The Belleville Bus Beating

In Belleville, Ill., the school district has expelled two students who were caught, on camera, beating up another student. Police originally classified this as a possible hate crime because the victim was white and the two attackers were black, but the authorities later backed away from that and just called it a case of bullying. Those two are facing felony battery charges in juvenile court. Several students cheered and clapped during the beating, and school authorities are hitting those youths with suspensions.

Hat Tip: Many thanks to those who forwarded this one -- many, many people have pointed it out!

Comments

[Chuck Rizzo]

Funny how once people got upset the cops said it could have been a racially motivated hate crime they changed it to kids just being "bullies."

I for one still don't support seperate hte crime legislation, if someone beats the heck out of someone else its normally not out of love.

[Jane]

We had a debate like this a few weeks ago. Most people thought that bullying was just a part of growing up and kids should just get used to it.

I don’t understand how this is showing kids how to be productive adults. You kick the tar out of someone you only miss a few days of school? What if we did that anywhere else, say, work? Would any of us have a job afterwards?

[Jane]

This is the same case where Rush Limbaugh said because Obama was president black kids are now going to beat up white kids.

"You put your kids on a school bus you expect safety but in Obama's America the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering 'yeah, right on, right on, right on.' Of course everybody said the white kid deserved it he was born a racist, he's white."

[Chuck Rizzo]

Well I don't believe that non-sense either jane.

Would the kids have let the other kid sit down had be been black, maybe, can't really say, I do think its funn that once someone says racially motivated against a white peson it's unthinkable.

[Jane]

Chuck who as ever said that?

[Chuck Rizzo]

Umm the people in StL. That's why they changed it from racially motivated to bullying.

[Jane]

StL said they have no proof it was racially motivated. Do you have any proof that it was, other than it was two black kids? That's why Hate Crime is so hard to prove.

Saying that any attack on a white person is a hate crime is just as stupid as saying any attack on a black person is.

[Searching]

I just think he is trying to say if you can call it one way.. you better be calling it the other way too.

[Sasquach]

I'm going to have to say that judging from past cases, had it been the other way around (white kids attacking a black kid) the authorities wouldn't have been so quick to drop the hate crime status.

[Jane]

Yes Search. How about we just stop calling it either way in most cases. Because both ways are equally jacked up.

[Jellybean]

Maybe they beat him up because he was fat. Or smart. Or red-headed. Or rich. Or talked with a lisp. Or had a lazy eye. Or a pink notebook. Or mis-matched socks. Or...
Who cares what their motivation was anyway? They can talk to a therapist about that if they want. I don't give one poop how they FEEL that made them act this way, I only care how people act.

[Searching]

I totally and completely agree, jane.. can you talk to your pinko commie liberal friends and tell them to cut the bleeding heart crap and drop the Hate law thingy? LOL

[Jane]

I have no problem with hate crime laws. All hate crime laws are is increased penalties on top of the laws that they broke in the first place. I don’t understand why this is a liberal or conservative issue. If a group of rabid atheists attacked a church group I want them to be charged with a hate crime the same way if backwards redneck burned down a liberal church or murdered a homosexual. When we bring it down to the lowest common denominator of politics everyone comes out looking like idiots; conservative being passive racists and liberals being perpetual victims.

That being said, proving a hate crime is very difficult and few are convicted.

[Jellybean]

So Jane, Is murdering someone because he/she is homosexual deserving of harsher penalties than murdering someone because they have a lazy eye?
The problem with hate crime laws is not just that they're difficult to prove, but that they single out certain groups as being MORE protected than others. There's no justification for that inequity.
I'd be okay with a defense of "the SOB had it coming" if I were on a jury. Prove to me the victim deserved what he/she got and I might let some stuff slide. But, other than that, motivation is not of any particular interest.

[Jane]

We have laws protecting certain groups and nobody seems to have a problem with them. Like crimes against children or the elderly.

Why is it was have some murders on death row and some murders serve no time? Is that equality?

[Searching]

JB.. are you done with the soap box.. I have laundry to do...
the statements between jane and I are in reference to earlier jokes...

[Jane]

was = we

[Sasquach]

The thing about most hate crime legislation is that it isn't limited to certain specific racial or religious or sexual or whatever groups. It is a sentance enhancement for crime motivated by a hatred within those broad classifications. Thus everyone is equally protected from crimes based on race or religion or disability (as a lazy eye would be considered).

There is a difference between specific hatred for a specific person and committing a crime against that person, and general hatred for an entire class of people and committing crimes specifically targeted at that class for the purpose of terrorizing those people. It's terrorism, plain and simple. When someone is targeting people based solely on their status as a member of some class, it ceases to be just a crime against the individual victims and becomes a crime against every member of the class.

The problems lie not so much in the hate crime legislation as they lie in the disproportionate application of hate crime enhancement for certain crimes overuse of hate crime enhancement in general.

