View Full Version : North Carolina Shooting — Possibly Bias Related
Andrew
10-19-2002, 02:57 AM
Please feel free to redistribute this to any mailing lists you may be on.
Lili Wang, a 31-year-old computer science graduate student at North Carolina State University, was murdered last week by Richard Borrelli Anderson, a white classmate who had become infatuated with her. Wang was already married (to another Chinese American), but this fact did nothing to deter Anderson's attentions, which appear to have been racially motivated. According to press reports, Anderson had confided to a colleague that he liked Asian women because "they study hard, and they're very nice, soft speaking." If it is the case that Anderson singled Wang out first as an object of his "infatuation," and then as his victim, because of her race, then the murder should be reported and recognized by the law enforcement community as a hate crime.
Details at http://modelminority.com/modules.php?name=...article&sid=181 (http://modelminority.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=181)
Whom to contact:
Raleigh Chief of Police Jane Perlov
Jane.Perlov@ci.raleigh.nc.us
North Carolina Attorney General's Office
agjus@mail.jus.state.nc.us
Reinhard H.
10-19-2002, 03:34 AM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 19 2002, 10:57 AM
If it is the case that Anderson singled Wang out first as an object of his "infatuation," and then as his victim, because of her race, then the murder should be reported and recognized by the law enforcement community as a hate crime.
If he was "infatuated" with her, it should probably be reported and recognized as a "love crime". :D
Andrew
10-19-2002, 03:42 AM
Originally posted by Reinhard H.@Oct 19 2002, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 19 2002, 10:57 AM
If it is the case that Anderson singled Wang out first as an object of his "infatuation," and then as his victim, because of her race, then the murder should be reported and recognized by the law enforcement community as a hate crime.
If he was "infatuated" with her, it should probably be reported and recognized as a "love crime". :D
Anything to tittilate you, Reinhard, baby.
Seriously, though, spread the word about this, and drop a line to the police chief and AG's office. It's a great opportunity to call attention to some subtle stereotypes that most people think are benign but actually end up hurting our community, sometimes (as here) in very serious ways.
<!--EDIT|Andrew|Oct 19 2002, 01:06 PM-->
kimpossible
10-19-2002, 11:33 AM
I think he should be wasted period. Don't care what his motivation was.
ChinaLama
10-19-2002, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by Reinhard H.@Oct 19 2002, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 19 2002, 10:57 AM
If it is the case that Anderson singled Wang out first as an object of his "infatuation," and then as his victim, because of her race, then the murder should be reported and recognized by the law enforcement community as a hate crime.
If he was "infatuated" with her, it should probably be reported and recognized as a "love crime". :D
love her so much that he killed her? nah...he hated her for rejecting him. :(
deez nuts
10-19-2002, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by Hello_Hapa@Oct 19 2002, 02:33 PM
I think he should be wasted period. Don't care what his motivation was.
I'm with her.
angel nympho
10-19-2002, 01:02 PM
I don't know about hate crime, but that was definately some sick stalker "if I can't have her, nobody can" thing.
Andrew
10-19-2002, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by Hello_Hapa@Oct 19 2002, 07:33 PM
I think he should be wasted period. Don't care what his motivation was.
No need, he did the job himself. But we should still fight to have this classified as a hate crime, so that women can be protected from this kind of racist violence.
loserbutt
10-19-2002, 02:32 PM
sad... sad
thing is, this guy did it with a legally bought gun.
makes you think huh?
achtungbaby
10-19-2002, 02:37 PM
Ugh. Another fucking hate crime...
wylin
10-19-2002, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by achtungbaby@Oct 19 2002, 02:37 PM
Ugh. Another fucking hate crime...
make him wear a disguise.com costume and then shoot him.
Andrew
10-19-2002, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 19 2002, 09:02 PM
I don't know about hate crime, but that was definately some sick stalker "if I can't have her, nobody can" thing.
If he singled her out for stalking and murder because of her race, then it's a hate crime.
ChairmanMah
10-19-2002, 03:47 PM
terrible that this happened. it is coincidental that in vancouver these past year there have been 3 high profile beatings, attempted sexual assaults, sexual assault abductions which have occured.
In most cases, the targets were internaional students from korea at least 2 i think. Probably some japanese. Sad thing is it probably isn't the same person who commited each of these crimes which shows that this epidemic is growing. I think mainly due to the fact of the growing popularity of asian porn and the users who fetishize.
i believe that this is a direct result of the stereotypes of asian females as weak, vulnerable and easy to dominate which are displayed on these kinds of sites.
kimpossible
10-19-2002, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 19 2002, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by Hello_Hapa@Oct 19 2002, 07:33 PM
I think he should be wasted period. Don't care what his motivation was.
No need, he did the job himself. But we should still fight to have this classified as a hate crime, so that women can be protected from this kind of racist violence.
I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be classified as a hate crime so much as I had a much more violent stream of thought along the lines of how I'd like him to be 'punished'. But now that you've said it how does classifying this as a hate crime prevent a murder like this? I think if the guy offed himself (if I'm reading what you said correctly) no law and associated punishment would have stopped him.
Beefing up the anti-stalking laws and making sure they are enforced - that would make more sense to me.
My mind is open on this one. Convince me.
deez nuts
10-19-2002, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by ChairmanMah@Oct 19 2002, 06:47 PM
terrible that this happened. it is coincidental that in vancouver these past year there have been 3 high profile beatings, attempted sexual assaults, sexual assault abductions which have occured.
In most cases, the targets were internaional students from korea at least 2 i think. Probably some japanese. Sad thing is it probably isn't the same person who commited each of these crimes which shows that this epidemic is growing. I think mainly due to the fact of the growing popularity of asian porn and the users who fetishize.
i believe that this is a direct result of the stereotypes of asian females as weak, vulnerable and easy to dominate which are displayed on these kinds of sites.
Yeah I read about that also. Was it ever resolved?
kimpossible
10-19-2002, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by Chasiubao_Boy@Oct 19 2002, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by ChairmanMah@Oct 19 2002, 06:47 PM
terrible that this happened. it is coincidental that in vancouver these past year there have been 3 high profile beatings, attempted sexual assaults, sexual assault abductions which have occured.
In most cases, the targets were internaional students from korea at least 2 i think. Probably some japanese. Sad thing is it probably isn't the same person who commited each of these crimes which shows that this epidemic is growing. I think mainly due to the fact of the growing popularity of asian porn and the users who fetishize.
i believe that this is a direct result of the stereotypes of asian females as weak, vulnerable and easy to dominate which are displayed on these kinds of sites.
Yeah I read about that also. Was it ever resolved?
Oh, is this the connection Andrew is making? Asian fetishizing to the point of rape and murder. Wait, I don't want to put words in Andrew's mouth. I'll wait for him.
ChairmanMah
10-19-2002, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by Chasiubao_Boy@Oct 19 2002, 11:52 PM
Originally posted by ChairmanMah@Oct 19 2002, 06:47 PM
terrible that this happened. it is coincidental that in vancouver these past year there have been 3 high profile beatings, attempted sexual assaults, sexual assault abductions which have occured.
In most cases, the targets were internaional students from korea at least 2 i think. Probably some japanese. Sad thing is it probably isn't the same person who commited each of these crimes which shows that this epidemic is growing. I think mainly due to the fact of the growing popularity of asian porn and the users who fetishize.
i believe that this is a direct result of the stereotypes of asian females as weak, vulnerable and easy to dominate which are displayed on these kinds of sites.
Yeah I read about that also. Was it ever resolved?
no perpetrator found i don't think. there's more news tonight on the latest discoveries. I'll post it.
ren28
10-19-2002, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by loserbutt@Oct 19 2002, 10:32 PM
sad... sad
thing is, this guy did it with a legally bought gun.
makes you think huh?
That is why there is a "cooling off period" in CA. You can't get a gun the same day you buy it in CA. This guy was so crazy that she probably would have died by another means anyway. Losers like this make it hard for all the law abiding gun owners out there.
With regards to the subject at hand, didn't he turn the gun on himself? Since there is no real punishment to be handed down (the guy is dead), why bother to make it a hate crime? It would not serve as an example to deter future hate crimes in that respect.
achtungbaby
10-19-2002, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by ren28@Oct 19 2002, 04:41 PM
Since there is no real punishment to be handed down (the guy is dead), why bother to make it a hate crime? It would not serve as an example to deter future hate crimes in that respect.
I disagree. I think it's important to bring as much attention as possible to hate crimes, not just to educate potential perps, but to educate the general public as well, since a lot of people out there still don't believe racism exists...
Andrew
10-19-2002, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by ren28@Oct 20 2002, 12:41 AM
With regards to the subject at hand, didn't he turn the gun on himself? Since there is no real punishment to be handed down (the guy is dead), why bother to make it a hate crime?
Since Hitler committed suicide, why bother characterizing the Holocaust as racially motivated?
loserbutt
10-19-2002, 09:44 PM
we prosecute based on intent. hence, 3rd, 2nd, and 1st degree murder. hate crimes are worse than 1st degee murder because instead of killing someone for material posessions, you are killing someone for who he is.
secondly, the fact still stands that this sick fuck killed a woman with a legally bought gun. this should not be possible. period
loserbutt
10-19-2002, 09:46 PM
oh and, if you base your identity on how big your gun is as opposed to how big you are, well then maybe you should get a smaller gun
ren28
10-19-2002, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by achtungbaby@Oct 20 2002, 01:13 AM
Originally posted by ren28@Oct 19 2002, 04:41 PM
Since there is no real punishment to be handed down (the guy is dead), why bother to make it a hate crime? It would not serve as an example to deter future hate crimes in that respect.
