Gay man beaten, robbed; police classify incident as hate crime

[Omaha Steve]

http://www.omaha.com/news/crime/gay-man-beaten-robbed-police-classify-incident-as-hate-crime/article_fda832c8-3ee2-5654-816b-d8e770e59afb.html

POSTED: SATURDAY, MAY 24, 2014 1:00 AM
By Emerson Clarridge / World-Herald staff writer

A gay man was beaten and robbed Tuesday night in South Omaha by a man who said he hates gays, according to a police report.
The assault occurred as the 28-year-old victim walked to his car near 24th and G Streets about 7 p.m.

He gave $5 to a man, who was with another man and a woman, who had asked for the money. That suspect got into the victim’s car through the passenger door and asked the man if he is gay, according to the account the victim provided to Omaha police, which has classified the robbery as motivated by anti-gay hate or bias.

The man said, "Yes. Is that a problem?"

FULL story at link.

[immoderate]

1. If there are hate crimes, this has been one of them.

I wince and cringe at the notion of punishing people differently for the same crimes because of what's in their mind.

Punishments should be fair, and circumstances should be considered, but last should be the thoughts of the perpetrator. People don't commit murder, rape, kidnapping, and robbery out of love. Jus' sayin'

They might be nuts though. How do you demonstrate nuts?

--imm

[dsc]

2. we punish crimes for motive all the time

kill a person because you were paid, or because they witnessed you committing another crime, and in many states with the dp you will get the dp. kill the same person because you think he is an asshole and no dp for you.

[nomorenomore08]

4. Exactly. If we distinguish between different degrees of homicide, or assault - and we do -

then how is distinguishing violent crimes by motive any different?

[Fearless]

5. Bingo. For better or sometimes worse intent does matter

[awoke_in_2003]

8. Well said. Nt

[Hassin Bin Sober]

11. Mens rea - guilty mind

We most certainly DO punish people for what is in their mind. In fact, that is a necessary part of criminal prosecution.

As others have said, we wouldn't equate murder for hire with murder in the heat of passion.

Just look at any of the recent big shooting cases discussed here where "malice and hate in the perpetrators heart" were part of the equation to charge 2nd degree murder versus manslaughter.

A couple other notes:

1. yes, there has to be proof of the "hate". In my experience watching these cases, that's really not that hard to prove. Gay bashers aren't the brightest bulbs in the box and they usually implicate themselves with their big mouths. Or their scumbag friends roll over.

2. In cases like these, the victims are more than the physically attacked persons. If you have any gay friends, ask them what happens in the community when active bashers are out on the loose. The bars and restaurants and neighborhoods start buzzing with fear. In other words, this is a form of terrorism and should be penalized harshly.

3. Gay people don't get "special rights" due to hate crime prosecutions. Straight people are also protected. Ever hear of a straight person being attacked for their "perceived" sexuality? I have.






http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
Mens rea is Latin for "guilty mind".[1] In criminal law, it is viewed as one of the necessary elements of some crimes. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty". Thus, in jurisdictions with due process, there must be an actus reus, or "guilty act", accompanied by some level of mens rea to constitute the crime with which the defendant is charged (see the technical requirement of concurrence). As a general rule, criminal liability does not attach to a person who merely acted with the absence of mental fault. The exception is strict liability crimes.

In civil law, it is usually not necessary to prove a subjective mental element to establish liability for breach of contract or tort, for example. However, if a tort is intentionally committed or a contract is intentionally breached, such intent may increase the scope of liability as well as the measure of damages payable to the plaintiff.

Therefore, mens rea refers to the mental element of the offence that accompanies the actus reus. In some jurisdictions, the terms mens rea and actus reus have been replaced by alternative terminology. In Australia, for example, the elements of the federal offences are now designated as "fault elements" or "mental elements" (mens rea) and "physical elements" or "external elements" (actus reus). This terminology was adopted to replace the obscurity of the Latin terms with simple and accurate phrasing.[2]

[951-Riverside]

3. Do I understand this right?

The victim gave these thugs $5 and in return they savagely beat and robbed him?

[JJChambers]

6. I would support the DP on this case for sure

Anyone who can suggest what redeeming value this hatemonger adds to society, give it your best shot.

[awoke_in_2003]

9. The DP is an act of vengeance

not justice. When we murder, we lower ourselves to their level.

[JJChambers]

10. Murder is unlawful killing

The DP, by definition, is lawful

[awoke_in_2003]

12. It is still

nothing but vengeance or vigilante rule.

[MNBrewer]

13. You can define a word however you want

Abortion is murder
Meat is murder...

See? I just did it twice.

Death Penalty = Lawful murder... Ooops! I did it again!

[JJChambers]

14. murder

1

: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought


Nope, DP isn't murder.

[MNBrewer]

15. and

synonyms: killing, homicide, assassination, liquidation, extermination, execution, slaughter, butchery, massacre;

[shenmue]

7. ...