• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chicago Man Facing Hate Crime/Murder Charge

I don't really think offences have to be quite as heinous as that in order to be recognised as hate crimes. All that has to be proven is that a crime was motivated by prejudice against someone because of their membership of a social group. Your two (highly extreme) examples fit this definition, but so does the crime in question, if the attacker committed the crime because Mr Tingling was black. I guess that's what the courts must decide.

So, on the flip side, if the attacker were just a common mugger and killed her father inadvertently while taking his money, she would understand and feel better and be more accepting of losing her father because the crime was "just business", right?
 
False. Spewing crap during a crime is not sufficient for a hate crime conviction.

A thirteen year old student from Isaac E. Young Middle School was arrested over the weekend and charged with a hate crime by New Rochelle police following an assault earlier this month that injured a 59-year old female. . .

Captain Kevin Kealy of the New Rochelle Police Department explained the basis for the hate crime designation.

"While punching the victim, the youth uttered a racial epithet," said Kealy.

Lonny Rae doesn't deny that he used a racial slur last October after seeing a black man scuffle with his wife, who like Rae is white. For uttering an ugly word in what he says was the heat of the moment as he tried to defend his wife, Idaho prosecutors are charging him with a hate crime that could land him in jail for five years.

And from Maine, here is a guidance report on when charges should be laid:

18. Hate Crime/Bias: A hate crime is an act of violence, threat of violence, or property damage. A bias incident is an act of hate that is not a crime. Both are incidents directed against a person, private property, or public property where the motive for the commission of the act is based on prejudice or bias against race, national or ethnic origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. Common sense determination of whether or not an incident was a bias or hate-related offense should be based on consideration of multiple factors that may surround the incident, such as: 1) admission by the offender(s) of bias motivation; 2) obvious signs of bias, e.g., racial epithets uttered, hate graffiti; 3) the victim(s) expressing that bias motives were involved; or 4) a history of bias or hate-related offenses between students from the groups involved.
 
So, on the flip side, if the attacker were just a common mugger and killed her father inadvertently while taking his money, she would understand and feel better and be more accepting of losing her father because the crime was "just business", right?

Well, tbh I don't think she'd feel any better if her beloved father had died of a heart attack without being mugged. The feelings of the victims are not terribly relevant in deciding what to charge the assailant with. Had the girl hated her father and applauded his attacker, would that make a difference?
 
Well, tbh I don't think she'd feel any better if her beloved father had died of a heart attack without being mugged. The feelings of the victims are not terribly relevant in deciding what to charge the assailant with. Had the girl hated her father and applauded his attacker, would that make a difference?
And that's the point I'm getting at. The feelings of anybody involved, directly or indirectly, don't really matter. The only thing that might make a difference is intent for categories like 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, and so on, and we already have penalties for those. Otherwise, dead is dead, maimed is maimed, and robbed is robbed. It simply doesn't matter the inner motivations.
 
Being a victim of a hate crime and not having the prosecutor charge the perp with a hate crime for his hate-crime attack on you is a pretty hollow honor.

I'm always eager to learn new things. You made a definitive statement that middle-aged, hetero, white males have been victims of hate crimes. This surely indicates that you have actually know this to be true. Would you please link up some evidence in support of your position.

There have been hate crime convictions for crimes against middle-aged hetero white males.
 
And from Maine, here is a guidance report on when charges should be laid:

While it can be a red flag, racial epitaphs at the crime are not sufficient in and of themselves.
 
While it can be a red flag, racial epitaphs at the crime are not sufficient in and of themselves.

This is hilarious. I linked you to two cases in which exactly what you said doesn't happen is the basis for the charge and you simply wish that evidence away.
 
This is hilarious. I linked you to two cases in which exactly what you said doesn't happen is the basis for the charge and you simply wish that evidence away.

That's full of crap. One there has not been a conviction and the other merely listed the epitaphs as a factor.

Actually, neither of your "examples" are convictions, they're basically press conferences. I could gather press conferences claiming virtually anything.
 
