American Thinker readers, welcome to the blog!
——————————————————
A Hmong hunter committed a hate crime on November 21 when he slaughtered six white people. Based on the facts I’ve seen, he had a problem with white deer hunters. Whatever sentence he gets, they should tack on two more years because of his thoughts about white people. Not only did this man show disregard for human life; he did so with racial hatred in his heart/head. How appalling!
I’m being facetious, of course. If you don’t know what I think of “hate crime” you should read this post. The very idea of a “thought crime” is the dumbest thing since the dinosaur-like NAACP’s so-called report on the return of Jim Crow at the voting booths (for which they should be embarrassed). But for the sake of consistency, I’ll play along.
I’m confused, however. Where is the ACLU and all the homosexual organizations that so vehemently (and loudly) denounce hate crimes when committed against “people of color” or other homosexuals? It’s like a ghost town around here.
The facts: Chai Vang, a Hmong immigrant (who’s actually an American) is accused of shooting eight people and killing six of them. He claims he shot the white people because they called him bad names and fired a shot at him, but the two survivors of the slaughter said Vang shot first. And get this: four of the people he murdered were shot in the back. One was shot four times in the back. Vang was trespassing, hunting on someone else’s property, and he’d been warned before by these same hunters. Vang also has a history of trespassing on private property and getting into “confrontations” with other hunters.
Let’s see. A so-called hate crime is one motivated by someone’s race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, gender, age, blah, blah, blah. Based on all the stories I’ve read about this massacre, it looks and smells like a hate crime, given the fact that all the victims were white and Vang may have expressed hatred of whites. If so, will the prosecutor charge him with a hate crime?
By the way, the “immigrant” was an experienced hunter and a former marksman in the U.S. Army. Those might be important facts. Fortunately for Vang, Wisconsin doesn’t have the death penalty.
I’ve linked to several stories about the shootings at the end of this post. As you read, notice how most play down the racial element when it comes to the dead white people but play it up when it comes to the alleged slaughterer and other Hmongs. From TIME Magazine:
The accused shooter is Chai Soua Vang, a Hmong refugee from Laos who lives in nearby St. Paul, Minn. Vang, 36, is in custody in Hayward, Wis., and was expected to be charged formally this week by the state’s attorney general. In a statement to police the day after the shootings, Vang admitted to killing the hunters after being confronted when he trespassed on property owned by two of them. In fact, much of his statement matches the one given by Lauren Hesebeck, 48, a wounded hunter who survived and the first victim to talk about the incident. Both men agree that Vang was asked to leave the area. They also agree that during the shooting spree, Vang chased down and shot two of the hunters as they fled. There is, however, one crucial discrepancy: Hesebeck says Vang opened fire without provocation; Vang says he began shooting only after the group peppered him with ethnic slurs and took a shot at him. Now whites and Hmong in the area, who have lived side by side for years, are wondering whether, by invoking race, Vang exposed ethnic tensions simmering in the community or created new ones.
The case against Vang looks rock solid from my vantage point, but while they’re throwing the book at him, they should criminalize his thoughts, too, and tack on a few more years for his hatred of…white people in general? White hunters? Or only white hunters with private property? Do I sound like a lunatic? Don’t blame me. Blame the idiotic hate crime laws on the books. A good lawyer could have a field day with this mess.
Here’s some trivia. Vang may have killed a white hunter before. In other words, he might be a serial “hunter” of white people. More fodder for hate crime proponents to chew on. As I said, fortunately for Vang, Wisconsin doesn’t have the death penalty.
————————————————
Links: MSNBC and a lot of Yahoo! news links.
It would be a “hate crime” if he called them racial names. From what I’ve read, he didn’t.
Either way, he should be locked up for life.
Because of errors with the justice system, I believe the death penalty is wrong.
Comment by DarkStar — 11.30.04 @ 8:34 am
Even if he never uttered a word, his pattern of behavior and other evidence, if any, can be introduced at trial. Actually publicizing one’s hatred for a race before committing a crime isn’t a requirement.
Comment by LB — 11.30.04 @ 8:36 am
The hunting/chasing down, and then shooting in the back, of some of his victims removes any self defence claim. And despite what the ACLU et al think, even if they did call him names… that is not a crime.
I am more concerned about the renewed attacks upon the 2nd ammendment this is stirring up than the hate crimes laws. You can’t shame the supporters of hate crime legislation by pointing out the hypocrisy of who does and does not get charged with them…
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 11.30.04 @ 9:16 am
Isn’t it errors in the justice system that put killers and child molesters back in our neighborhoods? I would leave the death penalty decision to the victims family.
Comment by Jim R — 11.30.04 @ 9:34 am
La Shawn,
Having had experience with investigating and prosecuting “hate crimes” and crimes with a hate crime component, I have to agree with you. It is not necessary to say anything or make public one’s feelings about a particular race or sexual proclivity to be charged with a hate crime (or have the hate crime tag tacked onto the original criminal charge).
Even if one of the hunters did in fact fire first at Vang, the chasing down and shooting of a couple of them is definitely NOT self-defense, and only one or two of them was armed at the time of the incident.
Comment by Montie — 11.30.04 @ 9:47 am
‘Let’s see. A so-called hate crime is one motivated by someone’s race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, gender, age, blah, blah, blah. Based on all the stories I’ve read about this massacre, it looks and smells like a hate crime, given the fact that all the victims were white and Vang may have expressed hatred of whites.’
None of your facts have shown a hatred for whites.
Comment by actus — 11.30.04 @ 10:01 am
Please remember, a crime is only that which can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if Vang harbored hatred towards white people, his motivation was probably related to the hunting territory, or atleast related enough as to create reasonable doubt.
Unstable, yes.
Hate crime, no.
Does it matter if it is? Hate crime legislation was imposed to add additional penalties for attacks motivated by race, gender etc. Does society have an interest in curbing such attacks? Yes. Because America is a collage of people, it is important that these people understand that their personal feelings about the inferiority/superiority of any race cannot motivate them to attack another American on this basis alone.
Why? Because such attacks are bad for business, and business keeps this economy moving.
Let’s not fool ourselves into believing that only ‘white males’ can commit a hate crime. And let’s not fool ourselves into believing that only ‘white males’ are charged with hate crimes.
Neither is true.
However, hate crime legislation is no nuttier than seatbelt laws. Both are intrusive upon action/inaction that really is nobody’s business.
such is life.
Comment by stephen johnson — 11.30.04 @ 10:37 am
Stephen - Check out my post on hate crime law, which I linked to in the current post. It’ll shed some light on how ridiculous thought crimes are. And they are in no way comparable to seat belt laws, for crying out loud.
Comment by LB — 11.30.04 @ 10:40 am
Matt.5:21 ¶ “You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.’ 22 “But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.
There we have it. God says that all of us are murders by the hate crime standards. To Him it’s just a matter of degrees and we won’t know this side of heaven how much God had to do with most of us not being murders by action.
I’ll trust God to judge my thoughts, motives, and feelings but am I willing to trust men with sin flawed natures to judge such things. No. We have a hard enough time judging a persons actions.
Comment by Mike O — 11.30.04 @ 10:44 am
Actus…
The point just slipped by again.
Wascalwy devil…
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 11.30.04 @ 11:51 am
Lashawn,
I am not disagreeing with you that Hate Crime legislation is similar to a thought crime. I only add that there are reasons for these distinctions.
For instance, under common law, there are 3 types of purposeful killing, 1st degree murder, second degree murder and manslaughter.
