No hate crime convictions for white San Jose State students who clamped black roommate in bike lock

[AthenaAwakened]

No hate crime convictions for white San Jose State students who clamped black roommate in bike lock

Alongside other first-years, the 18-year-old was assigned a dormitory suite with seven other students, including a high school friend with whom he shared a bedroom. But collegial relationships soon dissolved into a series of hijinks targeting Williams, the only African American roommate.

In early September 2013, he was standing in his hallway when one of his roommates came up behind him and placed a U-shaped bike lock around his neck. Williams struggled to be released, but the lock remained clamped shut until his roommate gave him the key five minutes later.

A week later, three of his roommates again attempted to secure him inside the lock. Williams resisted and a scuffle ensued, ending with Williams walking out.

The bike lock was never to be used again, but other dubious ploys took its place: hanging a Confederate flag in the common room, displaying a racial slur on a dry-erase board, penning a sarcastic letter quoting the “Beloved Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Jr.”

On other occasions, the claustrophobic Williams was locked inside his room and closet. In time, he said he gained the nicknames “three-fifths” and “fraction” — a reference to how the Constitution once counted black slaves when apportioning representation in Congress by the states.

These events, pieced together through police statements in an independent fact-finding report commissioned by the university, are at the crux of a high-profile bullying case that found three of the white students involved guilty of a misdemeanor against their roommate — but not of a hate crime — on Monday.

Hi-jinks or felonies?

 

[laughing dog]

No hate crime convictions for white San Jose State students who clamped black roommate in bike lock

Alongside other first-years, the 18-year-old was assigned a dormitory suite with seven other students, including a high school friend with whom he shared a bedroom. But collegial relationships soon dissolved into a series of hijinks targeting Williams, the only African American roommate.

In early September 2013, he was standing in his hallway when one of his roommates came up behind him and placed a U-shaped bike lock around his neck. Williams struggled to be released, but the lock remained clamped shut until his roommate gave him the key five minutes later.

A week later, three of his roommates again attempted to secure him inside the lock. Williams resisted and a scuffle ensued, ending with Williams walking out.

The bike lock was never to be used again, but other dubious ploys took its place: hanging a Confederate flag in the common room, displaying a racial slur on a dry-erase board, penning a sarcastic letter quoting the “Beloved Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Jr.”

On other occasions, the claustrophobic Williams was locked inside his room and closet. In time, he said he gained the nicknames “three-fifths” and “fraction” — a reference to how the Constitution once counted black slaves when apportioning representation in Congress by the states.

These events, pieced together through police statements in an independent fact-finding report commissioned by the university, are at the crux of a high-profile bullying case that found three of the white students involved guilty of a misdemeanor against their roommate — but not of a hate crime — on Monday.

Hi-jinks or felonies?

Well, these "prankstes" are really thugs, so I'd have to ask why aren't they already serving their 40 year sentences without parole if I didn't think I already knew the answer.

 

[Blahface]

If you want see REAL racism take a look at Beyonce's Superbowl performance. I haven't seen it myself, but from what I understand she was advocating for white slavery.

 

[Arctish]

Hi-jinks or felonies?

Bullying that would have eventually led to bloodshed if it hadn't been stopped. Probably also felonies, but I expect plea bargaining will reduce the assault charges to misdemeanors.

 

[TSwizzle]

Nasty, racist bullies for sure. But in principle, a crime is a crime, not a "hate crime".

 

[Blahface]

Nasty, racist bullies for sure. But in principle, a crime is a crime, not a "hate crime".

It isn't just one crime. The intent of a hate crime is to terrorize a particular group of people and not just an individual.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Nasty, racist bullies for sure. But in principle, a crime is a crime, not a "hate crime".

Nasty, racist bullies for sure. But in principle, a crime is a crime, not a "hate crime".

It isn't just one crime. The intent of a hate crime is to terrorize a particular group of people and not just an individual.

If they were simply being bullies it's not a hate crime. It's only a hate crime if they were doing it because he was black.