Who in this government dictates who we chose to love and hate. Set the guy free.




Whether this guy goes free or to prison will be decided by a court of law, not by what someone on the internet thinks should happen.

Don't take my word for this, just wait and see what happens.
 

I don't see the hate crime here. :shrug:. Yeah the man used some racial terms. But the fact that Firek was making suggestive gestures, including openly staring and grinning at the victims daughter who one would presume to be black also would indicate to me that he has no problem with blacks. It is also apparent to me that Firek did not intentionally kill the victim as he would have no idea that the guy had a pacemaker which apparently malfunctioned due to the fight. At least I'm assuming it malfunctioned due to the fight and that was the cause of the death. The article wasn't quite clear on how exactly the victim died since apparently he did walk away from the fight. I would have charged the guy with involuntary manslaughter, but not murder or as a hate crime.
 
1. What did conservatives keep call those attacks on Michigan Avenue? You know, the ones where black teens targeted people walking down the sidewalk? The teens were snatching purses, Iphones and things of value. After that, Chicago police stepped up a large police presence.

Conservatives on some other internet blogs and forums called them something, but their terminology escapes my thought right now.

2.)I believe it's a matter of opinion when it comes to isolated, rare, and other choice wording.

3.)Whenever we youngsters got into fist fights, the last thing we thought of was name calling. Yes, words exchanged at first, but when the fight began, we were more concerned with the outcome. I sort of surprised that a firearm wasn't used, at least that seems to be the weapon of choice for some.

1.) if a name was given to it i dont know but dont group conservatives all together thats a mistake
2.) i just simply go by occurrences/states and crimes based on religion/race/gender etc arent "rare"
3.) in earlier times people did "fight" and that was that. Now many people arent simply mature enough NOT to fight or if a simply fight happens except there will be a winner and loser
 
One, how is this 1st degree murder? Where's the evidence that the man came with premeditation to murder? Two, calling someone a racial slur now is considered a hate crime? The man is obviously disturbed, might have been looking for a fight. a sexual predator? Could be. and he's got psych issues? This adding righteous indignation on top of righteous indignation nonsense though, that's hard to swallow. Seems like its a headline grabber...


Manslaughter, with no chance of parole.

If the State sees fit to leave this POS in Gen Pop, well, that's the State's business...
 
Describe the area and the make up/nature of people there.
It's a neighborhood called Rogers Park on the Northern border of Chicago along Lake Michigan. Visitors who visit the section of Clark street where this happened might find it sketchy, Rows of Mexican eateries, Boost Mobile Store, Mexican hair salons, Auto Parts stores etc. I love the area, I see it as very old school blue collar. It's ethnically diverse. When you get down the side streets there are lots of big turn of the century Victorian homes. There is a bit of gang violence but not nearly as bad as on the South and West Sides.
 
I don't see the hate crime here. :shrug:. Yeah the man used some racial terms. But the fact that Firek was making suggestive gestures, including openly staring and grinning at the victims daughter who one would presume to be black also would indicate to me that he has no problem with blacks. It is also apparent to me that Firek did not intentionally kill the victim as he would have no idea that the guy had a pacemaker which apparently malfunctioned due to the fight. At least I'm assuming it malfunctioned due to the fight and that was the cause of the death. The article wasn't quite clear on how exactly the victim died since apparently he did walk away from the fight. I would have charged the guy with involuntary manslaughter, but not murder or as a hate crime.
And that's what they charged Richard Vanecko with, if you're not familiar with the name, he's the nephew of former mayor Daley. He punched some guy out, the person fell to the ground, hit his head on the pavement, and died of the injury. While neither of us know all the details in this case, it's possibly a murder case because of mitigating circumstances.

As an aside, over ABC7 news Chicago reporting right now as I type, they're reporting the offender has a history of felonies, is presently undergoing treatment for psychiatric problems, along with a host of other possible difficulties, one being he is presently on probation. His bond was set @ $250,000.00 today.
 
