Video: Looks like cops caved to CAIR on Shmulevich, says Kelly
posted at 2:12 pm on July 31, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Picking up exactly where this morning’s post left off: is it a hate crime if the defendant intended to intimidate a person or group by committing a crime against someone else or must the crime be committed against them personally? The two lawyers seem to think the former; Kelly agrees with Eugene Volokh that it’s the latter. The statute itself is a mixed bag. From section 485.00, setting forth the legislative findings:
The intolerable truth is that in these crimes, commonly and justly referred to as “hate crimes”, victims are intentionally selected, in whole or in part, because of their race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation.
That tilts towards Kelly and Volokh since the victim, i.e. Pace, wasn’t selected on that grounds. But here’s the hate crimes provision in section 485.05:
1. A person commits a hate crime when he or she commits a specified offense and either:
(a) intentionally selects the person against whom the offense is committed or intended to be committed in whole or in substantial part because of a belief or perception regarding the race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation of a person, regardless of whether the belief or perception is correct, or
(b) intentionally commits the act or acts constituting the offense in whole or in substantial part because of a belief or perception regarding the race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation of a person, regardless of whether the belief or perception is correct.
Subsection (b) decouples hateful intent from the choice of victim which makes me think the two lawyers are correct on the law as it stands. The question now will be whether it’s constitutional under Supreme Court precedent.
In any case, you’re really watching for Kelly’s point near the end about CAIR. Pace claims they haven’t had any dealings with them about this case. Don’t you believe it.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
What about hate crimes against pork?
Kini on July 31, 2007 at 2:19 PM
But, if Stas dunked the Koran because a muslim girl dissed him, he doesn’t hate muslims, he just knows how to get jibe them well.
tomg51 on July 31, 2007 at 2:20 PM
Who can think of hate when looking at Kelly?
Was this prosecution case an underhanded attempt to get Kelly’s Court on the case everyday for next foreseeable future?
Just a question.
Mcguyver on July 31, 2007 at 2:22 PM
What? that sounds like good ol’ art to me.
TheSitRep on July 31, 2007 at 2:24 PM
Can’t watch the video right now, but I agree with Kelly.
RedWinged Blackbird on July 31, 2007 at 2:25 PM
Be careful what you say about liberals or God forbid you throw away some democrat literature or solicitation.
The thought police will find you.
peacenprosperity on July 31, 2007 at 2:37 PM
At the root of freedom of speech is freedom of thought. You can’t have the former without the later.
If this case makes it to the SCOTUS the entire notion of thought crimes should be found unconstitutional.
FloatingRock on July 31, 2007 at 2:40 PM
So if I feel intimidated by flag being burned then it should be a hate crime.
elBarto on July 31, 2007 at 2:42 PM
Lawyers love this crap because Lawyers are crap.
When you commit a crime I don’t care if you have love or malice in your heart, a crime is a crime.
Well with that said I have to go, I have a bunch of Korans that need flushing and buckets of pork drippin’s to spray
TheSitRep on July 31, 2007 at 2:43 PM
Anybody hear of any copycat crimes?
Valiant on July 31, 2007 at 2:45 PM
Wonder who is going to defend this guy. I contacted Pacific Legal Fund twice but they never answered me. I thought they were like a conservative ACLU.
JiangxiDad on July 31, 2007 at 2:46 PM
What fear could flushing a Koran down a toilet cause a group or individual? That they could receive the next swirlie?
Tennman on July 31, 2007 at 2:50 PM
But I thought they were the Religion of Hate?
So what’s the problem?
Kini on July 31, 2007 at 2:57 PM
Still waiting for a YouTube video to surface of just such a “crime”.
Mcguyver on July 31, 2007 at 3:02 PM
TheSitRep correctly states, that a crime is a crime, and that “Lawyers love this crap because Lawyers are crap.”
Congress is populated by lawyers and manipulated by lawyer lobbyists.
There is no Constitutional reason for the Supreme Court to validate “hate crimes”.
Again, “Hate Crimes” are an insiduous twisted PC folly meant to divide and conquer our mass population into special interest groups vs. e pluribus unum.
ALL crimes are motivated by some sort of “hate”. There is obviously too much legislation for the good of the people and for the preservation of the Constitution to waste attention on “hate crimes” as such. In effect, “hate crimes” are only going to be prosecuted against those who hold dear the American traditions that established and built our nation.
Individuals and conservative organizations must join together to sue the government for specifically discriminating against the sons and daughters of the American Revolution. Don’t tread on me.
maverick muse on July 31, 2007 at 3:06 PM
I asked this question earlier today on a nearly dead thread:
Who is Faisal Khan, the NYPD detective whose name appears on the criminal complaint?
Is he the same Faisal Khan who received an award for courage from CAIR-Chicago? (Scroll down to pics 9 and 10)
IrishEi on July 31, 2007 at 3:20 PM
I hadn’t heard about this, um, case until just now.
No Jihadist will ever have the chance to behead me at knifepoint, ’cause I swear to #&$&** my #$**g head’s going to explode first.