 

[Toni]

Nasty, racist bullies for sure. But in principle, a crime is a crime, not a "hate crime".

It isn't just one crime. The intent of a hate crime is to terrorize a particular group of people and not just an individual.

If they were simply being bullies it's not a hate crime. It's only a hate crime if they were doing it because he was black.

So, it was definitely a hate crime.

 

[laughing dog]

Nasty, racist bullies for sure. But in principle, a crime is a crime, not a "hate crime".

It isn't just one crime. The intent of a hate crime is to terrorize a particular group of people and not just an individual.

If they were simply being bullies it's not a hate crime. It's only a hate crime if they were doing it because he was black.

So, it was definitely a hate crime.

But are these criminals "thugs"?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It's only a hate crime if they were doing it because he was black.

It's obvious that nothing they did was because he was black.

 

[TV and credit cards]

If, during the trial, the defendants attorney was able to establish a history of singling out and bullying a variety of, shall we say, different or unique looking individuals by the defendants, then I think it can be successfully argued that the defendants are not racist dickheads but your common garden variety dickheads. Had Donald Williams Jr. been a gangling white nerd, would he have suffered bullying of similar severity?

 

[fast]

It's only a hate crime if they were doing it because he was black.

It's obvious that nothing they did was because he was black.

It occurs to me that there are two different outtakes at play. If I hate blacks and behave criminally towards them because they are black, then that's one thing (a particularly hateful hate-based thing), but if I do not have a hatred for blacks nor even a hatred for a particular black and want to get under the skin of a particular person that so happens to be black, then though bad is bad is bad, subsequent seemingly racially motivated behaviors are not as hateful. For instance, suppose the victim was homosexual, and suppose the aggressors didn't have a particular problem with homosexuality yet hazed him as only homosexual haters might. The point is yes, the behaviors may very well be because he is black, but that might not be the primary motivation. If I have a problem with you and you are a midget, then it might not be the case that my problem with you is because you're a midget, so when I engage in behaviors that are hateful towards midgets, it might very well be because I have a problem with you.

There's not enough information available to eliminate a hate crime, the kind where true race based hatred is at its core, but the series of race-based behaviors doesn't quite guarentee that real racism is the underlying primary motivation.

 

[ronburgundy]

Nasty, racist bullies for sure. But in principle, a crime is a crime, not a "hate crime".

It isn't just one crime. The intent of a hate crime is to terrorize a particular group of people and not just an individual.

If that were the definition, then there is no evidence that there was any intent to terrorize a group. They were bullying an individual. There is no reason to think they sought to inflict any kind of emotional distress on anyone but this single individual.

But that is not the definition of a hate crime. A hate crime can be targeting a specific individual, but the motive for targeting them is some particular trait about them. Technically, bullying someone for being ugly or dressing funny is as much a hate crime as bullying them for being black. The issue is that under most statutes the "hate-crime" aspect can only exist as an added feature to actions that are already inherently crimes regardless of any motivation factors. IOW, if you commit felony assault and you happen to do it because the person is black, then a "hate crime" is added to the assault charge. It doesn't sound like much of what was done was criminal, except the bike lock actions, which unless they resulted in tangible physical injury would only be misdemeanor assault.

IT also gets murky to prove that a person was targeted due to the traits in question. References to those traits are used as or more often as a method of insult rather than the reason to want to insult. Everyone has seen countless instances of this in conflicts. It is tough to show the evidence needed to distinguish between racial slurs that are used as emotional weapons and those that reflect the reason why that person was targeted. You pretty much have to rule out any other plausible motive and argue than any random person of the same group would have been the target.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It's obvious that nothing they did was because he was black.