The distinctions lie in the mindset of the actor. Whereas a killing thoughtfully planned and motivated by revenge may be first degree, one motivated by and performed upon the discovery of an unfaithful spouse may be 2nd degree murder.
The drunken driver, who did not set out to kill, but did so anyway, may be manslaughter.
The distinctions lie totally in the thoughts of the actors at the time.
I am not defending hate crime legislation per se, but feel such legislation is a common tool of government to curb certain behaviors.
Comment by stephen johnson — 11.30.04 @ 12:01 pm
The mens rea, or guilty mind, of the accused is certainly an element of a crime, but whether someone is prejudiced against a particular race is not what the mens rea refers to.
The mental elements of a crime include states of mind like: intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, maliciously, negligently, etc. Prosecutor’s have to prove these things, not what someone was thinking about the race of the person they killed.
Also, keep this in mind: those elements go to the criminal intent of the actor. Hating people of a different race is not a criminal act! “Guilty mind” in no way pertains to what someone thinks about anyone’s race, sex, age, etc.
Comment by LB — 11.30.04 @ 12:11 pm
LB: ‘Stephen - Check out my post on hate crime law, which I linked to in the current post. It’ll shed some light on how ridiculous thought crimes are. And they are in no way comparable to seat belt laws, for crying out loud.’
What the difference between murder and manslaughter? the thought of the perpetrator. Basically, in the former, he has the intent to kill, in the latter, he doesn’t. The difference? the thought.
We punish the murderer more because his evil is worse than the evil of someone who commits manslaughter. Society can make a judgement that though hate by itself may be protected, once it is used to motivate crimes it is more evil than other motivations of crime, and thus deserves more punisment. This is no more a thougth crime than murder is a thought crime.
Comment by actus — 11.30.04 @ 12:25 pm
I think I already covered this, actus.
Comment by LB — 11.30.04 @ 12:30 pm
I see i made a comment without reading them all. So here’s some mroe.
‘Hating people of a different race is not a criminal act! ‘
Neither is intending to kill someone. Its only when its bound up with the conduct of homicide that it becomes illegal. When speaking of ‘mens rea’, try not to think of ‘acts’, because the act is the conduct.
“Guilty mind” in no way pertains to what someone thinks about anyone’s race, sex, age, etc.’
I think society can decide that bias as a motivation for crime is more evil than other motivations of crime, like say pecuniary gain, or the avoidance of personal injury, or the fact that you’re hungry and need food.
I’m not excusing any of these motivations, just pointing out that its possible to assert that some are more evil than others, and that its possible to have that greater evil correlate with greater punishment.
Comment by actus — 11.30.04 @ 12:34 pm
And I see I either mis-wrote something in my comment or I’m being misunderstood. Maybe I’m just getting old. My patience is getting shorter and shorter these days.
When I wrote that hating people of a different race isn’t criminal, I was trying to make the point that killing someone because they’re black is not a mental state in the sense the other elements are.
The intent to harm another is an element of a crime; hating a person based on race or the color of their wig or whether he’s sleeping with your wife is not an element of a crime and CANNOT be. If you want to argue that it should be, make that argument, but trying to fit it into the definition of mens reas, common law or otherwise, doesn’t work.
Looking to the “intent” or “recklessness” of the actor goes to his state of mind at the time he killed. What he thinks about a person’s race does not make him culpable of a crime. Let’s say one white kills another. That he hates him for any reason is not an element of the crime. Whether he killed with regardless disregard, etc., is an element of the crime.
I’m repeating myself, so I’ll stop writing. Running a blog with comments can be very frustrating.
Comment by LB — 11.30.04 @ 12:49 pm
I am still trying to work out if there should be any difference in punishment if someone spraypainted a swastika on my house or the “N word” on yours or if they just spraypainted a gang “tag”.
The former is with clear malicious intent and foreknowledge of the victim and what would maximize fear. The latter is just vandalism. Should both be handled by the courts system as no more than equal spraypaint crimes?
Or do the racial epithets constitute a form of assault, an actionable offense separate from the physical spraypaint damage? Aren’t threats, verbal or written, illegal on their own? Does the history of the perpetrator come into account where there may be a menace to the community? Big difference between some punk 12 year old who spraypaints a swastika on my house and the Aryan Nations member.
Would love to hear your perspective.
It’s one of the few areas where I think that judicial discretion may be suitable… though I’m not confident in the discretion of THIS generation’s judges.
Comment by Aaron's Rantblog — 11.30.04 @ 1:03 pm
I think it is significant to note that in Scripture, though many types of thoughts are counted as sins (covetousness, lust, unjust hatred, etc.), there is no responsibility for the judges of the people to judge or punish them. I therefore conclude they are sins, but not crimes. It is a sin to hate a person for the reason that you don’t like their looks or their race or the their propensity to feed stray cats, but it is not a crime. Any human authority that takes upon itself the authority to judge such things has taken more authority than God has given. I think that’s called, tyranny, isn’t it?
Comment by Dory — 11.30.04 @ 1:07 pm
La Shawn,
Even though you are frustrated, what you just said pretty much lays out how we look at the situation in totality when a person is charged. You are absolutely correct that hating someone FOR ANY REASON is not an element of the crime. Attempts to legislate against thoughts are absolutely ludicrous, and go against everything this country’s legal system was set up for, but that is exactly what hate crimes legislation attempts to do. Like most involved in the law enforcement process, I really dislike dealing with having to determine if a crime should just be charged as what it is, or whether it meeets the criteria of a hate crime.
I HAVE been involved in cases where the charge was made and the defendant convicted of them, but it always seemed rather asinine to me, as the original crime was what it was all about. I have also seem prosecutors tack on a hate crime charge when the victim is a member of a “protected class” regardless of the motivation of the perpetrator, just because it could LOOK like a hate crime.
Comment by Montie — 11.30.04 @ 1:13 pm
‘ hating a person based on race or the color of their wig or whether he’s sleeping with your wife is not an element of a crime and CANNOT be.’
That begs the question. Its what we’re discussing.
I’m not trying to cabine it precisely within the element of ‘mens rea intent to kill’. In bringing up murder/manslaughter, I’m trying to show that we do punish the same conduct different due to what is in the minds of the people doing that conduct. Even if it is perfectly legal to have and not act on that thought. And that it is not a “thought crime” to do so.
Certain places allow the commission of homicide, with the mens rea of murder (say knowledge or purpose to kill, ie, otherwise a murder), when the person is motivated by the thought of self defense.
Likewise, other places say that an intent to kill that is motivated by provocation or the heat of passion is not as evil as other intents to kill, and thus punish that less.
So people argue that the intent to kill motivated by racial hate is more evil that that which is motivated by other sources. This is the question. Whether we want to punish, not this thought, but crimes commited and motivated by this thought.
You do a disservice to the discussion by labelling it a ‘thought crime’ that punishes otherwise protected thought. The law punishes all sorts of otherwise protected thoughts when they are bound up with action.
Comment by actus — 11.30.04 @ 1:13 pm
Wow Montie, I have always wondered if things like that happened.
I have always hated the phrase “protected class.” Equal Justice Under Law seems quite self-explanatory to me.
Comment by Steven J. Kelso Sr. — 11.30.04 @ 1:30 pm
Lashawn,
In reference to “The mental elements of a crime include states of mind like: intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, maliciously, negligently, etc. Prosecutor’s have to prove these things, not what someone was thinking about the race of the person they killed.”
I’d submit that race hatred goes to malice.
In your original post you noted “Let’s suppose I’m bashing you over the head because you cut me off in traffic… Now let’s suppose I’m doing the same thing because you’re white, and I hate whites. Does the crime change? Why should I get two extra years in jail because I hate whites?”