This is aggravated assault? &#$( me.
saint kansas on July 31, 2007 at 3:22 PM
If this case sets precedent, then yes. Make sure you go to all the CAIR sponsored rallies full of Hamas members burning flags. They should all be charged with hate crimes for intimidating people like me with their actions. I have an American flag on my house and I should be able to fly it without fear in my own country.
ThackerAgency on July 31, 2007 at 3:24 PM
CAIR by its very nature is a walking hate crime.
Timber Wolf on July 31, 2007 at 3:24 PM
P.S. Hey Bryan, Michelle, et al.
How about an “I am Stanislav Shmulevich” video Vent to go with “I am John Doe”? How many people are they willing to arrest for this?
saint kansas on July 31, 2007 at 3:25 PM
A member of the Muslim Law Enforcement Officers Association, Faisal Khan, the Muslim NYPD Officer at 718-619-5314, he who brought these charges, as I am led to believe.
Muslim police today, Sharia courts tomorrow.
HT covenantzone.blogspot
Timber Wolf on July 31, 2007 at 3:32 PM
Since “national origin” is a protected class, is it illegal to intimidate Americans on the basis of their being American?
Nosferightu on July 31, 2007 at 3:38 PM
If it’s legal to use computers to simulate child pr0n, can I whip up a Qur’an Flushing simulator in Flash and post it?
saint kansas on July 31, 2007 at 3:38 PM
Thanks for that info Timber; I hadn’t seen that when I Googled it. Do you know if he is the same Faisal Khan that got the award from CAIR? (see my comment at 3:20 PM)
IrishEi on July 31, 2007 at 3:42 PM
Every time I see an American flag burned or desecrated in any way, I’m skeeeeered. Therefore, round up all the muzzies and lefttards and book ‘em.
Blake on July 31, 2007 at 3:44 PM
All your Koran are belong to us.
PBoilermaker on July 31, 2007 at 4:06 PM
I hope no one will be a vandal. Why not simply forget your pork rind bookmark in the Koran?
thuja on July 31, 2007 at 4:07 PM
Jealousy, love, anger, spite crimes don’t count, only “hate”. See? We need to get psychologists involved in every crime to see if specifically “hate” was involved. Doesn’t that make sense? Let taxes pay for all of this while we are at it.
nottakingsides on July 31, 2007 at 4:34 PM
Me too. The only crime here is he didn’t use his own Koran. If somebody does post a re-enactment on YouTube, they will pull it down in minutes.
Valiant on July 31, 2007 at 5:09 PM
I hate those who came up with the concept of the “hatecrime”.
Book me.
(Pun intended-;)
profitsbeard on July 31, 2007 at 8:02 PM
Obviously this case is very thin on Constitutional grounds.
I say when it’s not a clear case, tie goes to the (2nd)amendment.
IMO when you have to try this hard to prosecute something that’s not murder, rape, theft or some other very egregious crime your trying too hard.
Speakup on July 31, 2007 at 8:27 PM
(2nd)amendment.=(1st)amendment
Speakup on July 31, 2007 at 8:28 PM
hehehe…
chown -R us ./koran
lsutiger on July 31, 2007 at 9:05 PM
Heh ..
cat koran > /dev/null
or
sed ’s/Mohammad/Child_molesting_moon_worshiper/g’ koran
AZ_Redneck on July 31, 2007 at 10:47 PM
CAIR first instills fear, then rhetoric, then sharia law, then…?
Will they ‘honor kill’ someone’s little daughter, in a state university, before we decide to stop this ‘crap’ ?
or maybe when Pigs Fly?
.
.
.
oh wait….
shooter on July 31, 2007 at 11:28 PM
Not a flush, but a burning. A Bible and a Koran.
- The Cat
MirCat on July 31, 2007 at 11:41 PM
This guy does it too, but more intelligently.
- The Cat
MirCat on July 31, 2007 at 11:46 PM
Now here’s one of just burning the koran. Link
- The Cat
P.S. No flushies that I can find.
MirCat on July 31, 2007 at 11:55 PM
The statute is clear, the act must be done to a specific person(s). This “act” does not fulfill the statute. But the PC motivation for “hate crimes” has never been constitutionally applied. Examples: remember the group of African-Americans who tortured, dismembered, and killed the young white couple recently? As far as I know, they are not being prosecuted under Hate Crime legislation. There was an attack on a bus where a group of African-American girls attacked a white girl. Nope, no hate crime charges there either.
There has been some success with hate crime laws, such as when the two racist rednecks in Texas indiscriminately chose an African-American, tied him to their pickup truck and dragged him to death.
My point is this: Hate Crime laws have been interpreted so that only whites can commit “hate” crimes against minorities and if a minority commits a similar crime against a white, it is assault/battery, etc. The goal of law is equal application to all and therefore Megan Kelly is right, no person targeted, no crime. All “hate crime” laws are unconstitutional as applied and we need to get one in front of the US Supreme Court to prove it. But for that to happen, we need a lawyer and that’s obviously a conundrum for some. Hmmmm.
LawCon on August 1, 2007 at 9:06 AM
Comment pages: