RightMichigan.com || Hate Crime...or Overreaction?

RightMichigan.com

Twitter Feed

Hate Crime...or Overreaction?

By amanda zaluckyj, Section News
Posted on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 10:21:49 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Central Michigan University seems to have a lot of political divisive issues lately. First, they have to deal with Gary Peters, the no-show professor turned State House candidate. Now, they're dealing with a supposed hate crime.

Apparently a CMU student started hanging nooses around campus close to Halloween time as, what he claimed to be, a prank. Naturally, some other students got upset about it and are now pressuring the Isabella County prosecutor to charge the student with a hate crime.

And they're upset that he isn't working fast enough...

As WOODTV reported:

A small delegation - three men with a ministers council from Detroit and two Central Michigan University student leaders of campus diversity groups - wanted to see the Isabella County prosecutor to find out why no charges have been filed against the person who admitted hanging nooses on campus.

Is all of this really necessary?

Sure, the kid did a stupid thing. Hanging nooses around campus is probably not going to go over well. And, yes, someone is going to be offended - even if he meant it as a joke.

But, seriously, the kid came forward and said he didn't mean anything by it. Does anyone believe that if he really was a blatant racist that wanted to provoke fear and intimidation into the minority students on campus that he would really deny his actions? Or if was going to do that, why come out in the first place?

Unfortunately, this is the situation we've land ourselves in. Everything comes back to race. Any inconsequential action can mark someone as a racist. Instead of giving people the benefit of the doubt, that they did a stupid campus prank, people have to tar and feather them.

Why do certain sectors of our society freak out and, quite frankly, overreact to events such as these?

We need to be able to have a dialogue in our country, not a witch hunt. If people are seriously concerned with issues of race, they have to stop labeling others as racists, seeing the monsters around every corner, and act a little bit more rationally.

< House Dems move to disenfranchise millions while foreclosures and gas tax hikes enter, stage LEFT | BREAKING: ACLU backing Lennox in battle with CMU over Gary Peters >

Share This:

Hate Crime...or Overreaction? | 18 comments (18 topical, 0 hidden)

Some people are stupid (none / 0) (#1)
by Republican Michigander on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 02:31:06 PM EST

Freedom of expression. That protects Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Geoffrey Fieger, Bruce Fealk, Dennis Lennox, the Klan, Nation of Islam, Sinn Fein, The Orange Order, Communications Guru, Nick, you and me.

Unless there was a real threat, all this person was guilty of is being a dummy. This sounds like a stupid college prank. No more, no less. Now if there was a note with a noose saying "I'm gonna you", than that's a different story.

The only charge I could POSSIBLY see is trespassing.

I got into a discussion about (none / 0) (#2)
by PMOTVRWC on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 02:32:19 PM EST

this very topic over on one of the freep's forums. I had said that to take offense by a piece of rope is silly, I don't care who you are. I said that many white men were hanged in this country also, so to claim victimhood and offense by a noose is ridiculous. I also mentioned that since many people are so offended by the burning of the American flag then why can't the democrats ban the practice. If one is so offense it is a crime then the other is as well. Of course, when that arguement was brought up the thread ended abruptly and no one else would respond.

This nation is fast becoming a nation of cry babies and whiners and we have the politically correct morons to thank for that.

While I largely agree with by Nick, 11/27/2007 05:05:26 PM EST (none / 0)

Nick, I simply can't agree with your conclusion by chetly, 11/28/2007 03:10:23 AM EST (none / 0)

I'm not arguing by Nick, 11/28/2007 05:58:36 AM EST (none / 0)

You don't even have by chetly, 11/28/2007 06:26:55 AM EST (none / 0)

Noted by Nick, 11/28/2007 07:10:26 AM EST (none / 0)

Nick (none / 0) (#4)
by PMOTVRWC on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 05:16:15 PM EST

I believe that to become so offended by a piece of rope no matter the context falls into the catergory of victimhood. This is the same as the Islamofacists claiming everyone is an Islamophobic because we denounce terrorism, it just doesn't wash with me. If you want to be a whiner and victim on a daily basis then there is something wrong with you, (not you personally Nick,) not me.

I see what you're saying by Nick, 11/27/2007 05:27:15 PM EST (none / 0)

Wasn't the swastika (none / 0) (#6)
by PMOTVRWC on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 05:54:32 PM EST

a religious symbol at one time? If I were to tie a noose and hang it anywhere what's not to say I was using it as political speech and not a symbol of hate. To say an inanimate object is a symbol of hate only buys into the political correctness of the day and it puts a chilling effect on free speech.