The behavior that society has an interest in proscribing here is race/gender etc. based crimes.
Essentially, one’s motivation to commit an act may be an aggravating factor in how society views the act.
And please realize that crimes motivated by hate have the effect of terrorizing a portion of the population. The goal of the attacker is to inspire fear in similarly situated individuals. This has a negetive effect on American Society and economics.
Comment by stephen johnson — 11.30.04 @ 1:36 pm
‘Wow Montie, I have always wondered if things like that happened.’
It’s surprise that prosecutor charges someone with what it ‘looks like’ happened? Isn’t that what a charge is?
Comment by actus — 11.30.04 @ 1:45 pm
La Shawn,
Let us talk for you.
You’ll be proud of us.
Actus,
The point about thought/hate crime and why La Shawn and I and others disagree with having hate crimes legislation is because; look at it from the other direction.
If James Byrd was dragged to death by the 3 white guys but didn’t hate him because of his color does that make the 3 guys less guilty? No. In fact, even though Texas doesn’t have hate crimes legislation in my recollection two of those jerks were sentenced to death. Hate crimes legislation would not have sentenced them more to death. And if those jerks did it out of love, it doesn’t make them less guilty. Even if they had diaries that talked about how much they love African-Americans on every entry in their diary they still should’ve been sentenced to death.
The fact that some people think that we should punish more or less based on your thoughts whether said out loud, written down, or just surmised is kind of ludicrous to us.
Taken to the extreme, maybe we should punish liberals for causing poverty due to thier policies. They must hate the poor and want them to stay dependant and want the middle class and rich to be brought down also at the same time while creating the dependant class.
Comment by Baklava — 11.30.04 @ 1:58 pm
You’re right actus, I shouldn’t be suprised. Let’s make every crime a hate crime. That’ll end crime for sure!
Comment by Steven J. Kelso Sr. — 11.30.04 @ 2:15 pm
‘If James Byrd was dragged to death by the 3 white guys but didn’t hate him because of his color does that make the 3 guys less guilty? No. In fact, even though Texas doesn’t have hate crimes legislation in my recollection two of those jerks were sentenced to death’
The manner of that death showed an evil that it is hard to say could be even greater, or much worthyer of punishment. But that is an extreme, think of other crimes that don’t already give the ultimate punishment.
I have no idea what the rest of your post gets at, I’ve already addressed how this isn’t ‘thought crime’.
Comment by actus — 11.30.04 @ 2:22 pm
Baklava, you said, “The fact that some people think that we should punish more or less based on your thoughts whether said out loud, written down, or just surmised is kind of ludicrous to us.”
So, do you advocate the immediate release of Jose Padilla, whose only crime seems to be radical islamicisim? He had yet to actually commit an act.
Or, in the alternative, should Bin Laden be prosecuted as merely an accomplice to murder?
Of course not. The only difference between a terrorist and a mafiosi is their motivation. We view terrorists as a greater threat and deal with them as such.
Those motivated by hate can be treated more severely than those not, if their threat to society is greater than an average threat.
Comment by stephen johnson — 11.30.04 @ 2:24 pm
But of course,
We all know that liberals are “well-intentioned” and just have a different outlook on life. So, we can’t punish them for their thoughts and resulting policies just because their policies do not create good results…..
By the way, if there is any new rank-and-file liberal who just got interested in politics reading this, we love you. Just please understand that conservatives are also “well-intentioned” no matter how much ABC, CBS, NBC, or CNN tries to convince you otherwise.
Conservatives try to look at what resulting policy would lead to and we try to think of solutions that would result in the most “problem-fixing”
The way to help the most Americans is through good economic policy. There will always be a certain percentage of able-bodied Americans who are poor due to circumstances. If you create a hammock there is no incentive for those who have no incentive to produce. The hammock does 2 things.
1) It creates a drag on the economy as you have to tax those who produce to give to the able-bodied lethargic person
2) It dillutes the safety-net for those who really need it like the elderly and the non-able-bodied.
Before 1991 I used to be a liberal and I’ve converted quite a few to conservatism since then including African Americans.
It is hard for a liberal to get past the contempt for the rich and the built up contempt over the years for what they think of conservatives but once you get past it you could actually see what we are trying to say makes sense.
Comment by Baklava — 11.30.04 @ 2:26 pm
Here’s an example of hate crime law being applied:
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=75999
I’ll let people decide what they will about the application of the law in this case.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 11.30.04 @ 2:30 pm
Stephen,
“So, do you advocate the immediate release of Jose Padilla, whose only crime seems to be radical islamicisim? He had yet to actually commit an act.”
I’m not sure why your lack of understanding. Jose Padilla was in the process of committing a crime. He had the intent to commit the crime. What I’m trying to say is that I could care less that he was trying to strike the match due to his love for the people on the plane or hate for the people on the plane. The FACT is that he was trying to take down the plane and should be convicted. What? Should he be pardoned because he had a journal full of entries saying that he loved Americans? Should he be sentenced to death twice because he hated as he struck the match?
Your Bin Laden example shows the same lack of understanding. It is a crime to organize and plan and head terrorist operations. If you are the leader you are just as guilty as the poor 19 year old schmuck who got nothing fed into his brain all his life but the Qaran and hate.
I hope you can start to try to understand instead of going out of your way to misunderstand me. <- I’m not sorry for that jab.
Comment by Baklava — 11.30.04 @ 2:35 pm
I think Stephen you are misunderstanding what Hate Crimes legislation is about…..
It isn’t about erasing the fact that Jose Padilla was in the middle of a crime or intending to take down a plane full of people.
It isn’t about erasing the fact that Bin Laden is clearly intending to kill or harm as many Americans as he can.
It is about applying a special status to a crime based on the fact that it was due to racism.
If there is going to be hate crimes legislation why doesn’t it apply to Vang? There were 8 white victims and one Vietnamese perpetrator.
By the Way It isn’t mentioned often but there was only one shot (bullet) from the victims (which missed Vang) and 20 shots fired from Vang (had to reload) and he shot people in the back.
Another thing that isn’t mentioned often is that the victims only had one person with a gun amongst them. I assummed because of the way the dominant press reports is that Vang had to shoot all of these racist pigs because he feared for his life from all of these racist pigs because they must’ve been armed to the teeth.
Comment by Baklava — 11.30.04 @ 2:53 pm
Hate crime legislation truly is unnecessary. Every crime is a hate crime! One question I have is: How is local law enforcement kept accountable to enforce the law. One example in a Washington DC paper some time ago(I know this has nothing to do with the case at hand) was when a gay man coming out of a gay bar was told at gun point by a mugger to go into a back alley and told then to perform a sexual activity. He did and when the assailant fled, he told the police who expressed to him that they had more pressing issues than his. This is as much as I know of this story, but it and fears of things like this happening would explain WHY certain groups want hate crime laws. (Namely because they don’t believe that their local police will enforce the law with regard to them)
How do we make sure that all people are protected by the law.
Anyone can respond.
Will
Comment by Will — 11.30.04 @ 3:01 pm
Stephen, re: bin Laden as accomplice.
Someone who plans a murder, and recruits another (or others) to commit the crime, is charged with murder. Same goes for someone who intentionally pays for a murder they did not plan the details of.
As for Abdul al Muhajir, training in an Al Queada camp, learning to make bombs and disperse radioactives is what constitutes just being radically islam? OK. As for waiting for someone to commit an act to proscecute… why do we have charges like conspiracy on the books? Why do we ever charge someone with intent?
