Another Texas Dragging
 

The suspect has now been arrested. According to reports this victim no longer has a nose and may be put into a drug induced coma. The girlfriend was just on the news and said she received a phone call saying something like pretty white girls shouldn't be with black guys.



Victim - Chris Wright

SULPHUR SPRINGS, Texas -- Police said a man was dragged several feet early Wednesday in the parking lot of a Sulphur Springs motel and bar, about 80 miles east of Dallas.

Two men in a bar were involved in an argument at about 12:30 a.m. and one man was asked to leave, officials said. He entered a pickup truck, District Attorney Martin Braddy said.

The other man, Chris Wright, 26, who was picking up his girlfriend from work at the bar, stuck his head in the window of the pickup truck or was grabbed, Braddy said. As he was exchanging words with the driver, the driver sped off, dragging Wright up to 25 feet, police said.

The driver was not taken into custody and agreed to talk to police at 3 p.m. but did not show up. An arrest warrant may be issued later, police said.

Wright is at East Texas Medical Center in Tyler.

He suffered injuries to his face as well as internal injuries, Braddy said. His condition is not yet known, but he is expected to survive.

Wright's father said that his son's face looked like someone had shot him with a 12-gauge shotgun.

A witness said the argument at the bar included racial slurs. Race could have been a motivation in the altercation, Braddy said.

http://www.nbc5i.com/video/11195344/index.html

Did someone delete their post about it being George Bush's fault?

Yeah, didn't want to hijack the thread, but since you mentioned it, I'm guessing that the incident will be used in the same hurtful manner as the previous one.

So remove George Bush from the equation and just look at nonpartisan support for hate crime legislation.

If this is proven to be a hate crime, based on an actual investigation of the motivation and facts--not just because the perpetrator and victim are two different races, then the penalty would be greater than a non-hate motivated assault (with the assumption the man doesn't die).

Sad story.

On a side note, hate crime legislation is stupid.

If racial slurs were used prior to this man being dragged from the back of a car - if the District attorney is worth his/her salt - he/she prosecute for a hate crime.

It doesn't surprise me that good ol bush said no to hate crime legislation. The old "if it doesn't affect me and mine - I have no worries" mentality. Incredulous!:mad:

Of course it is when heterosexual white males are the least likely group to be targeted because of hate.

Can the DA prosecute for a hate crime if there's no hate crime legislation?

Even if there were slurs while in the club, the biggest debate is whether he stuck his head in the truck or was grabbed. If it's proven that he stuck his head in the truck, he wasn't too bright and the case is shot.

Most likely not. And correction, just because someone sticks their head in a truck and is exhanging words with someone does not justify dragging someone behind a truck. . . .If anything that is, if the guy dies, 2nd degree murder . . . .He may not get prosecuted under a hate crime statute (and I can't believe after the Byrd case nothing has been enacted . . welcome to the good ol south . .where the price of a N's head is not worth much), but should get either attempted murder if the guy doesn't die or at the very least 2nd degree (engaged in activity that had a high propensity of resulting in the death of another human being . . . but wasn't intentionally attempting to kill the person - although that is a HARD sell since normal people who aren't attempting to kill someone don't usually drag a person behind a truck).

My mom called and told me about this. The doctors operating on him are close family friends. Same practice as my grandfather....although he didn't work on him because there was no brain or spinal trauma. He is in very good hands.

Oh I understand. I was under the impression we already punished people for crime. My bad.

When I get mugged by a black guy downtown, I'll thank my lucky stars he didn't call me cracker while he was doing it. Whew.

For the record . . hate crime focuses on a totally different type of crime . .crime based on a persons protected category. . . seeing as how you the chances of you being a victim of a crime BECAUSE of your race or sexual orientation are slim to none- it is not surprising you would make the comment that hate crime legislation is "stupid".

I also find it interesting that you used an Af.Am man in your example as the perpetrator of a crime . . .but if he were to rob you because you are white - I would hope he would be prosecuted for a hate crime just as this evil person should be

Let's say he stuck his head in the truck and grabbed the driver. Self defense meant he had to drive away or something.

I hear ya, though.

Did he target you because you were white or target you because you are a suitable target for a robbery? In other words, was he motivated to commit a robbery ANYWAY when he found the opportunity and just happened to have chosen a white guy? That's what hate crime legislation gets to the bottom of. And it takes more than being called a "cracker" during the commission of a crime for it to be a hate crime.

Your attempts at sarcasm show more than anything that you have no understanding of 1) what hate crimes are 2) the significance behind the legislation and 3) how social dynamics ALWAYS factor into the law.

Precisely. There's a reason why this legislation impacts religious, racial/ethnic/cultural, gender, and sexual orientation minority groups.

Although I don't think I'd use the word "stupid," I tend to agree with shinerbock on this one. That is, I don't see much point in a separate classification for a "hate crime."

Most jurisdictions already have a system of aggravating and mitigating factors that are used to heighten or lesses punishment for a crime. To me, it makes more sense and is overall more consistent with criminal laws in general to make racial (or gender, or religious, or whatever) hatred an aggravating factor -- "that the crime was motivated by racial [or whatever else] hatred" -- rather than to charge someone for assault or murder and also charge them with a hate crime.