Symbols are a powerful form of speech by Nick, 11/27/2007 06:00:46 PM EST (none / 0)

OK Nick (none / 0) (#8)
by PMOTVRWC on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 06:09:56 PM EST

We'll agree they are offensive, but then we must go back to my original argument. If a hanging noose is so offensive to a small minority of people that it is a crime, then why not flag burning? One is equally offensive to a much larger group than the other.

When to call a prank a prank (none / 0) (#9)
by Hershblogger on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 06:25:01 PM EST

When it's a thought crime, one must read the perp's mind, so Darnell Oldham Sr. should be glad they're not applying the same criteria at Lansing City Council meetings.

http://www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071125/LANSING01/711250332/1221/lansing

Noose incident is example of long debate
By CHRIS ANDREWS
LANSING -- The noose was a big deal -- both to Lansing City Council President Harold Leeman and to the man who threw it.
When Darnell Oldham Sr. tossed the noose - a symbol charged with racial meaning - in front of the council last month, he says, he was standing up for the right to be heard.
"I used the noose as an example because it stated that the Lansing City Council had been strangling and choking free speech," Oldham said last week. "And that Harold Leeman, the president, was lynching minority speakers." ...

OTOH, the fourth paragraph reveals Oldham is black, so for him to throw a noose at someone can't be a hate crime. Must be a political prank.

why is this so important? (none / 0) (#10)
by goppartyreptile on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 08:44:39 PM EST

Easy. A lot of people's relevance and fundraising ability depend on a racially charged meaning.

The kid's an idiot. But the continued exploitation of every little stupid thing someone does for groups that see racism under every chair is all about business. And media. And pressure on government.

Important point (none / 0) (#11)
by chetly on Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 02:57:44 AM EST

Great find, Amanda.

I think it was MichiganMessenger, but maybe one of the other l-sphere blogs, that reported this before anyone came forward and tried to blow it up.

There was a key fact that I pointed out in the comments section of that blog at the time.

KEY FACT ALERT.

The "nooses" were made of rubber chemical hosing - hardly the type of noose you equate with a southern-style lynching. I mean - when you see bland rubber-tubing forming an ad hoc noose, that's far different than seeing a hangman's noose made of natural fibers. It's also much more "Halloween"-like - especially given that this story broke at - guess when. Halloween.

That said, the WOOD article quotes this funny passage:

"If I get a speeding ticket, I'm guilty of that until I go to court and they get me pretty speedily," said Rev. Charles Williams II of the National Council for Community Empowerment. "The same thing needs to apply here."

Rev. Williams, are you reading the same Constitution I've read? If you or I get a speeding ticket, we are innocent until proven guilty. We go to court, and have our chance to defend ourselves, or, at worst, simply force the police officer to prove his case (usually, by showing up). You can actually beat speeding tickets in this country; although its immensely hard because even if the police make a mistake or the law is on your side, the municipalities and judges enforcing them often rule against you no matter what because they treat tickets like a form of tax and necessary revenue for the city (so I sympathize with your point, but your application here of the guilt until proven innocence idea is misplaced) and very few people have the legal knowledge to know what to do in that situation.

But here, the Reverend hasn't even identified what law was broken, let alone what the speed limit and speed of the accused was. Here, the underlying assumption is that the Reverend is calling not for the presumption of innocence for blacks in other situations, but for presumption of guilt for a white to "offset" what he sees as a wrongful presumption of guilt for blacks. I guess that not surprising since its the same mentality that dominates preferential treatment.

Chetly Zarko
Outside Lansing & Oakland Politics

Addendum - It's highly offensive but (none / 0) (#12)
by chetly on Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 03:01:01 AM EST

I should note to be clear, I think the noose is offensive and should be condemned, but I doubt that it was criminal, given the context I've seen. The demands to jail this student immediately without trial are just reactionary.

Whether intended as a racist message or a Halloween expression of faux violence, the conduct was inappropriate - but that is a long way from justifying jailing the person.

Chetly Zarko
Outside Lansing & Oakland Politics

The sad fact (none / 0) (#17)
by PMOTVRWC on Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 01:49:46 PM EST

remains that this student is going to be persecuted not because of hanging a "noose," but because of political correctness, and in the end that puts the first amendment at risk.

I thought hate crimes... (none / 0) (#18)
by John Galt on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 01:48:58 PM EST

Increased the penalty of an existing crime.

When you curbstomp someone to death - you get 50 years in prison. WHen you do it because you hate them, you get an extra 20 years.

When did Michigan or any particular county adopt "Hate Crimes" as some kind of violation itself? Why is hate-speech no longer a protected form of expression?

Hate Crime...or Overreaction? | 18 comments (18 topical, 0 hidden)

Login

Make a new account

Join the RightMichigan.com Facebook Group HERE!

Tweet along with RightMichigan by following us on Twitter HERE!