I disagree. I think it's important to bring as much attention as possible to hate crimes, not just to educate potential perps, but to educate the general public as well, since a lot of people out there still don't believe racism exists...
I disagree too. The way I see it, he may have killed her because he could not have her; he did not kill her because he hated Asians. Now if he killed her because he hated Asians, then I would say that it's a hate crime. Sure, Anderson could be an idiot if he really did assume that all Asian women are meek but that is not what I consider a hate crime. Race played a part in that he liked her and could not have her but he did not hate Asians per se. If he made some comments like "f**k Asians" or something along that line, I would say it's a hate crime. None of that happened according to the article (unless I missed something!).
Yes, racism is alive even in the 21st century.
ren28
10-19-2002, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 20 2002, 05:33 AM
Originally posted by ren28@Oct 20 2002, 12:41 AM
With regards to the subject at hand, didn't he turn the gun on himself? Since there is no real punishment to be handed down (the guy is dead), why bother to make it a hate crime?
Since Hitler committed suicide, why bother characterizing the Holocaust as racially motivated?
Um, Hilter hated Jews. Where in the article does it say Anderson hated Asians?
ren28
10-19-2002, 09:52 PM
Originally posted by loserbutt@Oct 20 2002, 05:46 AM
oh and, if you base your identity on how big your gun is as opposed to how big you are, well then maybe you should get a smaller gun
Is that some sort of snide remark towards my picture? If so, I find that a very juvenile comment.
:rolleyes:
Andrew
10-19-2002, 09:58 PM
Originally posted by ren28@Oct 20 2002, 05:49 AM
I disagree too. The way I see it, he may have killed her because he could not have her; he did not kill her because he hated Asians. Now if he killed her because he hated Asians, then I would say that it's a hate crime. Sure, Anderson could be an idiot if he really did assume that all Asian women are meek but that is not what I consider a hate crime. Race played a part in that he liked her and could not have her but he did not hate Asians per se. If he made some comments like "f**k Asians" or something along that line, I would say it's a hate crime. None of that happened according to the article (unless I missed something!).
Yes, racism is alive even in the 21st century.
Anderson targeted an Asian American for unwanted romantic attention -- perhaps even harassment -- and murder. A description of this racially motivated targeting of a victim as merely "liking" Asians is a gross perversion of the meaning of the term "to like," and should not be legally cognizable as a defense to hate crime laws.
Andrew
10-19-2002, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by ren28@Oct 20 2002, 05:50 AM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 20 2002, 05:33 AM
Originally posted by ren28@Oct 20 2002, 12:41 AM
With regards to the subject at hand, didn't he turn the gun on himself? Since there is no real punishment to be handed down (the guy is dead), why bother to make it a hate crime?
Since Hitler committed suicide, why bother characterizing the Holocaust as racially motivated?
Um, Hilter hated Jews. Where in the article does it say Anderson hated Asians?
If someone singled you out for murder because of your race, I think you'd call that a hate crime, and the fact that he said he did it because he "liked" your race wouldn't be of much comfort to you.
loserbutt
10-19-2002, 10:04 PM
yes
do you feel this surge of power when you hold a gun in your hand? is that it? interviews by psychologists of prisoners convicted of a crime with a weapon say that the criminals felt this power holding a gun while committing the crime.
I say fine if you feel you need a handgun to protect your house or a rifle to go hunting on the weekends as long as you keep them locked up properly. but it is not fine if you relish guns, especially big ones with large clips more adept at taking out crowds than a lone burgler, and have multiple guns because you think they look cool and make your pathetic little self feel powerful.
ren28
10-19-2002, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by loserbutt@Oct 20 2002, 06:04 AM
do you feel this surge of power when you hold a gun in your hand? is that it? interviews by psychologists of prisoners convicted of a crime with a weapon say that the criminals felt this power holding a gun while committing the crime.
I say fine if you feel you need a handgun to protect your house or a rifle to go hunting on the weekends as long as you keep them locked up properly. but it is not fine if you relish guns, especially big ones with large clips more adept at taking out crowds than a lone burgler, and have multiple guns because you think they look cool and make your pathetic little self feel powerful.
Being a Republican or a Democrat has nothing to do with this forum. I vote for mostly Democrats anyway. LOL.
Andrew
10-19-2002, 10:33 PM
One very useful thing about the exercise of thinking about this as a hate crime is that it requires us to reject the killer's perspective. Since we're used to accepting the voices of news articles and white men (like Anderson) as authoritative, and it's more tittilating to view this story as it has been presented, i.e., a tragic tale of spurned love, there's a natural tendency to think of Anderson's conduct in terms of "liking" and being "infatuated" with Asian women. But for a single man to subject a (I would assume happily) married woman to the condition that if she rejects his love, he will kill her, cannot reasonably be construed as an act of love.
If we can get the public to think of this as a hate crime, it will mean that the public has come to see this crime not from Anderson's warped perspective, but from the Asian American victim's perspective. That in itself will be progress.
<!--EDIT|Andrew|Oct 20 2002, 06:36 AM-->
loserbutt
10-19-2002, 10:43 PM
couldn't tell ren, most of your posts on AA sound republican. maybe you should read up on the platforms of both parties again. after all, the dems are all for gun control to take away your precious guns and environmental regulation that would take away your ricemobile (small exageration)
I'm sorry, I just get very mad whenever I come into contact with people who find guns to be fascinating
on anderson, was her race part of the infatuation? yes. her sex? yes. if she had been neither asian nor a female he would not have killed her. cut and dried hate crime. he killed her because she was asian and female.
one last thing, weren't they tennis partners? why didn't she notice him acting psychotic?
ren28
10-19-2002, 10:43 PM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 20 2002, 05:58 AM
Originally posted by ren28@Oct 20 2002, 05:49 AM
I disagree too. The way I see it, he may have killed her because he could not have her; he did not kill her because he hated Asians. Now if he killed her because he hated Asians, then I would say that it's a hate crime. Sure, Anderson could be an idiot if he really did assume that all Asian women are meek but that is not what I consider a hate crime. Race played a part in that he liked her and could not have her but he did not hate Asians per se. If he made some comments like "f**k Asians" or something along that line, I would say it's a hate crime. None of that happened according to the article (unless I missed something!).
Yes, racism is alive even in the 21st century.
Anderson targeted an Asian American for unwanted romantic attention -- perhaps even harassment -- and murder. A description of this racially motivated targeting of a victim as merely "liking" Asians is a gross perversion of the meaning of the term "to like," and should not be legally cognizable as a defense to hate crime laws.
Again, I don't think I need to reiterate that she was not KILLED ONLY BECAUSE SHE WAS ASIAN. How about this: do you think she would have lived if she returned his affections? I don't think so.
It is my opinion that she would have died if she was any other race and did not return his advances. Him hating Asian women has nothing to do with the actual motivating factor to kill her. If evidence comes up to support that it WAS a motivating factor, then I would say that it is a hate crime.
To me, this is like saying this is a hate crime because he was partial to Asians. I'm not up on law but this sounds wrong to me. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. With the facts I've seen, this crime was about unreturned love... like the people seen on tv killing their wives, the rest of their family, and then turning the gun on themselves.
ren28
10-19-2002, 10:49 PM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 20 2002, 06:00 AM
Originally posted by ren28@Oct 20 2002, 05:50 AM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 20 2002, 05:33 AM
Originally posted by ren28@Oct 20 2002, 12:41 AM
With regards to the subject at hand, didn't he turn the gun on himself? Since there is no real punishment to be handed down (the guy is dead), why bother to make it a hate crime?
Since Hitler committed suicide, why bother characterizing the Holocaust as racially motivated?
Um, Hilter hated Jews. Where in the article does it say Anderson hated Asians?
If someone singled you out for murder because of your race, I think you'd call that a hate crime, and the fact that he said he did it because he "liked" your race wouldn't be of much comfort to you.
Once again, Anderson did not kill her because she was Asian per se. If he hated her because of her race, why was he attracted to her? Would that not be a conflict of interests? If a person hated Asians, why would this same person want to be with an Asian? IMO, this is a case of unrequited love.
ren28
10-19-2002, 10:55 PM
Originally posted by loserbutt@Oct 20 2002, 06:43 AM
couldn't tell ren, most of your posts on AA sound republican. maybe you should read up on the platforms of both parties again. after all, the dems are all for gun control to take away your precious guns and environmental regulation that would take away your ricemobile (small exageration)
I'm sorry, I just get very mad whenever I come into contact with people who find guns to be fascinating
on anderson, was her race part of the infatuation? yes. her sex? yes. if she had been neither asian nor a female he would not have killed her. cut and dried hate crime. he killed her because she was asian and female.
one last thing, weren't they tennis partners? why didn't she notice him acting psychotic?
Once again, I am not going to carry this off topic or follow suit in your personal attacks. It is quite obvious to me that you have a serious problem with guns or anyone else who does not kiss your ass by following your set of opinions and so I cannot carry on a mature discussion with you.
I refuse to let you take YW down to the level you are trying to take it.
