether to punish the little thugs- even if the victim did use a slur. What part of they beat the living crap out of this woman, don't you and the school get?

In addition, the article I posted says that the attack was unprovoked. And I'll take that over YOUR word or the word of the vicious attacker.

Btw, I can play stupid gotcha games too: It's "investigation" not "inestigation". It's "comment" and not "cooment".

Thanks for the corrections. I appreciate your taking the time to point them out to me.

I'm sorry that you took my corrections as a "stupid gotcha game".

It wasn't intended that way at all.

You are so full of shit I would bet money your eyes are brown.

If it's so, then it certainly puts an entirely new perspective on the situation.

http://www.examiner.com/a-1091394~Students_blame_beating_victim.html?cid=rss-Baltimore

For what it's worth, the article also notes that Kreager is awaiting trial on drug-related charges.

You really think a 20 something white woman and her boyfriend boarded a Baltimore City bus and started calling a dozen black teenagers the N word? My god, I just don't know what to say to you. Do you believe in the tooth fairy?

..and "Hatred" believe it or not, is not a crime you can be "guilty" of. You can only punish (more severely) the violent acts that come about from racist views, not the racist views themselves, which are protected under the first amendment.

Officials involved in the investigation so far have said there is no evidence that Kreager instigated the assault. Once charges were filed in the case, the defendants claimed that Kreager called them the "N" word and spat on one of them. I kinda feel like the officials are probably right in this case unless Kreager is monumentally stupid.

"Once charges were filed in the case, the defendants claimed that Kreager called them the "N" word and spat on one of them. I kinda feel like the officials are probably right in this case unless Kreager is monumentally stupid."

The article also says that Kreger is awaiting trial on drug-related charges.

Some drug users are known to do monumentally stupid things.

I'm not sure how what you're saying applies to this argument.

I certainly agree with you that some (I would say most) politicians are monumentally stupid.

In the case of Sarah Kreager, I feel it is possible that she was, in fact, monumentally stupid.

Which is to say that I would not rule out the possibility that she did say the "N" word.

Monumental stupidity should never be ruled out.

that suggests monumental stupidity on the part of the victim. Why do you feel that Kreager may have done something stupid? Just because? Because she is awaiting trial on an unknown drug charge? Seems like you're making quite a leap here.

Woman using drugs = increased likelihood of woman calling a dozen black teenagers the "N" word on an inner city Baltimore bus, and then spitting on them, producing a knife for effect. You're making ridiculous assumptions. Insanity. We don't even know what the charges are, it could be misdemeanor possession. I can assure you that recreational dope smokers aren't more likely to act in such a manner.

Absolute ignorance, and insanity...

You basically accuse everyone else of being irrational and jumping to conclusions, and then do the exact same thing in a more severe manner.

Good for you.

"You basically accuse everyone else of being irrational and jumping to conclusions"

I do?

Where??

don't believe that a badly outnumbered woman on an inner city bus would do such insane things to provoke an attack. Yes the information is spotty, but it's quite reasonable to assume what happened here, and that the kids/parents are lying. You're basically saying, "well hold on, I heard she used the N word and produced a knife, this could be true, and then SHE is guilty of hatred, and she has drug charges too, so you're all too quick to make assumptions."

You're trying to play the "voice of reason" among angry villagers, when in this case, the villagers are probably right on.

Hardly enough info to call it one way or another, but I found that quote interesting.

My first thought was that the woman was most likely an extra-wide load.

Forget the skin color, or any of several dozen other variables or factors (body odor? choice of words? verbal inflection?) that could be pertinent. Maybe the kids just didn't want some heifer taking up their space, and reacted horriblyly. Bad parenting, deteriorating cities, a culture in turmoil to the contrary, middle schoolers usually aren't that close to their full growth, yet.

(If the bus had been some airlines, and it was a size issue, the air carrier might have tried to charge her double for that seat occupancy, and that would have been that.)

Please don't jump to the black/white, off-putting conclusion that it must a priori be a hate crime, because of the differing ethnicities. There's way too little to go on, here.

not paying attention.

Baltimore is a very racially charged city. Everything has racial overtones there.

Baltimore is also the armpit of the universe.


Great crab cakes though.

and go to baltimore regularly (big tattoo convention there in Feb, can't wait...) so that was something that definatly entered my mind when I saw the article.

I had crab cakes on the Virginia side of D.C. earlier in the week. Just not the same...

I think to know whether it's a hate crime or not, those 2 questions need to be answered.

by not saying anything about why they wouldn't let her sit down. That MUST have come up. What did they say? What reason did they give?

Anyway, I agree.

Kids are more than capable of refusing to let someone sit down for no reason whatsoever.

there is NO excuse for the beating unless there is something major that hasn't been reported. Even then, there may be no excuse.

I'd call this shoddy journalism at the very least.

"no reason whatsoever" to an outsider usually means some inane reason for the people involved.

Anyway, the question should have been asked, and the answer should have been in the article.

The circumstances are suspicious though.

That seems to be very pertinent here and I can think of dozens of reasons having spent a good deal of my life on city buses. She might have smelled bad, already be obnoxious, been acting acting "off", proselytizing--I've seen a LOT.

What was said between those involved? What have the witnesses got to say?

Even if she didn't start the fracas, how did she respond?

I'm NOT EXCUSING the beating, just calling into question the reporting which seems to bring up more questions than it answers.

This journalist may be needing a performance review, if you ask me.

Nothing you mentioned could possibly justify what was done to her. Not body odor or obnoxious behavior or the use of a slur, But you seem to be ignoring the fact that officials say the attack appears to be unprovoked- and they have video evidently. They also attacked her boyfriend and an elderly person- both are also white. It could be that this isn't a hate crime, but there are also clues that it could be.

everything in my power to stop it, regardless of the cause.

Why they didn't want her to sit in an empty seat is critical to the reporting--but not in the story at all. You don't think that's a gaping hole? Or that there are no statements from witnesses in the story? That isn't gaping?

It's really utterly crappy reporting--and we let the media off the hook far too often for stuff like this.

I guess we'll find out in due time.

The simple fact that the races are different, at first glance, might indicate that it was hate; but you are trying to establish the motives of the attackers and simply need more information to do that.

I'm not trying to establish the movtives of either party. I just asked the question.

I don't get where it could be considered, without a reasonable doubt, a hate crime.

:sarcasm:

More...