Next time I see someone hold a knife on another person in the park, I’ll wait until stabbing or worse before taking any action…
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 11.30.04 @ 3:12 pm
SCSI,
Yeah. Stephen thinks that we think that Jose should go free unless he actually blew up the plane (and himself) all because we think he should be convicted for what he was doing and not out of love or hate for the passengers….
Yours truly,
EIDE (Computer geek joke)
Comment by Baklava — 11.30.04 @ 3:21 pm
‘You’re right actus, I shouldn’t be suprised. Let’s make every crime a hate crime. That’ll end crime for sure!’
That doesn’t make any sense. A prosecutor charging something he suspects, that makes sense.
Comment by actus — 11.30.04 @ 3:42 pm
SCSI:
‘They were charged with three Felonies: Criminal Conspiracy, Ethnic Intimidation, which falls under “Hate Crimes”, and Riot; as well as five Misdemeanors: Reckless Endangerment, Possession of Instruments of Crime, Failure to Disperse, Disorderly Conduct, and Obstructing Highways.’
Only one of those is a hate crime. And its not really the kind of hate crime we’re talking about here — its criminalizing hateful speech, not punishing other crimes more when they are bias motivated.
Comment by actus — 11.30.04 @ 3:46 pm
SCSI,
You mention how the 2nd amendment is being crucified again because of one whacko. Hmmm…all those hunters running around out there with guns, minding their own business, having a little sport and getting some food for their families in the long run, but not shooting people. However, one nut job who happened to be able to get ahold of a gun, which as we all know, criminals will always have guns no matter what, and murders people, so now we law-abiding citizens can’t have guns anymore? That certainly doesn’t make sense to me. I’m wondering if those hunters weren’t unarmed at the time. I can’t imagine having a gun in hand, someone shooting at me and my compatriots, and not at least trying to get off a shot. Granted, they may have been in an area where there wasn’t any cover, and I would want to be in a bit of a safe area before returning fire. The fact that one person was shot in the back 4 times makes me think they were pretty unprotected.
Comment by Kiki B. — 11.30.04 @ 3:49 pm
Actus,
Seems to me that we have a good perspective.
You state, “its criminalizing hateful speech, not punishing other crimes more when they are bias motivated”.
It was the NAACP and James Byrd’s family who aired the commercial against Bush in 2000 with their quote “it was like James was dragged all over again” because Bush didn’t help pass hate crimes legistlation.
Let’s go back to your quote. Now, if it’s not about punishing other crimes more when they are bias motivated then why was that the NAACP position. Why did they use the James Byrd death as their poster for their cause? The reality of the situation is that this is what hate crimes legislation does try to address is crimes that are “special” due to motivation determined to be of “hate”.
by the way If it’s about criminalizing “hateful speech” who is the determiner of what is hateful speech? If you had it your way would Sean Hannity be pulled off the air and convicted for it? Would Jesse Lee Peterson?
Be careful of how you answer. Calling for the death of someone or threatening someone is already against the law. What we are talking about here is trying to determine if someone is hateful ….. maybe because they advocate for no preferential treatment based on race….
Comment by Baklava — 11.30.04 @ 4:05 pm
Baklava:
Lets clear up some terminology:
there’s ‘hate speech laws’ which is criminalizing saying hateful things on the basis of race, etc… Thats one thing. Thats what it looks like the ‘ethnic intimdation’ charge is. But its not what LB is discussing in the case of the Hmong shooter. Its not just hateful speech, its hate based on ethnic or other criteria. I think this sort of thing is unconstitutional. I think we already have ‘fighting words’ or other harassment type doctrines, like disturbing the peace, etc. . . that can cover this. I don’t think we need laws that punish this, though it would be interesting to have laws that kept track of incidents of race based intimidation, so that we have statisitcs.
A different thing is punishing bias motivated crimes more than we punish other crimes. The question is whehter we want to consider it particularly more odious to be motivated by hatred race, gender, etc.. when commiting a crime.
Who would determine this? Factual determinations of the elements of a crime have ot be found to be beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury.
Comment by actus — 11.30.04 @ 4:25 pm
I’ll let LB speak for herself but I’m sure she’s more in line with what I’m saying.
“A different thing”…. That’s what I’m talking about and what LB and I disagree with. But if we were to apply the standard it needs to be applied to Vang is what LB was saying.
Your end paragraph - So a jury of 12 would convict Sean Hannity for having hateful thoughts (when we don’t think Sean has hateful thoughts)…
Comment by Baklava — 11.30.04 @ 4:30 pm
“RACE” means what exactly?
Ethnicity is more accurate of a term.
Death to the term “RACE”.
Comment by Joshua — 11.30.04 @ 4:48 pm
Baklava - Jose Padilla is NOT the shoe bomber, and has yet to be charged with a specific crime. He is an American Citizen being held under general suspicion, and I think rightly so.
My point, as I think you have overlooked it entirely, is that Terrorist acts are essentially hate crimes against Americans, for the purpose of instilling fear and getting a desired outcome. But for the motivation, the 9/11 hijackers are no different than other vile mass murderers (notwithstanding the scale of their crime, but a mass murder is a mass murderer). What makes these men dangers are their motivations.
While you may feel that one is right and the other is wrong, I think it is worth conceading the latent similarities between the two.
One’s crime is not a hate crime simply because an overzealous prosecutor charges it as such. (there are a lot of those in the world.) Nor is a hate crime necessisarily one where a white/black/asian/straight man attacks a white/black/asian. Thus, because Vang killed 6 white people, it was not a hate crime per se. If on the otherhand, he killed them BECAUSE they were white, then that would be a hate crime.
Ramming a car into a building and killing people is not terrorisim per se (Lizzie Grubman comes to mind). Yelling “Die Americans” may make it such.
Comment by stephen johnson — 11.30.04 @ 4:53 pm
Hate crimes laws do very little for the actual victims, but they sure make their proponents feel all worthy and righteous. The real problem with these laws is that they will not be enforced equally. Prosecutors will be loathe to offend any particular minority group by tacking on a hate crime charge to a minority defendant.
Comment by nobody important — 11.30.04 @ 5:09 pm
Your end paragraph - So a jury of 12 would convict Sean Hannity for having hateful thoughts (when we don’t think Sean has hateful thoughts)…
“having hateful thoughts” is not a crime, and won’t be, so no.
Comment by actus — 11.30.04 @ 5:20 pm
LB,
Shame on you. Don’t you know only “WHITE MEN” can create hate crimes in America
Comment by Renee — 11.30.04 @ 5:25 pm
Commit hate crimes that is:-)
Comment by Renee — 11.30.04 @ 5:26 pm
Let’s add…
White men, that murder a minority or homosexual….
No one’s gets the hate crime book thrown at them for killing ALL women, or all children, or minority killing a minority, or a minority killing all whites
Comment by Renee — 11.30.04 @ 5:30 pm
Actus,
The point is that hate crimes are being applied in even rediculous cases. And since when was gay an ethnic group?
While the folks in Philly are being charged with a hate crime, will this fellow in WI be?
How about the Carr brothers?
The whole point of this, is that not only are hate crime laws silly, is that they aren’t applied equally or consistently.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 11.30.04 @ 5:55 pm
What’s next? People getting arrested for a “hate crime” for speaking out against NAMBLA?
Comment by Renee — 11.30.04 @ 7:11 pm
‘The point is that hate crimes are being applied in even rediculous cases. And since when was gay an ethnic group?’
I mentioned ethnic as an example. The ordinance probably mentioned sexual orientation. I don’t thikn the other crimes charged are ridiculous.
‘While the folks in Philly are being charged with a hate crime, will this fellow in WI be?’