You should learn something from Andrew and make your statements in support of your argument instead of personal attacks. We disagree but is there any hate? Nope.
Andrew
10-19-2002, 11:06 PM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 20 2002, 06:33 AM
One very useful thing about the exercise of thinking about this as a hate crime is that it requires us to reject the killer's perspective. Since we're used to accepting the voices of news articles and white men (like Anderson) as authoritative, and it's more tittilating to view this story as it has been presented, i.e., a tragic tale of spurned love, there's a natural tendency to think of Anderson's conduct in terms of "liking" and being "infatuated" with Asian women. But for a single man to subject a (I would assume happily) married woman to the condition that if she rejects his love, he will kill her, cannot reasonably be construed as an act of love.
If we can get the public to think of this as a hate crime, it will mean that the public has come to see this crime not from Anderson's warped perspective, but from the Asian American victim's perspective. That in itself will be progress.
And then there's Ren, who insists on taking the killer's perspective. Oh well, there's one in every crowd.
wylin
10-19-2002, 11:14 PM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 19 2002, 11:06 PM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 20 2002, 06:33 AM
One very useful thing about the exercise of thinking about this as a hate crime is that it requires us to reject the killer's perspective. Since we're used to accepting the voices of news articles and white men (like Anderson) as authoritative, and it's more tittilating to view this story as it has been presented, i.e., a tragic tale of spurned love, there's a natural tendency to think of Anderson's conduct in terms of "liking" and being "infatuated" with Asian women. But for a single man to subject a (I would assume happily) married woman to the condition that if she rejects his love, he will kill her, cannot reasonably be construed as an act of love.
If we can get the public to think of this as a hate crime, it will mean that the public has come to see this crime not from Anderson's warped perspective, but from the Asian American victim's perspective. That in itself will be progress.
And then there's Ren, who insists on taking the killer's perspective. Oh well, there's one in every crowd.
count me in too that one the killer just need sum bitch to kill and rape thats all he needed to get his jollies race isnt an issue better to prosecture him w/o hate crime laws on the state level then take up federal hate crimes charges later. less hoopla means swifter justice.
also like ren i like guns and cars. as do all manly men. =) oh and i like swords too. conan style!
Andrew
10-19-2002, 11:16 PM
Originally posted by ren28@Oct 20 2002, 06:43 AM
With the facts I've seen, this crime was about unreturned love... like the people seen on tv killing their wives, the rest of their family, and then turning the gun on themselves.
I've seen TV movies where a psychotic stalker violently attacks the subject of his obsession, insisting all the while that he "loves" her. Is that sort of what you have in mind? Because if it is, it's kind of worrying to me that you want the whole legal system to buy into the criminal's worldview rather than understanding his acts as having nothing at all to do with love. It's especially troubling to me that on top of all this, you appear to be heavily armed.
Craig
10-19-2002, 11:16 PM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 20 2002, 07:06 AM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 20 2002, 06:33 AM
One very useful thing about the exercise of thinking about this as a hate crime is that it requires us to reject the killer's perspective. Since we're used to accepting the voices of news articles and white men (like Anderson) as authoritative, and it's more tittilating to view this story as it has been presented, i.e., a tragic tale of spurned love, there's a natural tendency to think of Anderson's conduct in terms of "liking" and being "infatuated" with Asian women. But for a single man to subject a (I would assume happily) married woman to the condition that if she rejects his love, he will kill her, cannot reasonably be construed as an act of love.
If we can get the public to think of this as a hate crime, it will mean that the public has come to see this crime not from Anderson's warped perspective, but from the Asian American victim's perspective. That in itself will be progress.
And then there's Ren, who insists on taking the killer's perspective. Oh well, there's one in every crowd.
What is your perspective on this topic as to how it might relate to the way many White American Males view East Asian Males as potential romantic competition for females ? I find it very odd that a male would be able to get delusion thoughts of a potential romantic relationship to a happily married woman. I find it even odder that it would be the case with someone able to gain admission to (and graduate from) Rice, having such a high GPA in a field like computer science and being almost 20 years older than the female.
Andrew
10-19-2002, 11:31 PM
Originally posted by Craig@Oct 20 2002, 07:16 AM
What is your perspective on this topic as to how it might relate to the way many White American Males view East Asian Males as potential romantic competition for females ? I find it very odd that a male would be able to get delusion thoughts of a potential romantic relationship to a happily married woman. I find it even odder that it would be the case with someone able to gain admission to (and graduate from) Rice, having such a high GPA in a field like computer science and being almost 20 years older than the female.
Not odd at all, if you've been following the discussion over on the ModelMinority.com site.
<!--EDIT|Andrew|Oct 20 2002, 08:14 AM-->
loserbutt
10-19-2002, 11:32 PM
hate crimes cover women too
also guns and cars should not be used to compensate for your own lack of manliness
thats why I ride a bike
kasia
10-20-2002, 12:26 AM
Originally posted by loserbutt@Oct 20 2002, 06:04 AM
yes
btw I have seen a picture of you and you are a very small person who makes up for that fact by talking about your love for guns and the republican party and the status quo
do you feel this surge of power when you hold a gun in your hand? is that it? interviews by psychologists of prisoners convicted of a crime with a weapon say that the criminals felt this power holding a gun while committing the crime.
I say fine if you feel you need a handgun to protect your house or a rifle to go hunting on the weekends as long as you keep them locked up properly. but it is not fine if you relish guns, especially big ones with large clips more adept at taking out crowds than a lone burgler, and have multiple guns because you think they look cool and make your pathetic little self feel powerful.
basically I saw plenty of your crap at AA, I'm sick of it, and this is my rant.
please read forum rules before continuing with your posting activity. debates are encouraged, but personal attacks are not.
thanks.
Reinhard H.
10-20-2002, 12:35 AM
I also consider it questionable to call this a "hate crime", I would consider it a "hate crime", if he had chosen some Asian woman to kill, because she was Asian, in this case his motivation to kill was not racial hatred, but his love for the woman (who happened to be Asian). Sure he may have liked (not hated!) Asian women, but if he had liked blonds instead and was madly in love with a married blond woman and then had killed her because he couldn't have her, would one call it a "hate crime"? Why would it have been better if an Asian man had done the same thing? Then it would not be considered a hate crime, even though the result would have been exactly the same. Personally I rather think this whole affair has some tragic romantic touch to it, especially since he shot himself, something like from an Italian opera.
achtungbaby
10-20-2002, 12:43 AM
Originally posted by ren28@Oct 19 2002, 09:49 PM
Race played a part in that he liked her and could not have her but he did not hate Asians per se.
Hate crimes are criminal acts--such as vandalism, arson, assault, or murder--committed against someone because of his or her race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, disability, age, or gender. In a hate crime, the person is selected because of a characteristic that he or she cannot change. -- stopthehate.org
Andrew
10-20-2002, 12:43 AM
Originally posted by Reinhard H.@Oct 20 2002, 08:35 AM
I also consider it questionable to call this a "hate crime", I would consider it a "hate crime", if he had chosen some Asian woman to kill, because she was Asian, in this case his motivation to kill was not racial hatred, but his love for the woman (who happened to be Asian). Sure he may have liked (not hated!) Asian women, but if he had liked blonds instead and was madly in love with a married blond woman and then had killed her because he couldn't have her, would one call it a "hate crime"? Why would it have been better if an Asian man had done the same thing? Then it would not be considered a hate crime, even though the result would have been exactly the same. Personally I rather think this whole affair has some tragic romantic touch to it, especially since he shot himself, something like from an Italian opera.
Your posting adds nothing to Ren's arguments, so I refer you to my responses to Ren.
ChinaLama
10-20-2002, 12:51 AM
guys, just a word of caution not to make personal attacks. Reading these posts, it seems that more and more people are turning against ren and making personal comments, sometimes not very subtle.
achtungbaby
10-20-2002, 12:51 AM
Sorry to interrupt, but the personal barbs have been removed.
Please refer to Yellowworld's Community Forum Guidelines (http://forums.yellowworld.org/index.php?act=ST&f=22&t=149) when posting. Personal attacks will not be tolerated, thanks.
Now moving to the Rant Room...
Andrew
10-20-2002, 12:51 AM
There's been a dearth of female posters on this topic, which seems inappropriate, given that we're exploring the nature of intersectional race and gender discrimination against Asian American women. Would any of you care to weigh in?
Craig
10-20-2002, 12:57 AM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 20 2002, 08:51 AM
There's been a dearth of female posters on this topic, which seems inappropriate, given that we're exploring the nature of intersectional race and gender discrimination against Asian American women. Would any of you care to weigh in?
More guys as regular posters to the board and many of the girls that frequent the board don't seem to hit the "Current Events" forum.
angel nympho
10-20-2002, 01:09 AM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 20 2002, 05:58 AM
Originally posted by ren28@Oct 20 2002, 05:49 AM
I disagree too. The way I see it, he may have killed her because he could not have her; he did not kill her because he hated Asians. Now if he killed her because he hated Asians, then I would say that it's a hate crime. Sure, Anderson could be an idiot if he really did assume that all Asian women are meek but that is not what I consider a hate crime. Race played a part in that he liked her and could not have her but he did not hate Asians per se. If he made some comments like "f**k Asians" or something along that line, I would say it's a hate crime. None of that happened according to the article (unless I missed something!).