It occurs to me that there are two different outtakes at play. If I hate blacks and behave criminally towards them because they are black, then that's one thing (a particularly hateful hate-based thing), but if I do not have a hatred for blacks nor even a hatred for a particular black and want to get under the skin of a particular person that so happens to be black, then though bad is bad is bad, subsequent seemingly racially motivated behaviors are not as hateful. For instance, suppose the victim was homosexual, and suppose the aggressors didn't have a particular problem with homosexuality yet hazed him as only homosexual haters might. The point is yes, the behaviors may very well be because he is black, but that might not be the primary motivation. If I have a problem with you and you are a midget, then it might not be the case that my problem with you is because you're a midget, so when I engage in behaviors that are hateful towards midgets, it might very well be because I have a problem with you.

There's not enough information available to eliminate a hate crime, the kind where true race based hatred is at its core, but the series of race-based behaviors doesn't quite guarentee that real racism is the underlying primary motivation.

I agree with you that intent can make situations different.

However, they could possibly be the same with no difference from the victims' perspectives.

For example, imagine three white thugs who think it's funny to murder a black guy while wearing white sheets on their heads to scare him into thinking they're racist KKK'ers. Does it really matter to him as he is being hung by a noose that they don't really hate black people but instead have just chosen to target and kill him because he's black? Further, doesn't contribute to terrorizing people around in the same way as an act of murder if they were indeed KKKers?

 

[Toni]

If, during the trial, the defendants attorney was able to establish a history of singling out and bullying a variety of, shall we say, different or unique looking individuals by the defendants, then I think it can be successfully argued that the defendants are not racist dickheads but your common garden variety dickheads. Had Donald Williams Jr. been a gangling white nerd, would he have suffered bullying of similar severity?

Seriously. You can't conceive of the possibility that the type of person who would single out a person of a particular race for harassment, etc. might also single out other individuals who might not 'measure up' or fit into the mainstream world of the person who harassed someone because of the color of their skin?

In my experience, racists tend to not limit their bigotry to persons belonging to a particular race. Rather, they are inclined to 'spred the (non)love around,' so to speak. In other words, someone who is a racist and acts out against someone because of their race might very easily also harass or worse someone if they believed that person to be gay, to be of a different religion or national origins, or different gender, etc. It's entirely consistent. There is no such thing as one horrendous mind set to a customer.

 

[fast]

It occurs to me that there are two different outtakes at play. If I hate blacks and behave criminally towards them because they are black, then that's one thing (a particularly hateful hate-based thing), but if I do not have a hatred for blacks nor even a hatred for a particular black and want to get under the skin of a particular person that so happens to be black, then though bad is bad is bad, subsequent seemingly racially motivated behaviors are not as hateful. For instance, suppose the victim was homosexual, and suppose the aggressors didn't have a particular problem with homosexuality yet hazed him as only homosexual haters might. The point is yes, the behaviors may very well be because he is black, but that might not be the primary motivation. If I have a problem with you and you are a midget, then it might not be the case that my problem with you is because you're a midget, so when I engage in behaviors that are hateful towards midgets, it might very well be because I have a problem with you.

There's not enough information available to eliminate a hate crime, the kind where true race based hatred is at its core, but the series of race-based behaviors doesn't quite guarentee that real racism is the underlying primary motivation.

I agree with you that intent can make situations different.

However, they could possibly be the same with no difference from the victims' perspectives.

For example, imagine three white thugs who think it's funny to murder a black guy while wearing white sheets on their heads to scare him into thinking they're racist KKK'ers. Does it really matter to him as he is being hung by a noose that they don't really hate black people but instead have just chosen to target and kill him because he's black? Further, doesn't contribute to terrorizing people around in the same way as an act of murder if they were indeed KKKers?

The point I believe you're making is that an effect can be the same regardless of reasoning. I agree, but if the issue is whether or not a crime is a hate crime, the reasoning for the crime is paramount. If hate is the primary catalyst, then that is different regardless of the final outcome similarities. If I have no problem whatsoever with Latinos in general but have a problem with a particular Latino, and if I portray myself as hating Latinos in general by exhibiting behaviors that only Latino haters might, then it's easy to make the mistake that I'm prejudice because of my behaviors indicative of prejudice.