It depends on if they have bias motivated crime laws in WI.
But you’re still mixing up two different things.
Comment by actus — 11.30.04 @ 8:51 pm
I live about two hours away from the Rice Lake area where the shootings occured and have many family members in that part of the state. The Hmong, in Wisconsin are clustered in four locales: Southeastern urban Wisconsin, La Crosse, Eau Claire and Wausau. Poaching and trespassing issues during the hunting season are nothing new. Both friends and family have had shots taken at them by trespassers, and just about every hunter or rural landowner you talk to will have a story. Therefore, I don’t think this tragedy will increase racial tensions between whites and the Hmong. Mr. Vang is playing the race card as a means of illegitimately mitigating his culpability.
Wisconsin law does not have the death penalty although cynics reference an “unofficial Wisconsin death penalty,” ala Jeffrey Dahmer. Wisconsin also does not have “hate crime” enhancements. Therefore, if convicted, Mr. Vang will face a minimum of six consecutive life sentences without possibility of parole, and will have to watch his back every remaining day of his life.
Comment by Kathy Kexel — 11.30.04 @ 9:18 pm
According to the reports actus, they used ethic intimidation in the so called charges against the Christians in Philly.
“The “ethnic intimidation” charge was made under Pennsylvania’s Ethnic Intimidation and Institutional Vandalism Act, the state’s “hate crimes” law, to which “sexual orientation” was recently added as a victim category.”
Again, lets just add whatever we want to this rediculous law as different lifestyles become more “popular”. What’s next to get added to the “ethnic group” category?
Comment by Renee — 11.30.04 @ 10:04 pm
‘Again, lets just add whatever we want to this rediculous law as different lifestyles become more “popular”.
Or we become aware of their targeted status.
Comment by actus — 12.01.04 @ 1:18 am
For me it is simple. To say that a crime against a black person by a white person should carry a harsher penalty than a crime against a black person by a black person or a white person against a white person presupposes the superiority of blacks over whites. I believe that “all men are created equal.”
Comment by Kyle Ambrose — 12.01.04 @ 1:58 pm
Targetted status ..huh. The pedophiles and NAMBLA will loe you:-)
Spoken like a true liberal actus. You wear it well. The others will be proud of you. I’m just waiting to see who “you all” blame with this little doozy of a law backfires on you.
Oh well. My talking to a brick wall leel has been reached for the day. On to more improtant discussions:-)
Comment by Renee — 12.01.04 @ 2:25 pm
‘To say that a crime against a black person by a white person should carry a harsher penalty than a crime against a black person by a black person or a white person against a white person presupposes the superiority of blacks over whites. I believe that “all men are created equal.”’
That’s very nice. But its not what bias motivated crime statutes address.
‘Targetted status ..huh. The pedophiles and NAMBLA will loe you:-)’
Maybe, but certainly also my gay friends who fear gay bashing and being themselves. ta-ta.
Comment by actus — 12.01.04 @ 3:13 pm
Until the hate crimes laws are either changed so that they are a seperate charge (and they are in some areas), and are enforced equally, they will continue to be BS. That is, just another way to create protected groups, or to do just what they claim they are protecting against: allow groups to be cowed into inaction for fear of reprisals.
When I say seperated into another crime/charge, I mean that to be:
Murder is murder, assualt is assault, etc. But if you want to say the motivation was to intimidate or terrorize the larger community, prove it seperately, and punish it in its own right.
As it is, too many states just up the punishment for an existing charge, presupposed on what the defendent was believed to motivated by.
As a result, you have people charged with a hate crime by DAs who are only trying to increase the sentencing to intimidate defendents into a plea bargain.
Split them off, and they can more easily decide to fight one charge, but not another. That is, cop to a mugging or assualt, but fight that it was motivated by a desire to scare a community.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 12.01.04 @ 3:53 pm
I think the final word is in…. It’s mine.
Hate crime - A crime that is more harshly penalized due to your supposed thoughts.
Those who are for it:
1)Liberals like it because it makes them “feel” like they are really hitting hard against those who hate. But hate who? Why doesn’t the hate crimes laws apply to those who hate non-minorities?
2) Racists like it because it starts more hard feelings.
Those who are against it:
1) Conservatives who are against preferential treatment and/or discrimination. I read Ward Connerly’s book “Creating Equal”. I agree with it entirely. While Ward doesn’t mention hate crimes legislation I’m sure he wouldn’t be in favor of treating crimes differently for some based on race or ethnicity.
2) Conservatives are against hate crimes legislation because it leads Americans down the path of determining whether or not someone supposedly hates another race. Who determines this? Liberals accuse conservatives of being racist. If someone is determined to be a “conservative” are they going to be automatically figured to have committed a hate crime if they committed a crime?
My point never gets answered about the perpetrators of James Byrd’s death. How do we punish those criminals MORE? They got the death sentence in Texas. That’s as good as dead. If we found that their diaries had page after page of writings proclaiming love for African Americans should those criminals be given a lesser sentence? NO NO NO The crime is heinous no matter what you determined their thought about the race was. It is simple Actus. Try to open your mind.
Comment by Baklava — 12.02.04 @ 6:57 pm
‘Hate crime - A crime that is more harshly penalized due to your supposed thoughts. ‘
Just like the thoughts that differentiate murder from manslaughter. See above.
How do we punish them more? in the case of a murder with a death penalty its rather hard to imagine. But you know thats not the only crime or punishment around.
Comment by actus — 12.03.04 @ 12:07 am
There is legitimate differences Actus between manslaughter and murder that don’t add into the mix whether you love/hate minorities.
I’m not sure why you persist on adding into the mix whether or not you supposedly love/hate a minority. As I said and you don’t seem to want to answer…. If the killers of James Byrd had page after page of love for African Americans should they have gotten a lesser sentence. I say NO. Could they have been executed twice? No. Hate crimes legislation would not have executed those killers any more deader.
Don’t be so preoccupied with race Actus. Please… for my children’s sake.
Comment by Baklava — 12.03.04 @ 12:11 pm
‘There is legitimate differences Actus between manslaughter and murder that don’t add into the mix whether you love/hate minorities.’
I know. the differences are in what people are thinking. their states of mind. which juries determine from all sorts of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
And its not a question of making crimes which currently carry a sentence having any less of a sentence either. Its just a question of recognizing bias motivation as a particular evil to be punished.
I’m not so preoccupied with this. I haven’t yet decided whether bias motivation is an evil worth more punishment. But I have decided that a lot of the discussion on this is ill-informed and counter-productive.
Comment by actus — 12.03.04 @ 3:12 pm
Oh, and for everyone who is interested, this situation has come before the Supreme Court. They unanimously(rehnquist, scalia, kennedy..) upheld sentence enhacements for bias motivation. The case is WISCONSIN v. MITCHELL, 508 U.S. 476 (1993).
here’s a link:
http://tinyurl.com/3ka76
Comment by actus — 12.03.04 @ 7:45 pm
Before I write a response, I would like to say that most of the existing hate crimes legislation is crap. It doesn’t do what it needs to do, is vague, and is poorly understood by both sides of the argument. It appears that the people in this debate, with a few exceptions, are looking at the current laws and pretending that those represent what hate crime legislation should be. That is wrong.
“Those who are for it:
1)Liberals like it because it makes them “feel” like they are really hitting hard against those who hate. But hate who? Why doesn’t the hate crimes laws apply to those who hate non-minorities?”