It's a neighborhood called Rogers Park on the Northern border of Chicago along Lake Michigan. Visitors who visit the section of Clark street where this happened might find it sketchy, Rows of Mexican eateries, Boost Mobile Store, Mexican hair salons, Auto Parts stores etc. I love the area, I see it as very old school blue collar. It's ethnically diverse. When you get down the side streets there are lots of big turn of the century Victorian homes. There is a bit of gang violence but not nearly as bad as on the South and West Sides.
Pretty much a melting pot.
 
This was a hate crime. Those who disagree should first read the OP article again, watch the video and then read tbe quoted explanation provided by RiverDad on page 6. Once you do that you'll get the basic facts:

1. Firek was White.
2. Tingling was Black.
3. Firek uttered a racial epithet while assaulting Tingling.

Those are the facts as presented in the linked article in the OP. The fact that Tingling had a weak heart doesn't matter. Firek infected hate into the assault.
 
This is a real shame, according to the story he sounded like a really good guy, though apparently his health has been fading fast.


I don't think simply saying "Nigga" during an altercation necessarily proves this is a racially motivated hate crime, though. Manslaughter, sure. Hate crime... iffy.
 
It's a neighborhood called Rogers Park on the Northern border of Chicago along Lake Michigan. Visitors who visit the section of Clark street where this happened might find it sketchy, Rows of Mexican eateries, Boost Mobile Store, Mexican hair salons, Auto Parts stores etc. I love the area, I see it as very old school blue collar. It's ethnically diverse. When you get down the side streets there are lots of big turn of the century Victorian homes. There is a bit of gang violence but not nearly as bad as on the South and West Sides.

Thanks, it helps to know the setting.
 
Increasingly it seems "hate crime" laws are just a way to get round "free speech" for political correctness.

People angry at each other have been calling people the most insulting names possible. You even see it on this forum. Because ethnic slurs and "hate" slurs are the most insulting, when raging people will tend to use them. I don't believe the slur created the hate or the fight. Rather, fights usually come with hate words, because nearly ALL fights have something to do with hate, although there are exceptions.
 
Has anyone actually read the FEDERAL "hate crimes" law?

Under it, probably most federal, state and local officials could be prosecuted for hate crimes.

It also says that anyone acting or threatens to act under the color of law in their employment to deny a citizen any constitutional or statutory right has committed a federal hate crime. It is very broad language. Of course, getting the AG to prosecute? That is another matter.

However, it is a real door to civil suits.
 
Increasingly it seems "hate crime" laws are just a way to get round "free speech" for political correctness.

People angry at each other have been calling people the most insulting names possible. You even see it on this forum. Because ethnic slurs and "hate" slurs are the most insulting, when raging people will tend to use them. I don't believe the slur created the hate or the fight. Rather, fights usually come with hate words, because nearly ALL fights have something to do with hate, although there are exceptions.

No.
These laws were enacted to protect people, like you, me, and others.

I believe the offender threw the first punch. I believe that the hate speech escalated or followed that punch, by the man thinking he could say what he wanted to insult a 15 year old and her father, and get away with it.

I don't know what world you live in, but nice people just don't go around insulting other people, in this case, there's nothing nice about him, he's a felon who was on probation.

He'll now be doing time in the big house, maybe some brothers will teach him some manners after he arrives.
 
Hate crime in the US has nothing to do with whom one hates. It's to do with organized terrorism.

:lamo :lamo :lamo

What's organized about some lone guy getting into a fist fight?
 
This was a hate crime. Those who disagree should first read the OP article again, watch the video and then read tbe quoted explanation provided by RiverDad on page 6. Once you do that you'll get the basic facts:

1. Firek was White.
2. Tingling was Black.
3. Firek uttered a racial epithet while assaulting Tingling.

Those are the facts as presented in the linked article in the OP. The fact that Tingling had a weak heart doesn't matter. Firek infected hate into the assault.

I guess it's alright to attack someone then as long as you don't hate them.
 
Back
Top Bottom