Man Claims Hate Crime Assault by Women

...for a "hate crime" prosecution. While such laws are intended to protect homosexuals from assaults and other attacks, they can and should be employed just as easily to file a complaint when homosexuals target heterosexuals because of their sexual orientation. If the prosecutor can prove that was the case, these lesbians are in for a very, very rough time with the courts.

Of course, they have to be charged with a hate crime first. Based on what's in the article, I notice that these women aren't charged with a hate crime for attacking a heterosexual man, despite the fact that this is clearly a case involving sexual orientation. If the hate crime law isn't applied equally, it's unconstitutional, and that's very bad news for the homosexual community. They rely on such laws for protection from "bashing" and hate, which are still a very real problem.

Which leads me to ask - why does the New Jersey DA's office hate homosexuals? Do they want to see someone getting away with "bashing" in the future as a result of their failure to apply hate crime laws in a constitutional manner?

(New Jersey's hate crime laws specifically address sexual orientation - see N.J. Stat. § 2C:16-1 (2002)).

Stabbing someone when you out number him 7 to 1 is not, any any way, self defense. It is attempted murder.

Then everyone jumped in because he is a man. Then some young men had helped us. After that we walked away. I admit I did cut him one time for my own safety.

That should be all the evidence they need to put at least this one away.

There's no such thing as intentionally cutting someone for your own safety. Especially when you can walk away... that's not self defense. And especially not a cut that's deep enough to cause lacerations to the liver and stomach.

The line "everyone jumped in because he is a man" just proves the case that this was a hate crime.

Isn't it nice that our gender is so brainwashed that when 7 women are beating and stabbing 1 man they can holler at complete strangers who are men across the street and they'll happily come over and assist the women with attempted murder.

Slaves attacking another slave at their lesbian overlords request. Humanity still has much evolving to do. I mean what could passably have been in it for those guys - they weren't going to get sexual rewards from a group of dykes - so I just can't understand other then a mans genetic hard wiring to help women at request even when they have everything more then under control.

Unfortunately that same instinct will kick in in the courts.

None of these women will be found guilty of a hate crime. They are members of a double victim class: women and gay. No rules or laws of the patriarchy apply to them. Courts don't have the courage to call them out for their hate fueled violence.

RandonMan wrote: If the hate crime law isn't applied equally, it's unconstitutional, and that's very bad news for the homosexual community.

OK, I’ll do a little friendly pot stirring.

I submit that hate crime laws aren’t constitutional in the first place. The 14th amendment includes the phrase:

“… nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person in its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

So how can crimes motivated by “hate” (I guess that’s opposed to crimes motivated by love) be treated as more serious than ones motivated by other factors? Does the law hold people accountable for committing illegal acts, or for having illegal thoughts?

For example, compare the murder of a homosexual motivated by the hatred of gay people (hate crime) versus the murder of a millionaire motivated by greed (not a hate crime). Both the gay person and the millionaire are dead and both perps were the cause of another person’s death. But the identical behaviors and identical results are categorized differently by law. How is it that the murder of one person is a lesser crime than the murder of the other? How can that represent equal protection under the law?

The rhetoric of hate-crime advocates would almost make us think that murdering gays and minorities would be legal without hate-crime laws. The problem has been with unequal application of the law, not the absence of law. However well-intentioned the legislation might be, it does not promote equality. Hate crime legislation mandates unequal protection under the law as a response to past unequal applications of law. Two wrongs don't make a right.

In addition to the issue of equality, hate-crime legislation further promotes big-brother Orwellian-style thought-police actions. Since a “Hate” crime and a “non-hate” crime can each involve the same actions by the perps and the same results to the victims the more severe treatment of a “hate” crime really comes down to the state punishing people for having incorrect thoughts (as defined by the state). I find that very disturbing.

As despicable as the lesbian terrorists in the article appear to be, I can’t support the use of unjust laws or unequal application of the law to single them out for special treatment whether it be extreme harshness or extreme leniency. I’d much rather see just laws applied equally.

I have no problem with hate crime laws as long as they are applied equally to each classification (gays, straights, women, men, bisexuals, Blacks, Whites, etc.) within a certain category (race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.). That is, a hate crime law based on sexual orientation must apply equally to gays, straights, bisexuals, etc. A hate crime law based on gender must apply equally to men and women. A hate crime law based on race must apply equally to Blacks, Whites, Asians, Latinos, etc. Same for religion-based, ethnicity-based, nationality-based, etc. hate crime laws.

In fact, even without hate crime laws, we already do create higher sentences based on motives. We increase the sentence for attacks made in cold blood versus attacks made in the heat of passion. Few people object to that. If that's acceptable, then I don't have much problem with also increasing sentences for crime motivated by race, gender, etc., as long as all groups within those categories are given the same protection.

I also don't agree that hate laws violate Equal Protection. Equal Protection gives higher protection to suspect classifications, such as race, gender, etc., than to non-suspect classifications, such as age, dress, appearance, income, family size, etc. And that makes sense; otherwise, for instance, it would violate equal to give Social Security only to elderly but not to young people. The nonsuspect classifications undergo "rational basis" scrutiny, as opposed to "strict scrutiny" for suspect classifications. That means that as long as there is some reational basis for the non-suspect classification, it is constitutional.

So, applying the above to hate laws, the difference in the law we're examining is one that penalizes someone whose crime was motivated by gender, race, etc. more than one whose crime was not. That is not a distinction based upon a person's race gender, etc. It applies to any person who commits a hate crime, regardless of their race, gender, etc. So it is not a suspect classification and does not get heightened "strict" scrutiny, but "rational basis" scrutiny. And I think there is a rational basis for hate crime laws. Just as it is rational to increase a sentence for acting in cold blood rather than in the heat of passion, I think there is a rational basis for increasing a sentence for committing a crime motivated by race, gender, etc., than other types of crimes.

For those reasons, I have no problem with hate crime laws, and I don't agree they're unconstitutional, as long as they're written and applied equally.

Of course, such laws should NOT be abused. E.g., feminists have tried to say all male-on-female DV is gender-based, which is false, and they don't argue the same when it's female-on-male, which is hypocritical.

Also, if a hate law is either written or applied in a way that does not give equal protection to each classification within a category, i.e., if it only protects members of race A but not B, or only protects women but not men, etc. then in my opinion that would be unconstitutional. And anytime it can be proven, it should be challenged.

In the case above, if the fact finder determines that this group of women attacked the man based on his being a man, or based on his being heterosexual, or both, then that is a hate crime, and if that happens, and they are not penalized according to hate crime legislation, then, in my opinion, that is unconstitutional.

our gender is so brainwashed that when 7 women are beating and stabbing 1 man they can holler at complete strangers who are men across the street and they'll happily come over and assist the women with attempted murder.

I am so glad I am not subject to that indoctrination anymore.

The fact that males who did not know what the hell was going on during this assault came over and helped the criminals commit this hate crime shows that we live in a decadent misandric VAWA culture. Society has become perpetually "stuck on stupid" and braindead self-loathing males are to blame to a large degree.