Most hate crime laws are poorly written. Even the supporters of hate crime legislation have trouble understanding what its all about. But hate crime laws should apply to those who hate non-minorities. They are universal. If I attack you and the fact that you’re white is a motivating factor, hate crime laws could be used against me (though even then, its very hard to do so, since motive is such a murky subjetc). But the same goes for any group. There are no ‘protected classes.’ Unfortunately, too many people–both for and against–argue that this is precisely what they do. They are wrong.
“2) Racists like it because it starts more hard feelings.”
So, when a legitimate means to prosecute those who terrorize whole communities is created, the terrorizers like it? Hate crime legislation would only ’start more hard feelings’ when such feelings already exist among the general populace. Unless an entire town is racist, those who are prosecuted under hate crimes legislation represent only the extremist fringe. What this sort of legislation does is allow the community to examine itself and marginalize those who are racist, homophobic, etc. Its a tool for letting the community heal itself.
“Those who are against it:
1) Conservatives who are against preferential treatment and/or discrimination. I read Ward Connerly’s book “Creating Equal”. I agree with it entirely. While Ward doesn’t mention hate crimes legislation I’m sure he wouldn’t be in favor of treating crimes differently for some based on race or ethnicity.”
But hate crimes legislation, as I mentioned above, applies to everyone… white/black, gay/straight, Jewish/skinhead (ok, that’s not the actual dichotomy, but you know what I’m trying to say). We’re not treating some groups differently. We’re treating all equally.
“2) Conservatives are against hate crimes legislation because it leads Americans down the path of determining whether or not someone supposedly hates another race. Who determines this? Liberals accuse conservatives of being racist. If someone is determined to be a “conservative” are they going to be automatically figured to have committed a hate crime if they committed a crime?”
Hate crimes legislation is very difficult to apply except in relatively clear-cut cases. If I vandalize someone’s house and spray paint my name all over it… that’s simple vandalism. If I spray paint swastikas on a Jewish family’s home, that’s vandalism that is labeled a hate crime. The sentence would be greater, since hate crime legislation would kick in.
You couldn’t be prosecuted for being a conservative. You have to actually commit a crime first. Then your motive must be established. So, are you seriously trying to discuss this issue, or just messing around? That last statement of yours was made in jest, right?
“My point never gets answered about the perpetrators of James Byrd’s death. How do we punish those criminals MORE?”
We DON’T. They’re already getting the death penalty. Invoking the term ‘hate crime’ at that point is purely symbolic. What you’re doing here is taking an extreme case in which punishing the perpetrators for a hate crime would have no measurable effect on their sentence and pretending that that’s how ALL hate crime cases would unfold.
You should try reading ‘Death of the 4th of July’ by David Neiwert. Very interesting look into the dynamics of hate crimes in small towns in rural America. Those communities that have had hate crimes occur within their borders are generally very relieved to prosecute them as such. The laws are generally appreciated by both law enforcement and citizens.
Comment by Bolo — 12.04.04 @ 5:44 pm
Hate crime, seems that murder is almost always a hate crime; you hate someone so much that you kill him!
As far as this creep goes, I don’t believe he set out deliberately to kill just white folks, but he went off and killed a bunch of people who confronted him. Who knows if race was the deciding factor?
Comment by Jakemeister — 12.04.04 @ 10:50 pm
Sorry, its “Death ON the Fourth of July,” by David Neiwert.
Comment by Bolo — 12.05.04 @ 12:55 pm
Baklava, just fyi, you were right about Texas not having hate crime laws when the Byrd murder was committed, which didn’t seem necessary since two of his killers are on death row and one is serving a life sentence. However, shortly after the 2000 election, hate crime legislation was passed here in Texas. I agree with you, I didn’t see the point of the commerical, given the sentences of the murderers, but the state legislature did respond to it and passed the law.
Comment by gypsy — 12.05.04 @ 1:34 pm
I don’t think that this is a “hate crime”. This is a case where both parties are held responsible for their own action. If the whole scenerios were taken care proffessionally, none of this would have happened. Everyone needs to realize that this is the 21st century, and using racial comments will definitly get you killed, including the white race are the most racist race in history. That is why all minorities unlike the white race, and also why there are terroist. It’s the ignorant thoughts of individuals that create conflict between different race. African Americans suffer for so long in American history from “Hate crime”. But it seem like “Hate crime” are only used when caucasian are killed by other minorities, and when minorities get killed by caucasians it’s only murder and not a hate crime. So, I guess the white race are the only beneficials. If only the white race can at least stop having fears, and bug out of other race problems, they would be fine. And it all comes down to a conclusion, where everyone should learn how to respect each other, and take your action responsibly. Because, if you take the wrong action, your life will be on the line.
Comment by john — 12.05.04 @ 3:21 pm
Is it a hate crime? or what its a wonder that the bunny huggers hav,nt expoilted this for their own purposes i wonder how long it will be until those jerks a PETA try to expoit this and claim he was a meat eater SCREW PETA
Comment by firebird — 12.06.04 @ 9:02 am
I agree w/ john. This wasn’t a hate crime. he didn’t see these guys and started shooting them because they were white. besides,where’s your proof that was how he felt about white folks anyways? articles such as this only fuels the racial fire. good job on that. this will only give people more ideas and reasons to hate the Hmong/Asian people. as if there already isn’t enough hate in this world. All I have to say is that this was the work of one deranged man that needed help. Don’t link it to the rest of his race. That’s how you start hate.
Comment by julius — 12.08.04 @ 1:08 pm
This is absurd. Why not go as far as an Asian conspiracy to wipe out the white race? Better yet, that Hmong people are trying to take over the world? Every single article relating to this case ties him to the Hmong community by indicating that he’s a Hmong immigrant. By doing this, there WILL be hate crimes committed against the Hmong because of one crazy man’s actions. He’s an American citizen. There aren’t enough smart people out there that realize this incident was based on an individual and retaliation against the Hmong community is uncalled for. It was one man that pulled the trigger, not the whole community. Your article just gives more ignorant people a reason to hate others unlike them. I truly believe that he was provoked to act this way, not because he hated white people and just wanted to kill. However, regardless of whether he was provoked or not, it still isn’t enough justification for the killing of 6 people. Whether they were innocent of any wrong-doing or not, we’ll never know. Let God be the judge as he along w/ the victims and the suspect knows what really happened in those woods. I also think that it’s time for the public to shut up cus they are just making the situation worse than it already is.
Comment by kris — 12.08.04 @ 1:20 pm
Wow. Talk about missing the point.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 12.08.04 @ 2:49 pm
ERIC SHARP, Detroit Free Press, on RACIAL ANIMOSITY AND HUNTING:
DETROIT - Last week’s column about the six hunters killed in Wisconsin brought a lot of e-mails and telephone calls from black hunters in Michigan. A Hmong immigrant was charged with the shootings, and the black hunters didn’t condone them. But they said they had been subjected to the same racist slurs and threats that might have triggered the Asian man’s rampage.
I don’t doubt those stories because I have been with white hunters who made racist comments when we saw black hunters in the fields. What really amazes me is how white hunters born and raised in northern Michigan, where they grew up with almost no contact with black people, are often as racist as any Ku Klux Klan member born and raised in the black belts of Mississippi or Alabama.
It was interesting that most of the black callers thought I was automatically accepting the word of the surviving white hunters, who said there was no reason for the killings and denied that anyone on their side made any racial slurs. The truth is I have no idea what happened other than what I’ve learned by reading the accounts of the incident and talking to people who probably don’t know much more than I do.
And while I don’t want to seem like a bleeding-heart liberal apologist for bad acts by the racially oppressed, I have learned enough about Hmong-white relations across this country in the last week that I would give 6-1 that one of the white hunters did say something nasty, and this time he said it to the wrong guy.
Chai Vang, the 36-year-old Laotian immigrant charged with killing six people and wounding two more in what began as a trespassing dispute, comes from a culture with a long tradition of hunting but no tradition of game laws, bag limits and formal hunting seasons as they are understood by Americans.
That lack of understanding has created resentment among some hunters, who say the Asians are notorious poachers and game violators and often trash rural areas with litter and garbage. Chai Vang once was ticketed by a Minnesota game warden for a fishing violation, taking 93 crappies above the legal limit.
The Hmong are here because they were armed and trained by us to fight on the American side during the Vietnam War. They have a long tradition as fighters and their courage was legendary, and sometimes so was their savagery. When we decided to bug out, so did many of the Hmong.
Police in Wisconsin said Vang admitted the shootings, but they still don’t understand why he climbed down from the tree stand where he was trespassing, methodically removed the telescopic sight from his SKS rifle and shot at the other hunters until the 20-shot clip was empty.
Several black hunters in Michigan said the police need look no further than the racist epithets that Vang said the white hunters unleashed on him when they found him on their land. He also claimed that the white hunters were the first to fire a shot at him, something the two survivors denied.
It might turn out that Vang was an isolated nutcase. With more than 186,000 Hmong in the U.S., as of the 2000 census, and about 40,000 of them in Wisconsin and Minnesota, there is as much potential for violence perpetuated by a few deranged or evil people among the Hmong as among any other group. But the more I read about the tension between the Hmong community and its white neighbors in Minnesota and Wisconsin, the more I understand the feelings of the black hunters who called.
Several of the black hunters said they had been in situations through the years where white hunters leveled guns at them or even fired shots nearby.
“I was rabbit hunting with a black friend near Newaygo a few years ago when we met a group of six white guys who were rabbit hunting, too,” said one black man, who, like the others, asked that his name not be used. “Three of them started on us right away, asking what we were doing in their hunting place, and why didn’t we stay in Detroit where we belonged.
“The other three white guys didn’t say anything, just stood there. One of the loudmouths told us that we had better leave if we knew what was good for us. We were on public land, and I was so mad I was about ready to make a stand. But my friend is a lot cooler head, and he said that it wasn’t worth it and we should just go. So we left, and as we walked back to the car, I could hear three loudmouths laughing and calling us every nasty name you can think of and saying how we better never come back if we knew what was good for us. I wasn’t ready to go kill them all because of what they said, but can you imagine how I felt?”
If white and black Americans still feel those tensions after living side-by-side for nearly 400 years, how do we adjust to a people as exotic as the Hmong?
One problem is that many Third World people have such a tough time surviving day-to-day that they haven’t had the luxury of developing a strong conservation ethic. A few years ago in San Francisco, police found Hmong with handmade bows and arrows hunting squirrels, marmots and other furry critters year-round in Golden Gate Park. When they were ticketed, the Hmong couldn’t understand why anyone would deny them such a bounty.
Though there is real and sometimes justified resentment from white hunters for what they see as unethical hunting practices by the Hmong, you only need to talk to a Wisconsin or Minnesota hunter for a few minutes before the criticisms change from hunting activities to social issues like polygamy and marrying girls at 13 and 14, practices many whites think are common among the Asian immigrants.
And you only need to talk to black hunters in Michigan for the same amount of time to hear stories about confrontations with whites that had the same potential for violence that we saw in Wisconsin. This one should be a lesson to every hunter.
In this case the hate crime would be the white folks,
but the slaying of 6 people was unjustice even if it was self defense.
——————————————————————————–
Comment by Vietnam Vet — 12.08.04 @ 4:29 pm
ERIC SHARP, Detroit Free Press, on RACIAL ANIMOSITY AND HUNTING:
DETROIT - Last week’s column about the six hunters killed in Wisconsin brought a lot of e-mails and telephone calls from black hunters in Michigan. A Hmong immigrant was charged with the shootings, and the black hunters didn’t condone them. But they said they had been subjected to the same racist slurs and threats that might have triggered the Asian man’s rampage.
I don’t doubt those stories because I have been with white hunters who made racist comments when we saw black hunters in the fields. What really amazes me is how white hunters born and raised in northern Michigan, where they grew up with almost no contact with black people, are often as racist as any Ku Klux Klan member born and raised in the black belts of Mississippi or Alabama.
It was interesting that most of the black callers thought I was automatically accepting the word of the surviving white hunters, who said there was no reason for the killings and denied that anyone on their side made any racial slurs. The truth is I have no idea what happened other than what I’ve learned by reading the accounts of the incident and talking to people who probably don’t know much more than I do.
And while I don’t want to seem like a bleeding-heart liberal apologist for bad acts by the racially oppressed, I have learned enough about Hmong-white relations across this country in the last week that I would give 6-1 that one of the white hunters did say something nasty, and this time he said it to the wrong guy.
Chai Vang, the 36-year-old Laotian immigrant charged with killing six people and wounding two more in what began as a trespassing dispute, comes from a culture with a long tradition of hunting but no tradition of game laws, bag limits and formal hunting seasons as they are understood by Americans.
That lack of understanding has created resentment among some hunters, who say the Asians are notorious poachers and game violators and often trash rural areas with litter and garbage. Chai Vang once was ticketed by a Minnesota game warden for a fishing violation, taking 93 crappies above the legal limit.
The Hmong are here because they were armed and trained by us to fight on the American side during the Vietnam War. They have a long tradition as fighters and their courage was legendary, and sometimes so was their savagery. When we decided to bug out, so did many of the Hmong.
Police in Wisconsin said Vang admitted the shootings, but they still don’t understand why he climbed down from the tree stand where he was trespassing, methodically removed the telescopic sight from his SKS rifle and shot at the other hunters until the 20-shot clip was empty.
Several black hunters in Michigan said the police need look no further than the racist epithets that Vang said the white hunters unleashed on him when they found him on their land. He also claimed that the white hunters were the first to fire a shot at him, something the two survivors denied.
It might turn out that Vang was an isolated nutcase. With more than 186,000 Hmong in the U.S., as of the 2000 census, and about 40,000 of them in Wisconsin and Minnesota, there is as much potential for violence perpetuated by a few deranged or evil people among the Hmong as among any other group. But the more I read about the tension between the Hmong community and its white neighbors in Minnesota and Wisconsin, the more I understand the feelings of the black hunters who called.
Several of the black hunters said they had been in situations through the years where white hunters leveled guns at them or even fired shots nearby.
“I was rabbit hunting with a black friend near Newaygo a few years ago when we met a group of six white guys who were rabbit hunting, too,” said one black man, who, like the others, asked that his name not be used. “Three of them started on us right away, asking what we were doing in their hunting place, and why didn’t we stay in Detroit where we belonged.
“The other three white guys didn’t say anything, just stood there. One of the loudmouths told us that we had better leave if we knew what was good for us. We were on public land, and I was so mad I was about ready to make a stand. But my friend is a lot cooler head, and he said that it wasn’t worth it and we should just go. So we left, and as we walked back to the car, I could hear three loudmouths laughing and calling us every nasty name you can think of and saying how we better never come back if we knew what was good for us. I wasn’t ready to go kill them all because of what they said, but can you imagine how I felt?”
If white and black Americans still feel those tensions after living side-by-side for nearly 400 years, how do we adjust to a people as exotic as the Hmong?
One problem is that many Third World people have such a tough time surviving day-to-day that they haven’t had the luxury of developing a strong conservation ethic. A few years ago in San Francisco, police found Hmong with handmade bows and arrows hunting squirrels, marmots and other furry critters year-round in Golden Gate Park. When they were ticketed, the Hmong couldn’t understand why anyone would deny them such a bounty.