[Marvin]

Don't pretend that we don't have far reach laws based on extenuating circumstances. That's why manslaughter, 1st degree- and 2nd degree-murder are separate charges. Hate crimes are considered terrorism that's why they warrant harsher punishment. And, it's not for the top-end crimes like murder (you going to execute someone 2X for a hate crime?). It's for the smaller crimes like vandalizing someone's house with racial epithets.

[Searching]

In many states, the hate crime charge only applies to certain offenses such as assault, battery, and criminal damage to property. The purpose of the sentence-enhancing feature is to attach more serious penalties to bias-motivated crimes in an effort to demonstrate the seriousness with which we, as a society, address hate violence. Higher-level felonies already have serious consequences regardless of the offender’s motivation. A murder based on the victim’s race, for example, while certainly a hate crime, would likely not be charged as a hate crime under a penalty-enhancement statute. The criminal penalties for murder are already the most severe, so it would not make sense from a prosecutor’s perspective to also charge the perpetrator with lesser included penalties. However, this crime should still be classified and reported as a hate crime for HCSA purposes.

So, they can but they don't. It would be a waste of time.. but is still considered and recorded as a Hate Crime.

[mutt]

Oh boy, here we go again. Jellybean, I'm sorta' shocked that I share the same opinion as you do on this issue. Marvin, as usual I don't agree with you, so no real surprise there. Jane, I can't quite figure out exactly where your standing on the issue of hate crimes, but that's probably because of how I read.

As for myself, I figure these two kids would have just as likely beat up an Asian, Native American, some other black kid, or just about anyone else they were certain they didn't have to worry about getting the crap beat out of themselves in return. My advice to the kid that got thumped on...catch each of them seperately while they're not paying attention.

[TW]

The one who really pisses me off is that second kid. In the video, there's a second boy who wasn't even involved in the first incident, and he comes up and gives the kid a poke for no apparent reason.

If I were the principal, that boy would not be expelled. Instead, he would be returned to school, and I would make a special announcement first thing in the morning that this kid is fair game for anyone and everyone. Feel like hitting someone with a tire iron? Game on. It would be the greatest last day at a job of all time.

And someone needs to teach the victim to fight. How does he not even defend himself?

[rtm]

Handled just correctly. First, blacks cannot be racists. Second blacks do not know the meaning of hate. Ohh, the white man's burden never ends. Unless it happens to be your kid. You white tail kissers are really fortunate to live in your little world.

[BrianVincent]

Has there EVER been a hate crime conviction with only a white male victim? I haven't heard of one.

[Marvin]

Brian,

You haven't heard of one because you don't want to.

[Shaquila]

How is this kid going to fight a whole bus load. The minute he threw a punch they would all jump him and say he called them the "N" word.

[Max Pu Nish]

I'm being totally honest here when I say that when I first heard about this, I had heard the reason it was a hate crime is the police thought it was two white kids beating up a black kid. Then when they got the facts from the video, they saw that it was two black kids beating up a white kid.

Is there a way to get the preliminary report?

[Me]

Black guy rapes and strangles dozens of elderly white women, its not a hate crime and remains local news only:

http://a11news.com/1792/john-floyd-thomas-jr/

White guy dares to utter words that recognize racial differences, and it turns an assult into a hate crime:

http://www.fox2now.com/ktvi-hate-crime-rudi-ballard-ofallon-092109,0,5172891.story

I am long past any willingness to debate this issue. Those who passed hate crimes legislation commited treason against the constition and turned me as a White man into a second class citizen. Any real concerns could have been addressed by raising the penalites for all offenders without the political component, but oppression and intimidation of the White race is the actual goal of this legislation. Its exsistance fully justifies hate, extream violence, and revolution. There is still time to reverse this legislation and prevent this otherwise inevitable outcome (that will, BTW, focus on white traitors the most), but the clock is ticking.

[Jo Jo]

I like how you capitalize "White." Klassy, White Woman.

[Max Pu Nish]

Jo Jo you are only half right. She capitalized Black, and twice didn't capitalize white. You, Jo Jo, are seeing what you want to see, not all the facts in the post above.

"Me" has a right to post her views, just as you do. You don't have to agree with them, but you do have a responsibility not to smear her for simply stating her opinion.

[uvacom]

The capitalization of "white" was in mid-sentence, which makes it a pronoun in context. The capitalization of "white" was at the beginning of the sentence and thus was normal punctuation.

But in light of errors like "constition", "exsistance", or "extream" it's difficult to determine whether treating "white" as a pronoun was deliberate or not.

I was personally a lot more bothered by the suggestion that hate crime legislation "fully justifies hate, extream violence, and revolution."

[uvacom]

* should read "The capitalization of "black" was at the beginning of the sentence and thus was normal punctuation."