Kenders' Musings

PORT CARBON, Pa. (July 26) - Three white teens were charged Friday in what officials said was an epithet-filled fatal beating of an illegal Mexican immigrant in a small northeast Pennsylvania coal town. Brandon J. Piekarsky, 16, and Colin J. Walsh, 17, were charged as adults with homicide and ethnic intimidation in the July 12 attack on Luis Ramirez.

OK, these kids should be charged with homicide. They viciously beat a man to death. Nothing the man reportedly did would merit being beat to death. He didn't rape or kill any family members of the assailants. He didn't steal their life savings through fraud or force and leave them destitute and starving. Before you ask yes if someone did that they would deserve a beating, maybe not a fatal one for the fraud but an ass kicking would be in order.

But "ethnic intimidation?" What the hell is that? If I intimidate someone who isn't white like I am would I be guilty of ethnic intimidation? What constitutes intimidation? Especially ethnic intimidation? If someone that appears Hispanic stares at me at the mall and makes me think they are acting in a threatening manner can I press ethnic intimidation charges? Or is that law only to be used against Caucasians?

Make no mistake, we can't have people going around beating people to death in the streets. It simply isn't how one acts in a civilized, law abiding country. And I will readily admit these teens seem to have acted out of hatred simply because of the apparent heritage of the victim but piling on charges for something as vague as ethnic intimidation seems like it is pandering to the groups agitating for the punishment of these men.

Charge them with homicide and throw the book at them if they are convicted. But leave the wishy washy vague laws out of it. Ethnic intimidation seems to be a law capable of charging someone with the intent to do the crime. To wit;

(a) Offense defined.--A person commits the offense of ethnic intimidation if, with malicious intention toward the race, color, religion or national origin of another individual or group of individuals, he commits an offense under any other provision of this article or under Chapter 33 (relating to arson, criminal mischief and other property destruction) exclusive of section 3307 (relating to institutional vandalism) or under section 3503 (relating to criminal trespass) or under section 5504 (relating to harassment by communication or address) with respect to such individual or his or her property or with respect to one or more members of such group or to their property.

(b) Grading--An offense under this section shall be classified as a misdemeanor of the third degree if the other offense is classified as a summary offense. Otherwise, an offense under this section shall be classified one degree higher in the classification specified in section 106 (relating to classes of offenses) than the classification of the other offense.

(c) Definition.--As used in this section "malicious intention" means the intention to commit any act, the commission of which is a necessary element of any offense referred to in subsection (a) motivated by hatred toward the race, color, religion or national origin of another individual or group of individuals

emphasis mine

See that? "The intention to commit any act he commission of which is a necessary element of any offense..."

We are hurtling headlong down that slippery slope towards hate speech laws. Now that we have laws that can be used to charge people for an intention to commit and act the laws stating you have committed a crime for speaking in a way that offends can't be far behind.

I miss freedom.

R.I.P. America