Though there is real and sometimes justified resentment from white hunters for what they see as unethical hunting practices by the Hmong, you only need to talk to a Wisconsin or Minnesota hunter for a few minutes before the criticisms change from hunting activities to social issues like polygamy and marrying girls at 13 and 14, practices many whites think are common among the Asian immigrants.
And you only need to talk to black hunters in Michigan for the same amount of time to hear stories about confrontations with whites that had the same potential for violence that we saw in Wisconsin. This one should be a lesson to every hunter.
Note: let give this a twist lets say the hmong hunter was killed by the hunters this story would be no headline , basicall a dead asian .
If the hmong guys get shot because the white hates asian there would be no press. The story would just go away… no justice , but since its the other way around its not called in self defense but a mass murder..
——————————————————————————–
Responses:
Comment by Vietnam Vet — 12.08.04 @ 4:32 pm
SCSIwuzzy - I didn’t miss the point. My first two statements were full of sarcasm. Articles such as these will only feed more ideas and give people an “excuse” to continue to hate. Very well said Vietnam Vet. Not alot of people know why the Hmongs are here. In almost all the articles I’ve read so far, it gives off the impression that they left their country for a hand out in this country.
Comment by kris — 12.09.04 @ 6:51 am
what’s up with the descrimination in wisconsin
“save the deer kill the hmong”
what is that. why are people being so sterio-type on one doing.
you can’t balm one and then the whole other race. did you ever stop to think about your pro’s and con’s instead of just the info. from the news or etc…
what if it was miscommunication or some sort?
no one knows the turth.
may be he did it maybe he didn’t because the hate………
people just got to stop talking about hmong or asian people, mostly the ones that didn’t do anything.
and…hello…..there was just white people there and how can you say that is just racist?
this is going out of control………why can’t there be peace in the world if others won’t stop to think.
hey, face it people there are bigger problems in the world then this and besides no one knows the truth.
and those two survivors might have said it because they were wounded by him or some one.
i hope people learn from what i have to say today!
DON’T FORGET TO STOP AND THINK ABOUT IT!
-lanora
Comment by lanora — 12.10.04 @ 1:38 pm
kris,
LaShawn, and most of the regulars on her blog think hate crimes laws are BS. That’s the point you’re missing.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 12.10.04 @ 2:11 pm
Well I think that this issue has gotten blown out of way too big, lets keep this one incidents that one person did and not held all the hmong people accounted for. Yes racist is wrong , Yes the shooting was wrong but lets look it from both sides then make our own case. I beleive when the first story came out it was, called a massacre where a murder just went out chasing and shooting folks to death. If you read the first story it was said from the white hunters, there was no swearing or racial slur made, nor any gun was fired. The story changed after a few weeks, but the hmong hunter who made a mistake of shooting kept the same story. I think who is the blame is the media and quick to judge mentallity that has gotten this thing blown out of porportion.
From a American as myself and a vietnam Vet, this is absurb and disgracefule. Im patriotic, but to say that this bumper sticker saying kill the hmong save the deer, if this was to say white folks hunting season. There would be charges pressed on the person with the bumber sticker, but since it says save the deer kill the hmongs its ok there only hmong. Be an american and stand for what you beleive in…..
The bumper sticker is wrong and racial, thats not what America is about. The shooting was wrong and unjust but lets get the whole picture the judge one person and not a whole race of people for one wrong doing.
If you are a Raven and worked with the hmong or been saved by them in the CIA Vietnam campaign I urged you to write on this article.
May freedom ring to all..
Vietnam Vet
Comment by Vietnam Vet — 12.13.04 @ 5:27 pm
Responses:
comment by Vietnam Vet — 12.08.04 @ 4:32 pm
——————————————————————————–
SCSIwuzzy - I didn’t miss the point. My first two statements were full of sarcasm. Articles such as these will only feed more ideas and give people an “excuse” to continue to hate. Very well said Vietnam Vet. Not alot of people know why the Hmongs are here. In almost all the articles I’ve read so far, it gives off the impression that they left their country for a hand out in this country.
My response to this:
Well son let me tell what the real truth is, If you served in the arm forces during the Vietnam war then you would know who the hmongs were.
Its not they are here because they are looking for a helping hand, but we left them there to die, its harsh but yes we recruited the hmong to help us fight the viet kongs, and promised them freedom and help. They also risk their lives save thousands of soldiers even a uncle, cousin , farther, grandfarther who has served in the long war. If you do have relatives ask them who the hmongs were and why they are here.
We broke our pledge to them when they needed us and left leaving them to fight the war and being slaughtered like animals during the war. We however did promised to allow them to settle in the US for this cause, otherwise they would be just like the Jews killed. So son, go read a book called Raven. Or look up Raven in the search engine and you will find these people helping and fight with us hand and hand side by side to the end…
I have lived in Wisconsin and has many freinds who are other ethnicity and repect them all.
Hmong are my freinds…
A vietnam vet.
Comment by Vietnam Vet — 12.13.04 @ 5:51 pm
Regardless of what happens to Chai Vang, We, Hmong, will carry his burden on our backs till the day we all die.
Tolerance is our only hope.
Unfortunately, there might not be enough tolerance to go around, but we can be patient.
We do not want to pull another Chai Vang.
*I was born in Wisconsin and I still reside there.
I am Hmong-American.
Comment by Hmong girl — 12.15.04 @ 9:26 pm
Dear Readers - I’m an idiot. I apologize to the gracious blog hostess.
Comment by Criminal Pure Playerz — 12.24.04 @ 10:46 pm
it doesnt matter if they called him names he trespassed and got caught. He went nuts and shot all of them he should get death penalty. He should have just gottten down and left when they caught him he hunted them down and shot them he should be put to death for that Scott Peterson is getting the death penalty for killing his wife this guy should get it for killing 6 people. What did they do call him names big whoop. Everyone gets called names sometime in there like do u see them getting a gun and shooting them????????
Comment by hunter — 12.29.04 @ 3:01 am
i am hmong american and i dont think that what he did was right at all. he should be charged with murder and everything that goes with what he did. i think that everyone is turning this into a racist thing. what if the other hunters were african american? what if they were hmong too? just becuase you see two different race does not automatically make the two sides racists. You cant just assume that he is a racist becuase everyone one else is white. He did go nuts, and crazy.. that was wrong!
Comment by pakou — 12.29.04 @ 3:52 pm
Poeple, hate crime or not, I believe that all the peoples involved in this incident are stupid. They don’t use commen sense. Think about, Vang claimed he was lost and ended up on a tree stand? If you’re on the tree stand, your only purpose is to hunt. Now if he was lost why not get help? For the 8 people who got shot, if you know that 7 of your friends got shot, why don’t get help. Call the cops or something, let them handle the situation. And dang, why would you still wear orange blaze. There is no hate crime, just stupid idiots who don’t use thier heads and ended up locked up for life and some…. dead. Hate Crime is just an idea for all of us to seperate racise. Buttom line is everyone is the same, everyone will die no matter what color you are in.
Comment by TheGuyAbove — 12.31.04 @ 12:12 pm
This guy is a nut, and it points our that people who do things that that are nuts and it is a hate crime and bush is a hate crime against our nation just like this guy is.
Comment by Fred Dawes — 01.05.05 @ 7:33 pm
You must be the person who just blew in from searching MSN. I get all kinds around here.
Comment by La Shawn — 01.05.05 @ 7:36 pm