Yes, racism is alive even in the 21st century.
Anderson targeted an Asian American for unwanted romantic attention -- perhaps even harassment -- and murder. A description of this racially motivated targeting of a victim as merely "liking" Asians is a gross perversion of the meaning of the term "to like," and should not be legally cognizable as a defense to hate crime laws.
Who cares about his sexual preference. The murder was not race-specific. He did not stalk and kill random Asian women because he wanted to preserve his own race or rid the world of another. He did it because the damn girl wouldn't fuck him. His motivation was more 'cuz he was horny than 'cuz he hated Asians.
Even if he DID "perhaps" target the lady 'cuz she was Asian, he didn't intend to do her harm until she rejected him. As far as I know, a hate crime is when you intend to do something to preserve your own race or kill off another. In which case, he wouldn't have bothered to try to pursue her first.
<!--EDIT|angel nympho|Oct 20 2002, 09:10 AM-->
ren28
10-20-2002, 01:11 AM
Originally posted by achtungbaby@Oct 20 2002, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by ren28@Oct 19 2002, 09:49 PM
Race played a part in that he liked her and could not have her but he did not hate Asians per se.
Hate crimes are criminal acts--such as vandalism, arson, assault, or murder--committed against someone because of his or her race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, disability, age, or gender. In a hate crime, the person is selected because of a characteristic that he or she cannot change. -- stopthehate.org
What I was saying there was that she was not KILLED because she was Asian. Race played a role ONLY because he was attracted to Asian women (in his own twisted way). She was killed ONLY because she did not return his advances. This is what I have been trying to say all along.
Before anyone thinks I'm insensitive to the entire slaying issue, I think what happened is a terrible thing. That goes without saying.
achtungbaby
10-20-2002, 01:19 AM
Originally posted by ren28@Oct 20 2002, 01:11 AM
Hate crimes are criminal acts--such as vandalism, arson, assault, or murder--committed against someone because of his or her race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, disability, age, or gender. In a hate crime, the person is selected because of a characteristic that he or she cannot change. -- stopthehate.org
What I was saying there was that she was not KILLED because she was Asian. Race played a role ONLY because he was attracted to Asian women (in his own twisted way). She was killed ONLY because she did not return his advances. This is what I have been trying to say all along.
Before anyone thinks I'm insensitive to the entire slaying issue, I think what happened is a terrible thing. That goes without saying.[/quote]
ren, no need to apologize, I think this is a pretty good discussion and important for us to be able to understand/define. This issue is a bit thorny and definitely worth a look into...
Andrew
10-20-2002, 01:24 AM
Originally posted by ren28@Oct 20 2002, 09:11 AM
What I was saying there was that she was not KILLED because she was Asian. Race played a role ONLY because he was attracted to Asian women (in his own twisted way). She was killed ONLY because she did not return his advances. This is what I have been trying to say all along.
I've responded to this argument above. I'm not going to repeat myself anymore on this thread. I will, of course, respond to any new argument. Anyone who wants to evaluate our arguments with an open mind will simply have to read our posts in their totality rather than in the order they appear.
Hereinafter, the above paragraph will be abbreviated as "Argued and answered."
<!--EDIT|Andrew|Oct 20 2002, 09:26 AM-->
Craig
10-20-2002, 01:32 AM
In any situation classified as a "hate crime" there are always going to be conditions on what occurs. However, in my own evaluation, I consider "all else being equal" would this have happened if a person wasn't a member of a certain category (race, perceived religion, sexual orientation, etc).
angel nympho
10-20-2002, 01:41 AM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 20 2002, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by ren28@Oct 20 2002, 09:11 AM
What I was saying there was that she was not KILLED because she was Asian. Race played a role ONLY because he was attracted to Asian women (in his own twisted way). She was killed ONLY because she did not return his advances. This is what I have been trying to say all along.
I've responded to this argument above. I'm not going to repeat myself anymore on this thread. I will, of course, respond to any new argument. Anyone who wants to evaluate our arguments with an open mind will simply have to read our posts in their totality rather than in the order they appear.
Hereinafter, the above paragraph will be abbreviated as "Argued and answered."
I don't think you have seen what the point others are trying to make, however.
The motive of his crime was to kill a woman because she wouldn't succomb to dating him.
A hate crime is generally considered a crime when the motive is to kill somebody because you hate their race.
I don't think he killed her because he hates Asians. I think he killed her because she wouldn't date him. Unless you have some breakthrough evidence that states he killed her for only one reason, becase he hates Asians, then I don't think you're going to have any luck labeling this a hate crime.
Try this situation out: Instead of killing an Asian woman, what if it had been a gay man? Let's say the man was gay and he liked this other man. The man he liked was white, so race doesn't have a bearing here. Now he makes advances towards this man, but the man repeatedly tells him "no, I'm not interested" and brushes off his comments. The gay man's crush turns to infatuation which turns to obsession. He stalks and kills this man. Was this a hate crime because the gay man just had a huge thing towards other gay white guys and targeted them for attention? So a hate crime against gays... by a gay guy? (not being sarcastic here, just asking...)
Another scenario: What if the man who killed the woman was Asian, and the woman he killed was white? I don't think anybody would be calling out that it was a hate crime.
<!--EDIT|angel nympho|Oct 20 2002, 09:42 AM-->
ren28
10-20-2002, 01:42 AM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 20 2002, 07:16 AM
Originally posted by ren28@Oct 20 2002, 06:43 AM
With the facts I've seen, this crime was about unreturned love... like the people seen on tv killing their wives, the rest of their family, and then turning the gun on themselves.
I've seen TV movies where a psychotic stalker violently attacks the subject of his obsession, insisting all the while that he "loves" her. Is that sort of what you have in mind? Because if it is, it's kind of worrying to me that you want the whole legal system to buy into the criminal's worldview rather than understanding his acts as having nothing at all to do with love. It's especially troubling to me that on top of all this, you appear to be heavily armed.
Ok, then do you have proof that Anderson hated Asian women? If so, then you are totally correct. It would be a hate crime. Do you have this proof or does your tv movie tell what exactly was on Anderson's mind? I'm Chinese and even so, I still think there is not enough evidence to point that it was a hate crime. In America, people are innocent until proven guilty and not the other way around. Until you have the evidence that shows he hated Asians or Asian women, I suggest you not refer to television as a definitive argument.
Do you really think I'm siding with the criminal here with the remarks that I have made? If so, you are sorely mistaken. I'd spit on Anderson's grave if I had to. Anderson is terrible without any doubt but don't even try to make it sound as if I'm siding with ANY criminal because it is not true. All I am saying here is that I have not seen evidence of his hate towards Asian women or Asians in general. Once again, where is the proof that says this person hated Asians? How about proof that would hold up in COURT?
My "appearing to be heavily armed" has nothing to do with this topic. You seem to be alluding that I am in some way capable of violence. I am capable of violence (who isn't?) but what does it have to do with the topic? Does it somehow make your argument stronger about this being a hate crime to include an obvious poke at my stance on firearms? If not, why include such a remark? I'm being completely civil while people feel the need to trash talk. Do you truly feel the need to squash my liking for firearms and pander to everyone else that does not like guns? YW should be better than this. This thread is trying my patience.
ren28
10-20-2002, 01:49 AM
Originally posted by loserbutt@Oct 20 2002, 06:43 AM
couldn't tell ren, most of your posts on AA sound republican. maybe you should read up on the platforms of both parties again. after all, the dems are all for gun control to take away your precious guns and environmental regulation that would take away your ricemobile (small exageration)
Moderator, please edit this quote (and delete my follow-up) as I find it extremely offensive. Political parties and my car hobby is not anyone's business except for me. If I'm not going to poke fun or trash talk about someone with the name loser, they sure as hell should not be able to post anything like that about me.
ren28
10-20-2002, 01:52 AM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 20 2002, 07:06 AM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 20 2002, 06:33 AM
One very useful thing about the exercise of thinking about this as a hate crime is that it requires us to reject the killer's perspective. Since we're used to accepting the voices of news articles and white men (like Anderson) as authoritative, and it's more tittilating to view this story as it has been presented, i.e., a tragic tale of spurned love, there's a natural tendency to think of Anderson's conduct in terms of "liking" and being "infatuated" with Asian women. But for a single man to subject a (I would assume happily) married woman to the condition that if she rejects his love, he will kill her, cannot reasonably be construed as an act of love.
If we can get the public to think of this as a hate crime, it will mean that the public has come to see this crime not from Anderson's warped perspective, but from the Asian American victim's perspective. That in itself will be progress.
And then there's Ren, who insists on taking the killer's perspective. Oh well, there's one in every crowd.
And I suppose your condescending remark to me strengthens your argument that this is a hate crime?
Oh, I don't think this is a hate crime so I MUST like the killer. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
ren28
10-20-2002, 02:01 AM
Originally posted by loserbutt@Oct 20 2002, 07:32 AM
hate crimes cover women too
also guns and cars should not be used to compensate for your own lack of manliness
thats why I ride a bike
I'm at the limit here for my patience. This poster does not quit. I'm asking this posters new membership in the banned pile... and I'm really wondering why it has not already happened since this is MULTIPLE offenses. I've made no pokes or personal attacks EVEN IN RESPONSE to this poster.
Ok, the moderator can delete these posts now. Thank you. B)
angel nympho
10-20-2002, 02:03 AM
Originally posted by ren28@Oct 20 2002, 09:52 AM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 20 2002, 07:06 AM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 20 2002, 06:33 AM
One very useful thing about the exercise of thinking about this as a hate crime is that it requires us to reject the killer's perspective. Since we're used to accepting the voices of news articles and white men (like Anderson) as authoritative, and it's more tittilating to view this story as it has been presented, i.e., a tragic tale of spurned love, there's a natural tendency to think of Anderson's conduct in terms of "liking" and being "infatuated" with Asian women. But for a single man to subject a (I would assume happily) married woman to the condition that if she rejects his love, he will kill her, cannot reasonably be construed as an act of love.
If we can get the public to think of this as a hate crime, it will mean that the public has come to see this crime not from Anderson's warped perspective, but from the Asian American victim's perspective. That in itself will be progress.
And then there's Ren, who insists on taking the killer's perspective. Oh well, there's one in every crowd.
And I suppose your condescending remark to me strengthens your argument that this is a hate crime?
Oh, I don't think this is a hate crime so I MUST like the killer. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Yeah, I was a little off put by that comment too. This guy seems to say things that are just on the VERGE of personal attack, clearly meant in a condescending manner, but not so flammatory that he'd get banned or edited or hollered at. Times like this I wish I had mod status. Oooh, but I'd just go on a giant power trip.
Reinhard H.
10-20-2002, 02:03 AM
Originally posted by achtungbaby@Oct 20 2002, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by ren28@Oct 19 2002, 09:49 PM
Race played a part in that he liked her and could not have her but he did not hate Asians per se.
Hate crimes are criminal acts--such as vandalism, arson, assault, or murder--committed against someone because of his or her race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, disability, age, or gender. In a hate crime, the person is selected because of a characteristic that he or she cannot change. -- stopthehate.org
I'm no lawyer, but I consider this to be a pretty crappy definition of a "hate crime", isn't any crime that serves no purpose but to fulfill some personal vengeance a product of hate? If you kill somebody because he has a bigger car or a prettier wife or because you had some argument with him, hatred is as much the cause of the crime as in the case of bigotry.
Andrew
10-20-2002, 02:04 AM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 20 2002, 09:41 AM
I don't think you have seen what the point others are trying to make, however.
The motive of his crime was to kill a woman because she wouldn't succomb to dating him.
A hate crime is generally considered a crime when the motive is to kill somebody because you hate their race.
I don't think he killed her because he hates Asians. I think he killed her because she wouldn't date him. Unless you have some breakthrough evidence that states he killed her for only one reason, becase he hates Asians, then I don't think you're going to have any luck labeling this a hate crime.
Try this situation out: Instead of killing an Asian woman, what if it had been a gay man? Let's say the man was gay and he liked this other man. The man he liked was white, so race doesn't have a bearing here. Now he makes advances towards this man, but the man repeatedly tells him "no, I'm not interested" and brushes off his comments. The gay man's crush turns to infatuation which turns to obsession. He stalks and kills this man. Was this a hate crime because the gay man just had a huge thing towards other gay white guys and targeted them for attention? So a hate crime against gays... by a gay guy? (not being sarcastic here, just asking...)
Another scenario: What if the man who killed the woman was Asian, and the woman he killed was white? I don't think anybody would be calling out that it was a hate crime.
Argued and answered. Here's a clue: in determining whether this is a hate crime, there is no analytical significance to the distinction between (1) killing Wang and (2) subjecting Wang to the choice of returning Anderson's "love" or being killed.
angel nympho
10-20-2002, 02:08 AM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 20 2002, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 20 2002, 09:41 AM
I don't think you have seen what the point others are trying to make, however.
The motive of his crime was to kill a woman because she wouldn't succomb to dating him.
A hate crime is generally considered a crime when the motive is to kill somebody because you hate their race.
I don't think he killed her because he hates Asians. I think he killed her because she wouldn't date him. Unless you have some breakthrough evidence that states he killed her for only one reason, becase he hates Asians, then I don't think you're going to have any luck labeling this a hate crime.
Try this situation out: Instead of killing an Asian woman, what if it had been a gay man? Let's say the man was gay and he liked this other man. The man he liked was white, so race doesn't have a bearing here. Now he makes advances towards this man, but the man repeatedly tells him "no, I'm not interested" and brushes off his comments. The gay man's crush turns to infatuation which turns to obsession. He stalks and kills this man. Was this a hate crime because the gay man just had a huge thing towards other gay white guys and targeted them for attention? So a hate crime against gays... by a gay guy? (not being sarcastic here, just asking...)
Another scenario: What if the man who killed the woman was Asian, and the woman he killed was white? I don't think anybody would be calling out that it was a hate crime.
Argued and answered. Here's a clue: in determining whether this is a hate crime, there is no analytical significance to the distinction between (1) killing Wang and (2) subjecting Wang to the choice of returning Anderson's "love" or being killed.
On the contrary. A "HATE CRIME" is motive-specific. Therefore, I think that requires making a significant distinction between the fact that he killed the woman and the reason why he did it.
Just because somebody kills an Asian person doesn't mean it's a hate crime.
But you're right that subjecting her to the choice of either returning her love or dying was what he should be punished for. I don't think that choice had much to do with her race, however. It was "love me or die," not "be white or die."
<!--EDIT|angel nympho|Oct 20 2002, 10:09 AM-->
ren28
10-20-2002, 02:13 AM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 20 2002, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 20 2002, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 20 2002, 09:41 AM
I don't think you have seen what the point others are trying to make, however.
The motive of his crime was to kill a woman because she wouldn't succomb to dating him.
A hate crime is generally considered a crime when the motive is to kill somebody because you hate their race.
I don't think he killed her because he hates Asians. I think he killed her because she wouldn't date him. Unless you have some breakthrough evidence that states he killed her for only one reason, becase he hates Asians, then I don't think you're going to have any luck labeling this a hate crime.
Try this situation out: Instead of killing an Asian woman, what if it had been a gay man? Let's say the man was gay and he liked this other man. The man he liked was white, so race doesn't have a bearing here. Now he makes advances towards this man, but the man repeatedly tells him "no, I'm not interested" and brushes off his comments. The gay man's crush turns to infatuation which turns to obsession. He stalks and kills this man. Was this a hate crime because the gay man just had a huge thing towards other gay white guys and targeted them for attention? So a hate crime against gays... by a gay guy? (not being sarcastic here, just asking...)
Another scenario: What if the man who killed the woman was Asian, and the woman he killed was white? I don't think anybody would be calling out that it was a hate crime.
Argued and answered. Here's a clue: in determining whether this is a hate crime, there is no analytical significance to the distinction between (1) killing Wang and (2) subjecting Wang to the choice of returning Anderson's "love" or being killed.
On the contrary. A "HATE CRIME" is motive-specific. Therefore, I think that requires making a significant distinction between the fact that he killed the woman and the reason why he did it.
Just because somebody kills an Asian person doesn't mean it's a hate crime.
But you're right that subjecting her to the choice of either returning her love or dying was what he should be punished for. I don't think that choice had much to do with her race, however. It was "love me or die," not "be white or die."
Deep.
Andrew
10-20-2002, 02:19 AM
Originally posted by ren28@Oct 20 2002, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 20 2002, 07:16 AM
Originally posted by ren28@Oct 20 2002, 06:43 AM
With the facts I've seen, this crime was about unreturned love... like the people seen on tv killing their wives, the rest of their family, and then turning the gun on themselves.
I've seen TV movies where a psychotic stalker violently attacks the subject of his obsession, insisting all the while that he "loves" her. Is that sort of what you have in mind? Because if it is, it's kind of worrying to me that you want the whole legal system to buy into the criminal's worldview rather than understanding his acts as having nothing at all to do with love. It's especially troubling to me that on top of all this, you appear to be heavily armed.
Ok, then do you have proof that Anderson hated Asian women? If so, then you are totally correct. It would be a hate crime. Do you have this proof or does your tv movie tell what exactly was on Anderson's mind? I'm Chinese and even so, I still think there is not enough evidence to point that it was a hate crime. In America, people are innocent until proven guilty and not the other way around. Until you have the evidence that shows he hated Asians or Asian women, I suggest you not refer to television as a definitive argument.
Do you really think I'm siding with the criminal here with the remarks that I have made? If so, you are sorely mistaken. I'd spit on Anderson's grave if I had to. Anderson is terrible without any doubt but don't even try to make it sound as if I'm siding with ANY criminal because it is not true. All I am saying here is that I have not seen evidence of his hate towards Asian women or Asians in general. Once again, where is the proof that says this person hated Asians? How about proof that would hold up in COURT?
My "appearing to be heavily armed" has nothing to do with this topic. You seem to be alluding that I am in some way capable of violence. I am capable of violence (who isn't?) but what does it have to do with the topic? Does it somehow make your argument stronger about this being a hate crime to include an obvious poke at my stance on firearms? If not, why include such a remark? I'm being completely civil while people feel the need to trash talk. Do you truly feel the need to squash my liking for firearms and pander to everyone else that does not like guns? YW should be better than this. This thread is trying my patience.
You were the one who resorted to TV to make your argument. Sheesh, keep track.
It may be hard for a non-lawyer to understand this, but the definition of hate crime (which achtungbaby has kindly supplied -- see above) does not include among its elements "evidence of [the defendant's] hate toward [a protected class] in general."
