Posted on 05/28/2007 9:39:59 PM PDT by TBP
"I will grow my hair again."
That was the vow yesterday of a Sikh teen whose hair was forcibly cut by other students in a high-school bathroom, in what's been deemed a religiously motivated hate crime.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
The article tells us at numerous points that the victim was Sikh but no mention that the attacker was muslim (as was confirmed in earlier reports).
True, although the attacker’s name gives that away. But I did find that somewhat interesting.
fellow student, Ahmed Umair, 17, was arrested and charged with unlawful imprisonment, menacing and harassment - all as hate crimes.
Hmm... the perp's name is Ahmed....
He copped bail, set at $5 grand. I wonder who signed?
The DA's talking 7 years time for Ahmed. No doubt he'll make a model prisoner.
Do it.
Here’s more:
http://www.red-alerts.com/homeland-security/muslims-hate-attack-against-sikh-student-in-nyc/
In short: the perp was a Pakistani rop’er, and cut the Sikh’s hair,... well, I suppose, because that’s what rop’ers believe they are supposed to do. And it fits the ‘Hate Crimes’ definition to a T.
The victim was 15 years old, the perp was 17. The perp had assistance.
7 years and then deportation for all perps seems fair, even generous, to me.
My 5 cents’ worth.
I normally don’t like hate crime laws, because I think they elevate certain people over others. For instance, when they murdered that black man in Texas by dragging him behind a truck, IMHO he should have been given death for simply killing a man, no matter who he is.
In this case, it seems to me that it needs the extra hate crime penalty. I mean, what would they give these creeps for cutting another persons hair? Probably not much.
Actually, the perople involved were given the death penalty, but because the then-governor, a guy named George W. Bush (I wonder whatever happened to him?), refused to apply "hate criem" status to it, he was viciously and racially attacked anyway.
I’d be WAY more impressed if the Sikh in question decided to NOT grow his hair......
not cut it, but somehow have it stop growing at all.
It’s like fingernails....we don’t exactly have a choice, now DO we...???
Shave Ahmed Umair’s hair, make him pay a fine, then make him wear a sign in public telling of his thoughtless crime against another person.
Wait until he gets to be 50 or so.
You dont see this as a hate crime because it was done by Pakistani Musllim kids?
I don’t believe in hate crime laws. I don’t believe that the law can justifiably punish motivation. Taht is simply mind-reading. You punish on the evidence of what happened, not on what you believe someone thought about it.
I made that clear in my initial post.
A teenager was charged with felony hate crimes yesterday, a day after he forced a 15-year-old Sikh schoolmate into a boys’ bathroom in Queens, tore off his turban and sheared his hair, the authorities said.
According to the Queens district attorney, Richard A. Brown, the teenager, Umair Ahmed, 17, walked up to the Sikh, Vacher Harpal, in a hallway at Newtown High School in Elmhurst shortly after noon on Thursday and said, “I have to cut your hair.” Mr. Ahmed was holding a pair of scissors, Mr. Brown said.
Vacher replied: “For what? It is against my religion,” according to Mr. Brown. Mr. Ahmed, who is of Pakistani descent, then displayed a ring inscribed with Arabic words, and said: “This ring is Allah. If you don’t let me cut your hair, I will punch you with this ring,” Mr. Brown said.
Mr. Ahmed then forced Vacher into a boys’ bathroom, and Vacher began crying as he removed his turban, begging Mr. Ahmed not to cut his waist-length hair, which, in accordance with the Sikh religion, had never been cut, Mr. Brown said.
But Mr. Ahmed cut Vacher’s hair to the neckline, then threw the hair into a toilet and onto the floor, Mr. Brown said. One student, who was not charged, stood at the bathroom door and acted as a lookout, the police said. Another student, a friend of Vacher’s, saw the attack, they said. The police said a teacher’s aide notified a school safety officer after being alerted by a student.
More:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1840464/posts
“I don’t believe that the law can justifiably punish motivation. Taht is simply mind-reading. You punish on the evidence of what happened, not on what you believe someone thought about it.”
Ok then tell me how is the law able to differentiate between hot blooded and cold blooded murder if as you say the the law is unable to punish motivation. The whole purpose of law and trial is to determine the motivation behind the murder or else all murders cases would simply carry death sentences.
The whole process of establishing the motivation through investigation, collecting evidences and testimonies is not mind reading. Probably you need to go back to high school if thats what you think.
Maybe you do need to go back to high school anyways for a good number of reasons.
All of that is a crime and the kid shoudl be severely punished. I’d probably punish himmore severely than he ultimately will be punished. But the law cannot start reading intent, or pretty soon, disagreeing with the government will become a crime. You’ll hvae harsher punishment for conservatives than for liberals committing the same act. If we believe in the rule of law, then the punishment must be the same and it must be for the act, not for what we think the person was thinking.
That is like John Edwards channelling dead babies.
Stop trying to put words in my mouth. That is an act of terrorism. Besides, if you commit murder, as in your example, you're going to be punished very ahrshly, whether or not we decide to deem it a "hate crime."
Take the James Byrd case. Horrible murder. The klillers were sentenced to death. But the professional race hustlers were angry because it wasn't deemed a hate crime in Texas, and they attacke then-Gov. Bush for that. Well, the perps were put to death -- what more do they want? We shoudl dig them up and kill them again?
But these race-baiters use "hate crime" laws to try to suppress anyone they don't like.
I didnt put words in your big mouth. I asked you a question, are you too dense to understand that?
“That is an act of terrorism.”
If you say “thats an act of terrorism” then you admit right there that its no ordinary murder act and something far more grievous then ordinary murder. There itself you are establishing the intent. The intention being to strike fear and terror in the minds of people cuz thats what terrorism is. You are qualifying the act of murder by extending it with an attribute thats considered as grievous as the act of murder itself. The attribute could be “terrorism” or “hate crime”, both of which could be underlying motivation behind the murder and if so must be punished accordingly with the intention that it serves as a deterrence to both “terrorism” or “hate crime”.
And you thought you can never judge the underlying motive and yet you instantly said “That is an act of terrorism.” clearly stating the motivation right there
See how you contradict yourself?
“Bush for that. Well, the perps were put to death — what more do they want? We shoudl dig them up and kill them again?”
Are you really dense? WOW!
I wasn’t even discussing what could be the highest penalty that can be meted out to the culprit. Thats not the argument. I was discussing whether on not the underlying motivation for a murder can be determined. And the answer is clearly “YES”. And thats the whole purpose of a trial or else as I said all murders would come with a simple straight forward death sentence.
The point is that some murders are pardonable, but if the intent is established as “hate crime” or “terrorism” then it should not be so. Thats the purpose why its is (and should be) determined if the murder was “hate crime” or “terrorism”.
Straw-man argument.
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.