I looked up the definition, in this case MD's law section 10-304 would be the relevant one, which defines a "hate crime" as something against someones "race, color, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, or national origin" (http://law.justia.com/codes/maryland...cr/10-304.html)

Yet there is nothing indicating that the vic was specifically targeted because of any of this rather than his posessions. Baltimore's police chief seems to have the same opinion; he calls it "drunken opportunistic criminality." (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/mar...0,173475.story)

Though I did not want talk about the legal definition about what constituates a hate crame. I wanted to stress the point that in crime committed out of hatred you would see much more passion and negative emotion towards the victim, thus a much more brutal beating. In most cases when people hate each others guts (or skin color) the beating would not stop so early. :shifty:

Personally I don't believe in hate crimes. It does not make a crime more gruesome if someone is targeted because of a wallet or something else. A crime is a crime, seldom committed out of love.
Even if racial slurs are uttered during a fight (which are not heard on the video), this does not indicate a hate crime, nothing more than using "fighting words", the intention to attack the other person verbally. The first one sees is the other person's outer appearance, so this gets targeted.


The Martin case made international news, imo mostly because it can paint the cliché of the trigger-happy Amercan so nicely... :dead:
However I don't want to write anything about that, contrary to the media and the racist idiots from the NBP, I don't want to judge prematurely. Can't say anything to the Casey case, as I don't have it on my radar.

My point about national news is that this is nothing special, happens dozends of times any weekend in the US.
Yes, humilating a victim, by stripping him is not so common, but not unheard of. My comment about the savageness still stands: The guy got a black eye and some bruises: not a walk at the beach, but not especially savage; no boot party, no stomping on the head, no use of weapons. However this is typical media speech to catch the viewer's attention: a beating has to be "savage", a murder has to be "brutal".

The Brits on here already said, that this is a common thing in their drinking quarters of the town during the weekend, same here. In my neighborhood, there are no pubs open after midnight, so not much of a chance to see that at 2am. However if you roam our Old Town, crawled with pubs and clubs, on a Saturday night, drunken fights and beatings are a common occurance . It seems to be the same everywhere. When alcohol and crowds are involved, the mood can change from a happy gathering to a brutal beating within seconds. :-?

What I don't get, is why would you want to get so drunk that you can't remember last night and do things like this. The greatest idea, which I think everyone on this forum knows, is to drink and be merry, but be sober enough to remember and have judgment. :nope::nope::nope:

The kid is in a predominantly black neighborhood. He is targeted for his drunken state and probably color. Would the outcome have been different if this was a black kid? We can only conjecture.

Baltimore's Police Chief is white. Do you really think he would suggest this was a hate crime in predominantly black city? He already has people marching for Drayvon Martin. The city is in the top two for homicide and working it's way to top two in violence. Not great advertising putting his out on the net and news. This is just getting around two weeks after the fact. Much of what goes on for cities and decisions made are of a political nature.

Hate crimes do not always encompass more passion and negative emotion towards victims. Simply spray painting derogatory slurs and signs is a hate crime. It does not encompass a brutal beating. Vandalizing. Read the code below.

Your definition of hate crime does not encompass the entire picture of what a hate crime consists of. The definition is quite clear in the state of MD.

Thanks for your two cents. It's always refreshing.

Of course does the guy stand out in a black neighborhood. If the guy was black he would also stand out, not by his color, but by his behavior - things that sign the attackers that he is an easy target and not from their hood. I wonder how you claim the probability that he was targeted for his color? This is just speculation.


Ehhm, when I looked for the hate crime laws in MD on the web, a case from last year always came up: http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news..._mcdonald.html
Yes, there was no Martin case in the 24-hour news cycle at this time. However did 2 black women in Baltimore face hate crime charges - for an assault on a white person (though the reason was her sexuality in this specific case). Do you really think most people in Baltimore would deny the fact that black people are able to commit hate crimes?


I wanted to go away from the dry juristic definition towards real-life experiences, how "hate crimes" look (when a person to person fight is involved). For example, football hooligans beating up a guy from the other team would not fall under the definition of a hate crime, same with Bloods beating up a Crip. Crimes, that certainly bear a lot of hate towards the opponent, not less hate than a Nazi beating up a jewish person has.