You may not be siding with Anderson, but you want the legal system to negate any finding of "hate" by giving credence to Anderson's psychotic definition of "love." Not only does your argument legally fail to address the statutory definition of a hate crime, but your persistence in valorizing Anderson's subjective infatuation as "love" has understandably led me to question whether you fully appreciate the difference between objective reality and a psychotic mental state. Given the present state of affairs in this country (notably in the D.C. metropolitan area), I hope you will understand why I consider the possession of firearms significant in such a context.
angel nympho
10-20-2002, 02:23 AM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 20 2002, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by ren28@Oct 20 2002, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 20 2002, 07:16 AM
Originally posted by ren28@Oct 20 2002, 06:43 AM
With the facts I've seen, this crime was about unreturned love... like the people seen on tv killing their wives, the rest of their family, and then turning the gun on themselves.
I've seen TV movies where a psychotic stalker violently attacks the subject of his obsession, insisting all the while that he "loves" her. Is that sort of what you have in mind? Because if it is, it's kind of worrying to me that you want the whole legal system to buy into the criminal's worldview rather than understanding his acts as having nothing at all to do with love. It's especially troubling to me that on top of all this, you appear to be heavily armed.
Ok, then do you have proof that Anderson hated Asian women? If so, then you are totally correct. It would be a hate crime. Do you have this proof or does your tv movie tell what exactly was on Anderson's mind? I'm Chinese and even so, I still think there is not enough evidence to point that it was a hate crime. In America, people are innocent until proven guilty and not the other way around. Until you have the evidence that shows he hated Asians or Asian women, I suggest you not refer to television as a definitive argument.
Do you really think I'm siding with the criminal here with the remarks that I have made? If so, you are sorely mistaken. I'd spit on Anderson's grave if I had to. Anderson is terrible without any doubt but don't even try to make it sound as if I'm siding with ANY criminal because it is not true. All I am saying here is that I have not seen evidence of his hate towards Asian women or Asians in general. Once again, where is the proof that says this person hated Asians? How about proof that would hold up in COURT?
My "appearing to be heavily armed" has nothing to do with this topic. You seem to be alluding that I am in some way capable of violence. I am capable of violence (who isn't?) but what does it have to do with the topic? Does it somehow make your argument stronger about this being a hate crime to include an obvious poke at my stance on firearms? If not, why include such a remark? I'm being completely civil while people feel the need to trash talk. Do you truly feel the need to squash my liking for firearms and pander to everyone else that does not like guns? YW should be better than this. This thread is trying my patience.
You were the one who resorted to TV to make your argument. Sheesh, keep track.
It may be hard for a non-lawyer to understand this, but the definition of hate crime (which achtungbaby has kindly supplied -- see above) does not include among its elements "evidence of [the defendant's] hate toward [a protected class] in general."
You may not be siding with Anderson, but you want the legal system to negate any finding of "hate" by giving credence to Anderson's psychotic definition of "love." Not only does your argument legally fail to address the statutory definition of a hate crime, but your persistence in valorizing Anderson's subjective infatuation as "love" has understandably led me to question whether you fully appreciate the difference between objective reality and a psychotic mental state. Given the present state of affairs in this country (notably in the D.C. metropolitan area), I hope you will understand why I consider the possession of firearms significant in such a context.
I believe his question was: Do you have proof that Anderson hated Asian women?
I don't see an answer.
And, while it may be hard for YOU to understand, comments like "it may be hard for a non-lawyer to understand this" don't seem to be designed for any purpose other than to build yourself up. Sorry if I'm wrong about that, but I'm not ren and I was still a little offended. If you were being genuine and you really don't think we'd understand something, then MAKE us understand. It's called EXPLAINING. And if you weren't being genuine, I'm sorry, but you're on the wrong site. Not everybody on YW is as PRESTIGIOUS as you are.
Andrew
10-20-2002, 02:24 AM
Originally posted by ren28@Oct 20 2002, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 20 2002, 10:08 AM
On the contrary. A "HATE CRIME" is motive-specific. Therefore, I think that requires making a significant distinction between the fact that he killed the woman and the reason why he did it.
Just because somebody kills an Asian person doesn't mean it's a hate crime.
But you're right that subjecting her to the choice of either returning her love or dying was what he should be punished for. I don't think that choice had much to do with her race, however. It was "love me or die," not "be white or die."
Deep.
Actually, it's legal reasoning only a non-lawyer could love.
Talk to you later, after you've read up on the statute and can understand my previous posting.
angel nympho
10-20-2002, 02:25 AM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 20 2002, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by ren28@Oct 20 2002, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 20 2002, 10:08 AM
On the contrary. A "HATE CRIME" is motive-specific. Therefore, I think that requires making a significant distinction between the fact that he killed the woman and the reason why he did it.
Just because somebody kills an Asian person doesn't mean it's a hate crime.
But you're right that subjecting her to the choice of either returning her love or dying was what he should be punished for. I don't think that choice had much to do with her race, however. It was "love me or die," not "be white or die."
Deep.
Actually, it's legal reasoning only a non-lawyer could love.
Talk to you later, after you've read up on the statute and can understand my previous posting.
I'm not reading up on anything. If you want me to understand something, do a better job of explaining it.
Andrew
10-20-2002, 02:28 AM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 20 2002, 10:23 AM
I believe his question was: Do you have proof that Anderson hated Asian women?
I don't see an answer.
The answer is no.
But what does that have to do with whether this is a hate crime?
You and Ren are welcome to discuss and propose amendments to the statutory definition of a hate crime, and create your own legal utopia.
But that discussion will have no bearing on the question of whether under existing law, the legal authorities in North Carolina should report the murder as a hate crime. That's the only question I'm interested in.
Andrew
10-20-2002, 02:36 AM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 20 2002, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 20 2002, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by ren28@Oct 20 2002, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 20 2002, 10:08 AM
On the contrary. A "HATE CRIME" is motive-specific. Therefore, I think that requires making a significant distinction between the fact that he killed the woman and the reason why he did it.
Just because somebody kills an Asian person doesn't mean it's a hate crime.
But you're right that subjecting her to the choice of either returning her love or dying was what he should be punished for. I don't think that choice had much to do with her race, however. It was "love me or die," not "be white or die."
Deep.
Actually, it's legal reasoning only a non-lawyer could love.
Talk to you later, after you've read up on the statute and can understand my previous posting.
I'm not reading up on anything. If you want me to understand something, do a better job of explaining it.
No thanks. My sole purpose in responding to your postings is to defend my positions to the community at large, not to give you an individual online tutorial in legal reasoning. You're paying tuition at a good university. If you genuinely want to understand the legal doctrine of hate crimes, there are resources available to you. If you're too intellectually lazy to pursue them ("I'm not reading up on anything"), I'm not going to waste my time spoonfeeding you.
<!--EDIT|Andrew|Oct 20 2002, 10:39 AM-->
angel nympho
10-20-2002, 02:38 AM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 20 2002, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 20 2002, 10:23 AM
I believe his question was: Do you have proof that Anderson hated Asian women?
I don't see an answer.
The answer is no.
But what does that have to do with whether this is a hate crime?
You and Ren are welcome to discuss and propose amendments to the statutory definition of a hate crime, and create your own legal utopia.
But that discussion will have no bearing on the question of whether under existing law, the legal authorities in North Carolina should report the murder as a hate crime. That's the only question I'm interested in.
Well how is that a hate crime, then? I don't know what goes on in North Carolina, but I was under the impression that there really needs to be a lot of solid evidence that the crime was racially charged to even consider it's standing as a hate crime. If you can't prove that he murdered the woman specifically because she wasn't white, then I don't know how well your argument stands up in court. This coming from a lowly non-lawyer, of course. If there's something about North Carolina law that I'm missing here, then please, by all means, enlighten me, but as far as I'm concerned, you're overreacting.
And yes, thank you for giving me permission to discuss with Ren what a hate crime should and should not be. That meant so much to me, I don't know what to say.
Andrew
10-20-2002, 02:40 AM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 20 2002, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 20 2002, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 20 2002, 10:23 AM
I believe his question was: Do you have proof that Anderson hated Asian women?
I don't see an answer.
The answer is no.
But what does that have to do with whether this is a hate crime?
You and Ren are welcome to discuss and propose amendments to the statutory definition of a hate crime, and create your own legal utopia.
But that discussion will have no bearing on the question of whether under existing law, the legal authorities in North Carolina should report the murder as a hate crime. That's the only question I'm interested in.
Well how is that a hate crime, then? I don't know what goes on in North Carolina, but I was under the impression that there really needs to be a lot of solid evidence that the crime was racially charged to even consider it's standing as a hate crime. If you can't prove that he murdered the woman specifically because she wasn't white, then I don't know how well your argument stands up in court. This coming from a lowly non-lawyer, of course. If there's something about North Carolina law that I'm missing here, then please, by all means, enlighten me, but as far as I'm concerned, you're overreacting.
And yes, thank you for giving me permission to discuss with Ren what a hate crime should and should not be. That meant so much to me, I don't know what to say.
achtungbaby gave the definition in the federal statute. The federal statute applies in North Carolina, which is one of the 50 United States.
angel nympho
10-20-2002, 02:40 AM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 20 2002, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 20 2002, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 20 2002, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by ren28@Oct 20 2002, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 20 2002, 10:08 AM
On the contrary. A "HATE CRIME" is motive-specific. Therefore, I think that requires making a significant distinction between the fact that he killed the woman and the reason why he did it.