If you don't like a particular black person and begin making racial slurs to piss that person off, it's easy for an onlooker to think you're a racist because of the exhibited racist behaviors. Yes, if you don't want to be viewed as a racist, don't act like a racist, but when it comes to the issue of whether you're actually a racist, we need to elimate the possibility that racist behavior is a function of antagonism.

 

[JonA]

"Hate crime" is a stupid thing anyway.

A crime is a crime.

Assault. Unlawful imprisonment. Seems to describe rather well what went on.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

"Hate crime" is a stupid thing anyway.

A crime is a crime.

Assault. Unlawful imprisonment. Seems to describe rather well what went on.

I think hate crime laws make sense--it comes down to the likelyhood of a reoffense.

How often is the person going to find themselves in that situation in the future? Encountering a member of the hated race--frequently. They have a much higher likelyhood of being set off again, thus pose a greater risk to society and a higher sentence is warranted.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I agree with you that intent can make situations different.

However, they could possibly be the same with no difference from the victims' perspectives.

For example, imagine three white thugs who think it's funny to murder a black guy while wearing white sheets on their heads to scare him into thinking they're racist KKK'ers. Does it really matter to him as he is being hung by a noose that they don't really hate black people but instead have just chosen to target and kill him because he's black? Further, doesn't contribute to terrorizing people around in the same way as an act of murder if they were indeed KKKers?

The point I believe you're making is that an effect can be the same regardless of reasoning.

Close enough. I'm being a little more specific, speaking to the physical and psychological effects on the victims and society.

I agree, but if the issue is whether or not a crime is a hate crime, the reasoning for the crime is paramount.

That's an assertion, though. Let's not assume that "hate crime" = a crime because you hate a group of people. I think that these two categories: physical and psychological effects are the primary concrete parts of a hate crime. In this case there was intended psychological and physical effect because the victim was black. The intent on society as a whole may be absent but it is still there.

If hate is the primary catalyst, then that is different regardless of the final outcome similarities. If I have no problem whatsoever with Latinos in general but have a problem with a particular Latino, and if I portray myself as hating Latinos in general by exhibiting behaviors that only Latino haters might, then it's easy to make the mistake that I'm prejudice because of my behaviors indicative of prejudice.

If you don't like a particular black person and begin making racial slurs to piss that person off, it's easy for an onlooker to think you're a racist because of the exhibited racist behaviors. Yes, if you don't want to be viewed as a racist, don't act like a racist, but when it comes to the issue of whether you're actually a racist, we need to elimate the possibility that racist behavior is a function of antagonism.

Look at the op, though. Can you really distinguish whether the offenders were racist? Do you think the offenders are smart enough to determine whether their own actions were racist? I think they targeted him because he was black and some maybe didn't even realize they were contributing to racism because they are dumbasses. Both racism and racists come in degrees. The offenders did participate in racism whether they are too stupid to see it or not. If the law doesn't slap the stupid out of them, then someone else should.

 

[fast]

That's an assertion, though. Let's not assume that "hate crime" = a crime because you hate a group of people. I think that these two categories: physical and psychological effects are the primary concrete parts of a hate crime. In this case there was intended psychological and physical effect because the victim was black. The intent on society as a whole may be absent but it is still there.

The part that captures my attention is, "because the victim [is] black."

If the victim was going to be a victim regardless of race, it's not the aggressors fault the victim is black. He wasn't a victim because he was black, even though the nature of the victimization was. Either that, or like many assume, he was a victim because he was black and the nature of the victimization reflects that.

Does it make a difference? Maybe not, as the effect is quite the same--unless the victim knows the nature of the sorted details. The psychological effect shouldn't be as pronounced if the victim comprehends that his skin color is incidental and not the fundamental provocation.

ETA: to reiterate, I don't know which is the case, as far as the OP is concerned. I said before, there is not enough information for me to eliminate the possibilities. I set out to explore the original hijinx question, and based on what you said, I'm open to the idea that it may be a hate crime either way. Still, if it all came about because of hijinx and no true hatred in the heart was the fuel that kept it going, ... .