Police: White Man Beaten For Dating Black Woman

BOSTON -- A Norwood, Mass., man is accused of stabbing a man, stoning him and leaving him to be run over by a train because he dated a black woman, officials alleged Thursday.

Dimitri Long, 28, shielded his face from the camera as he appeared in Norfolk Superior Court.

"The charges are assault with intent to murder, mayhem, and civil rights violations. The dangerous weapons used were a lit cigarette and a knife," Assistant District Attorney Lynn Beland said.

Officials alleged that Long was angry that the victim, a white male in his 20s, had once dated a black woman. In September, Long and two other people, including Long's girlfriend, confronted the victim after smashing the windows to his house.

"He was then jumped upon, hit in the head and beaten. From there, he was dragged to a nearby apartment, which was actually the apartment of a co-defendant. Inside the apartment, he was beaten. He was stabbed in the area of the chest with a knife. Lit cigarettes were put on him, and there was racial slurs written on his back," Beland said.

The suspects allegedly yelled that the victim was a disgrace to his race. They allegedly pulled the victim into a car, where the racial slurs continued, and threw him out of the vehicle.

"They threw him out of the car while it was still moving. They moved ahead. They stopped. They backed up the vehicle and dragged him over to some train tracks, where he was in and out of consciousness, and the defendants fled," Beland said.

The victim managed to drag himself to a nearby gas station, where he called his father for help. Long was ordered held on $200,000 bail. The other two defendants in the case have already been charged.

Holy crap, "Dimitri Long" *is* white! I read the story and at no point did I even suspect that he could be white. Dimitri Vladivich or something I would assume is Russian or some other Eastern European, but Dimitri *Long*???

As someone who thought that the perp was black before I realized he is white, I am relieved that I think exactly the same about the perp now as I did before: He should be sent to prison for a long time for assault, but he should not be charged with any additional crime, nor have any additional punishment, merely because he committed his crime due to having a viewpoint that the overwhelming majority of Americans (myself included) finds repulsive. The Freedom of Speech declared in the First Amendment stands for the proposition that the government cannot tell individuals which points of view are correct and which points of view are forbidden. Dimitri Long's punishment should be no greater and no lesser than if he had attacked the victim because Long didn't like his shirt, or because the victim had broken Long's high score at pinball, or because Long was misinformed and thought that the victim was *opposed to* interracial dating. Justice Scalia had the right idea in RAV v. City of St. Paul, in which his majority opinion found that even though burning a cross in front of a black family's yard could be forbidden under numerous statutes that were viewpoint-neutral (such as arson, tresspass, intimidation, etc.), the First Amendment did not permit the city to prohibit the act under a "hate speech" ordinance that discriminated because of viewpoint (because, for example, it prohibitted calling someone a Popist, but not calling someone an anti-Catholic bigot). Therefore, the proper way of interpreting the Freedom of Speech is not to look at whether something is "speech" or whether such speech is "protected," but looking at whether the law being enforced is viewpoint-neutral. I think it's a shame that Scalia forgot about that when he ruled a few years later that laws that add punishment when a crime was committed partly because of the race, ethnicity or religion of the victim (i.e., "hate-crime laws") do not violate the First Amendment.

Punish Dimitri Long to the full extent of the law, but do not add punishment because he committed his crime because of a certain point of view. Society can tell Long that his racist viewpoint is appalling and wrong, but the government should not have the right to make such viewpoint a reason to treat him differently from someone who commits exactly the same criminal act.

As a 50+ professional man, happily married/committed to a lovely professional lady and homemaker of 40+ (mother of our two well-adjusted children) and recently past our silver (25th) wedding anniversary together, I found 'your' assertions regarding bi-racial couples to be ludicrous. At the best. (As is irrevelevent which is of either racial makeup, better left unspecified.) As a forum wherein all may voice views, the obviously biased aren't excluded. Prior to meeting in Europe while military personnel, we both had relationships within our race that proved themselves to be wrong-for us. However, from our meeting (long before 'acceptable' socially), through and since our courtship and subsequent marriage; we've had misfortune to encounter others of both racial backgrounds that took exception to our mutual attraction and love for each other. Both within our own families and not, moreso here in the US than in Europe. A sad yet true fact. That a young man could be attacked and treated so cruelly was bad. That anyone, regardless of race, could be so flippant about such a thing occurring anywhere is truly tragic. My beloved and I will pray for him, and for you, too.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.