Still doesn't justify DRAGGING someone behind a truck . .you can't do someone else severe bodily harm or kill someone in self defense unless you have a reasonable fear that your life's end is imminent . .doubt that happened in this case.

I do not practice criminal law, but my understanding of hate crime legislation (in Florida) is it imparts more severe punishment on crimes that are committed based on race, gender, national origin and sexuality. If you kill someone, it may enhance the punishment if you didn't intend to kill the person to an intentional crime if the government can establish that the crime was done based on a person's protected status. I think it is good call on the part of legislatures to attempt to eradicate these types of crimes, that are based solely on another's contempt for someone that is different. Contrary to what people want to admit . .hangings still do occur.

The purpose behind hate crime legislation is to achieve formal legal guidelines for the aggravating and mitigating factors as they pertain to group membership. As opposed to relying on judicial and presecutorial discretion.

I understand precisely what hate crimes are. However, if you're trying to tell me that hate crime prosecution only occurs when the primary motivation was race, you're completely wrong. Remember that guy (NY I think?) that recently made news because he beat up some black kid while the kid was boosting cars? He used a racial slur, and last I heard they were prosecuting for a hate crime. Its simply ridiculous.

WE ALREADY PROSECUTE CRIME.

If there was a shred of evidence that hate crime legislation acted as a deterrent, it may make some logical sense.

We never get rid of laws just because laws aren't 100% effective.

Every law can be misapplied.

That's exactly what aggravating factors do as well.

Not unlike the felony murder rule. If you manage to kill someone while in the commission of another felony, say robbery, you can be charged with murder even if the other elements of murder (such as intent) are not present.

Aggravating factors are set by statute, just like definitions of crimes are.

Understand, I have no problem with the motivation and goal behind hate crime legislation. In some ways, it's a semantics thing. Where "hate crime" means "sentencing enhancement," I'm all for it. But in those instances where the classification of "hate crime" is proposed as essentially a separate chargeable offense, that's when I have a problem.

You mean like figurative lynchings? I'm sure hangings have occurred, but I highly doubt there is a recent trend.

Theres no sound reason for the law in the first place.

To be sure, none of the criminal legislation really acts as a deterrent - thus why the prison populations continually growing. Does that mean we eliminate all criminal statutes we don't agree with? :confused:

"Aggravating factors" like "targeted because of race, gender, sexual orientation, and religion?" If so, hate crime legislation is redundant. If not, the aggravating factors aren't detailed enough and that's why we have hate crime legislation.

Whatever the semantics may be, hate crimes are essentially a sentencing enhancement because offenses like vandalism and assault carry tougher penalties if they are motivated by hate.

No, like literal lynchings . . .didn't say it was a trend . . but it still does occur.

Exactly. There is no deterrence.

So if lack of evidence of deterrence was the point, we should get rid of capital punishment, drug penalties, traffic laws, and most of the criminal code.

Precisely!

Precisely! In Florida it is used as an enhancement, I believe.

So instead we just rely on prosecutorial discretion in determining whether to apply the standard? And judicial discretion in instructing the jury on how to determine whether the hate-crime 'kicker' penalty should be added?

No, there's no sound reason for your opposition to the law. ;) Or you just haven't articulated it.

Contact your state legislator.

Yes, I think we should eliminate most criminal statutes I don't agree with.

However, the point is that we don't NEED hate crime statutes nor do they provide any noticeable benefit. I'm all for reducing hate crimes, but I'm for reducing all crimes. I question the punishing of intentional crimes differently because of the identity of the victim. If there were some overriding public policy, the protection of children perhaps, I think it could have some merit.

Yes. Some sample aggravating factors:

-- the offense was committed for the benefit of, or at the direction of, any criminal street gang;

-- the offense was committed for the purpose of avoiding a lawful arrest;

-- the defendant has hired or paid to commit the offense;

-- the offense was particularly heinous, atrocious or cruel;

-- the victim was very old, very young, or physically or mentally handicapped;

-- the defendant took advantage of a position of trust;

-- the offense was committed against a victim because of the victim's race, color, religion, nationality or country of origin.

This kind of "hate crime" I have no problem with, although I think it is a misnomer to call it a "hate crime," since that implies a separate chargeable offense. But I have heard calls to actually create a separate chargeable offense called a "hate crime," and that is what I have problems with. Sorry if I haven't been clearer.

Maybe they do and maybe they don't.

There have been no studies to test the effectiveness of this law.

We always punish crimes based on the identity of the victim and perpetrator. Ever read the sentencing guidelines research based on race, class, and gender? Ever read the domestic violence laws and research? :confused:

There is some merit to the enhancement for hate crimes, but unless you potentially could become a victim of such a crime, OR have historically been a victim of such crimes, I doubt you will have an appreciation for it.

Thanks for doing so.

Or if he has an overall social consciousness that allows him to place himself in others' shoes.

Well do hate crime statutes provide for additional punishment or just additional consideration in sentencing?