Just because somebody kills an Asian person doesn't mean it's a hate crime.
But you're right that subjecting her to the choice of either returning her love or dying was what he should be punished for. I don't think that choice had much to do with her race, however. It was "love me or die," not "be white or die."
Deep.
Actually, it's legal reasoning only a non-lawyer could love.
Talk to you later, after you've read up on the statute and can understand my previous posting.
I'm not reading up on anything. If you want me to understand something, do a better job of explaining it.
No thanks. My sole purpose in responding to your postings is to defend my positions to the community at large, not to give you an individual online tutorial in legal reasoning. You're paying tuition at a good university. If you genuinely want to understand the legal doctrine of hate crimes, there are resources available to you. If you're too intellectually lazy to pursue them ("I'm not reading up on anything"), I'm not going to waste my time spoonfeeding you.
Then don't bitch if I don't know things that might be necessary to this conversation. I'd think that defending your positions would entail backing them up with legal reasoning that the other posters would understand. Sorry if I was mistaken.
angel nympho
10-20-2002, 02:41 AM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 20 2002, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 20 2002, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 20 2002, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 20 2002, 10:23 AM
I believe his question was: Do you have proof that Anderson hated Asian women?
I don't see an answer.
The answer is no.
But what does that have to do with whether this is a hate crime?
You and Ren are welcome to discuss and propose amendments to the statutory definition of a hate crime, and create your own legal utopia.
But that discussion will have no bearing on the question of whether under existing law, the legal authorities in North Carolina should report the murder as a hate crime. That's the only question I'm interested in.
Well how is that a hate crime, then? I don't know what goes on in North Carolina, but I was under the impression that there really needs to be a lot of solid evidence that the crime was racially charged to even consider it's standing as a hate crime. If you can't prove that he murdered the woman specifically because she wasn't white, then I don't know how well your argument stands up in court. This coming from a lowly non-lawyer, of course. If there's something about North Carolina law that I'm missing here, then please, by all means, enlighten me, but as far as I'm concerned, you're overreacting.
And yes, thank you for giving me permission to discuss with Ren what a hate crime should and should not be. That meant so much to me, I don't know what to say.
achtungbaby gave the definition in the federal statute. The federal statute applies in North Carolina, which is one of the 50 United States.
I read that. I still don't think it was a hate crime. That statute mentioned that the crime was based solely on race. I don't think that's the case here.
Andrew
10-20-2002, 02:50 AM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 20 2002, 10:40 AM
Then don't bitch if I don't know things that might be necessary to this conversation. I'd think that defending your positions would entail backing them up with legal reasoning that the other posters would understand. Sorry if I was mistaken.
Usually when I recognize that I am uninformed about a matter, I don't try to dominate a conversation about it.
angel nympho
10-20-2002, 02:54 AM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 20 2002, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 20 2002, 10:40 AM
Then don't bitch if I don't know things that might be necessary to this conversation. I'd think that defending your positions would entail backing them up with legal reasoning that the other posters would understand. Sorry if I was mistaken.
Usually when I recognize that I am uninformed about a matter, I don't try to dominate a conversation about it.
I don't recognize that I'm uninformed. I recognize that you think you're better than me, but won't bother to fill me in on this sacred information I'm supposed to know. If you won't tell me what important information I'm lacking, then I'm assuming it's not important.
<!--EDIT|angel nympho|Oct 20 2002, 10:55 AM-->
Andrew
10-20-2002, 02:56 AM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 20 2002, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 20 2002, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 20 2002, 10:40 AM
Then don't bitch if I don't know things that might be necessary to this conversation. I'd think that defending your positions would entail backing them up with legal reasoning that the other posters would understand. Sorry if I was mistaken.
Usually when I recognize that I am uninformed about a matter, I don't try to dominate a conversation about it.
I don't recognize that I'm uninformed. I recognize that you think you're better than me, but won't bother to fill me in on this sacred information I'm supposed to know. If you won't tell me what important information I'm lacking, then I'm assuming it's not important.
Argued and answered.
angel nympho
10-20-2002, 03:02 AM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 20 2002, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 20 2002, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 20 2002, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 20 2002, 10:40 AM
Then don't bitch if I don't know things that might be necessary to this conversation. I'd think that defending your positions would entail backing them up with legal reasoning that the other posters would understand. Sorry if I was mistaken.
Usually when I recognize that I am uninformed about a matter, I don't try to dominate a conversation about it.
I don't recognize that I'm uninformed. I recognize that you think you're better than me, but won't bother to fill me in on this sacred information I'm supposed to know. If you won't tell me what important information I'm lacking, then I'm assuming it's not important.
Argued and answered.
Let's keep our eye on the ball, here. If you think you're better than me, that doesn't make your arguments more valid than mine. I give up trying to talk to you nicely.
Reinhard H.
10-20-2002, 03:13 AM
I think this discussion is getting a bit off track. Even if it was a "hate crime", is it any worse to murder a person because of racial hatred than because you want to rob him? Hate crimes seem to be some new, fuzzy kind of law that seek out special legal privileges for the politically correct favoured groups of the left, while not applying to the rest of the population.
angel nympho
10-20-2002, 03:21 AM
Originally posted by Reinhard H.@Oct 20 2002, 11:13 AM
I think this discussion is getting a bit off track. Even if it was a "hate crime", is it any worse to murder a person because of racial hatred than because you want to rob him? Hate crimes seem to be some new, fuzzy kind of law that seek out special legal privileges for the politically correct favoured groups of the left, while not applying to the rest of the population.
I think I remember hearing something like this in our last discussion about hate crime laws. While I agree with you that no life should be valued more than another, I do think malicious intent is something that can be measured in degrees. To...an...extent... I think we already determined earlier in that other conversation that it is fairly difficult to declare that something is a hate crime. There really needs to be quite a bit of solid evidence.
I don't really know how to answer what you're saying, but I definately think that people who kill others on the basis of their race (because they want to preserve their own by ridding the world of the rest) should be looked down upon moreso than somebody who kills the man who raped his daughter. Ya know what I mean? I think motive matters.
ren28
10-20-2002, 03:39 AM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 20 2002, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by ren28@Oct 20 2002, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 20 2002, 07:16 AM
Originally posted by ren28@Oct 20 2002, 06:43 AM
With the facts I've seen, this crime was about unreturned love... like the people seen on tv killing their wives, the rest of their family, and then turning the gun on themselves.
I've seen TV movies where a psychotic stalker violently attacks the subject of his obsession, insisting all the while that he "loves" her. Is that sort of what you have in mind? Because if it is, it's kind of worrying to me that you want the whole legal system to buy into the criminal's worldview rather than understanding his acts as having nothing at all to do with love. It's especially troubling to me that on top of all this, you appear to be heavily armed.
Ok, then do you have proof that Anderson hated Asian women? If so, then you are totally correct. It would be a hate crime. Do you have this proof or does your tv movie tell what exactly was on Anderson's mind? I'm Chinese and even so, I still think there is not enough evidence to point that it was a hate crime. In America, people are innocent until proven guilty and not the other way around. Until you have the evidence that shows he hated Asians or Asian women, I suggest you not refer to television as a definitive argument.
Do you really think I'm siding with the criminal here with the remarks that I have made? If so, you are sorely mistaken. I'd spit on Anderson's grave if I had to. Anderson is terrible without any doubt but don't even try to make it sound as if I'm siding with ANY criminal because it is not true. All I am saying here is that I have not seen evidence of his hate towards Asian women or Asians in general. Once again, where is the proof that says this person hated Asians? How about proof that would hold up in COURT?
My "appearing to be heavily armed" has nothing to do with this topic. You seem to be alluding that I am in some way capable of violence. I am capable of violence (who isn't?) but what does it have to do with the topic? Does it somehow make your argument stronger about this being a hate crime to include an obvious poke at my stance on firearms? If not, why include such a remark? I'm being completely civil while people feel the need to trash talk. Do you truly feel the need to squash my liking for firearms and pander to everyone else that does not like guns? YW should be better than this. This thread is trying my patience.
You were the one who resorted to TV to make your argument. Sheesh, keep track.
It may be hard for a non-lawyer to understand this, but the definition of hate crime (which achtungbaby has kindly supplied -- see above) does not include among its elements "evidence of [the defendant's] hate toward [a protected class] in general."
You may not be siding with Anderson, but you want the legal system to negate any finding of "hate" by giving credence to Anderson's psychotic definition of "love." Not only does your argument legally fail to address the statutory definition of a hate crime, but your persistence in valorizing Anderson's subjective infatuation as "love" has understandably led me to question whether you fully appreciate the difference between objective reality and a psychotic mental state. Given the present state of affairs in this country (notably in the D.C. metropolitan area), I hope you will understand why I consider the possession of firearms significant in such a context.
You must be above explaining things to us "normal" folk. It's more like you are trying to cut off the exchange of information from others that do not agree with your logic by introducing something someone "cannot understand." All the legal reasoning people "cannot understand" does not help the fact you have no proof Anderson hated Asians or Asian women.
My "tv" scenario was backed up while yours is... lacking. Here is why: I say there is not enough evidence that this is a hate crime. Did anyone witness Anderson screaming racial or sexually hateful comments towards her or are you just guessing what he was thinking? Did Anderson have a history of hating Asian women? No. Did Anderson have a history of hating women? No. Did the article state that he was psychotic? No. Nowhere in the article did it say Anderson hated Asians or women. As AB said, a hate crime is "committed against someone because of his or her race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, disability, age, or gender." "Because of" would mean he would have had to shown evidence before/after/during the cold blooded murder that he hated either Asians or Asian women. Is this not correct? So, unless you prove (or new evidence shows) that he did this for one of these reasons, you are wrong.
"... valorizing Anderson's subjective infatuation"
Again, you are trying to make it sound like I side with Anderson. Spare me. I've moved on to a more important point... like actual proof that he hated her for race or sex.
"Given the present state of affairs in this country (notably in the D.C. metropolitan area), I hope you will understand why I consider the possession of firearms significant in such a context."
That is a lame excuse if I ever saw one. It's more like you were trying to equate me with Anderson since we are/were obivously both gun owners so I could be seen as a villain. Other than that, there was absolutely NO reason for that jab. Citing this, you were looking down on all gun owners and I resent that comment.
And the requisite so-I-don't-look-like-a-badguy-comment: Anderson was an a$$hole.
Wang is an innocent victim!
ren28
10-20-2002, 03:40 AM
Wow, I come back from speedoptions and get to see all this. :dance:
Andrew
10-20-2002, 04:02 AM
Putting aside for the moment any criticisms of the existing doctrine of hate crimes and proposals for its revision or abolition (inasmuch as such criticisms and proposals are not under consideration by Congress or the courts), let's focus on the doctrine itself.
There are two elements to a hate crime under the federal statute: predicate conduct by the defendant and a basis for the selection of the victim. If the conduct constitutes one of the enumerated crimes and the basis for selection is one of the enumerated bases in the statute, then we have a reportable hate crime. No other elements are necessary. You may personally wish other elements were necessary (such as screaming racial epithets or visible manifestations of hatred or some other factor that you might think is relevant to your personal conception of a "hate crime"), but such personal wishes are not relevant to the law of the land.
There are three alternative ways of characterizing the predicate conduct:
Subjective (from Anderson's perspective): I loved Wang. When Wang did not return my love, I became enraged and killed her, then killed myself.
Objective: Anderson gave Wang the option of either loving him or being murdered by him. After Wang chose not to love Anderson, Anderson murdered Wang, then killed himself.
Subjective (from Wang's perspective): Anderson made unwelcome advances on me. After I informed him that they were unwelcome, he killed me.
Only if we adopt Anderson's subjective perspective does Anderson's putative "love" or "infatuation" for Wang enter the legal analysis. The objective characterization cannot presuppose that Anderson loved Wang; the objective fact of the murder (or the murder/love option) compels the conclusion that Anderson did not love Wang within the meaning of any accepted definition of love. In all of these cases, the predicate act entails murder, an enumerated crime.
From the information in the news articles we have stipulated that the basis for Anderson's selection of Wang as the target of the predicate act (as referred to in the various descriptions above) was the fact that she was Asian. (From the beginning, I have been careful to say that hate crime reporting is warranted "if it is the case that Anderson singled Wang out because of her race.") Further investigation will be necessary, but the comment that Anderson made to his colleague about Asian women (and the fact that the colleague saw this comment as pertinent to what happened to Wang) indicates the theory of a racial selection basis is well worth pursuing.
Viewed in this way, an ultimate finding of a hate crime would serve as a way of giving voice to the perspective of the victim Wang, or at the very least, an objective account of events. Viewing this as a tale of spurned love only serves to privilege the voice of the killer Anderson, and doesn't even change the legal conclusion. That's what's at stake here.
<!--EDIT|Andrew|Oct 20 2002, 12:22 PM-->
ren28
10-20-2002, 05:35 AM
Is the doctrine telling me there are no time constraints so at the time the murderer chooses of the victim, the murderer can actually be choosing for reasons other than commiting a crime? I don't think so. If this is true, then many crimes comitted are hate crimes only by a technicality. If a white guy chooses to chill with a Chinese guy (because he thinks Chinese are cool like that) and then a year later the white guy murders the Chinese guy (with NO evidence pointing to racial motivation), it's a hate crime? That sounds ridiculous but that is what you would have me believe.
Even if it was considered to be a hate crime by a legal technicality, I would not point it out this incident as a hate crime because it will look like Chinese are crying wolf. A lot of good crying wolf will do to further our goals as Asians. Until we know for a fact that Anderson hated Asians, it would serve Asians no purpose to cry wolf.
<!--EDIT|ren28|Oct 20 2002, 01:49 PM-->
deez nuts
10-20-2002, 08:50 AM
Wow smokey in here.
ChinaLama
10-20-2002, 08:54 AM
there may be a time constraint to hate crimes, but i think it's kind of moot in this case. It's not like this guy was infatuated w/ her 10 yrs ago-- i'm assuming he's always had the notion that he liked Asian women b/c they're smart and quiet. And he was clearly still infatuated (or rather, OBSESSED) with her since he KILLED her.
Also, it doesn't matter if he killed her for reasons other than race, as long as race can be proved to be one of the factors. Maybe he killed her b/c he didn't want anyone else to have her, maybe he doesn't have the same perceived notion of all Asian women, but as long as one reason he was obsesses w/ Asian women was racist (ie they study hard and are quiet), and one reason he killed this Asian woman was because she wouldn't give him what he wants, I think it's possible to argue it's a hate crime.
However, please everyone tone down the discussion. Please do not bring up personal attacks or jibes from the past . Just let it go.
Also, Andrew, THANK YOU for posting a NON-condescending reply just now. You need to cut down on the condescension; perhaps you should read your post over before you submit it because maybe you're not aware of how in a lot of posts, you sound like a complete dick, which detracts from your purpose of "defending your views." Even if you did somehow make everyone think your views are valid despite a lot of people thinking you're a high-and-mighty asshole, isn't that a Pyrrhic victory if it costs you the goodwill of a lot of people in this community?
Andrew
10-20-2002, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by ren28@Oct 20 2002, 01:35 PM
Even if it was considered to be a hate crime by a legal technicality, I would not point it out this incident as a hate crime because it will look like Chinese are crying wolf. A lot of good crying wolf will do to further our goals as Asians. Until we know for a fact that Anderson hated Asians, it would serve Asians no purpose to cry wolf.
Why is it a "technicality" for a court to acknowledge that an Asian American woman may have a cognizable perspective regarding her own murder? At least for the past 35 years or so, such a perspective is just as valid as a white person's perspective in a court of law, and, where the white guy happens to be a psychotic murderer, it's arguably more valid.
Also, although penalty enhancement is not in issue here, one of the rationales for increasing criminal penalties in the case of hate crimes is that they victimize an entire community; i.e., that they raise the fear among members of a relatively small and vulnerable community (e.g., one from which there is no escape, because it is defined by immutable characteristics) that they will also be singled out as victims. If the only thing that Wang did that led to Anderson's conduct was being Asian at the wrong place and the wrong time, then Wang's murder gives all Asian American women reason to fear that something like this will happen to them. That's not crying wolf.
<!--EDIT|Andrew|Oct 20 2002, 07:27 PM-->
Andrew
10-20-2002, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by ChinaLama@Oct 20 2002, 04:54 PM
Also, Andrew, THANK YOU for posting a NON-condescending reply just now. You need to cut down on the condescension; perhaps you should read your post over before you submit it because maybe you're not aware of how in a lot of posts, you sound like a complete dick, which detracts from your purpose of "defending your views." Even if you did somehow make everyone think your views are valid despite a lot of people thinking you're a high-and-mighty asshole, isn't that a Pyrrhic victory if it costs you the goodwill of a lot of people in this community?
Sorry if my tone offended anybody. I do think, though, most of the opposition to me on this thread has been disagreement for its own sake rather than informed debate, an approach which is bound to create more heat than light in a discussion.
deez nuts
10-20-2002, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 20 2002, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by ChinaLama@Oct 20 2002, 04:54 PM
Also, Andrew, THANK YOU for posting a NON-condescending reply just now. You need to cut down on the condescension; perhaps you should read your post over before you submit it because maybe you're not aware of how in a lot of posts, you sound like a complete dick, which detracts from your purpose of "defending your views." Even if you did somehow make everyone think your views are valid despite a lot of people thinking you're a high-and-mighty asshole, isn't that a Pyrrhic victory if it costs you the goodwill of a lot of people in this community?
Sorry if my tone offended anybody. I do think, though, most of the opposition to me on this thread has been disagreement for its own sake rather than informed debate, an approach which is bound to create more heat than light in a discussion.
It's all good, it happens.
loserbutt
10-20-2002, 09:58 AM
I think you guys are forgetting that hate crimes do cover women too.
and no one is disturbed that he killed her with a legally bought gun? I think this is a good case for a more thorough psychological evaluation of potential gun purchasers
wylin
10-20-2002, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by loserbutt@Oct 20 2002, 09:58 AM
I think you guys are forgetting that hate crimes do cover women too.
and no one is disturbed that he killed her with a legally bought gun? I think this is a good case for a more thorough psychological evaluation of potential gun purchasers
too much regulation is useless once u have the power to just pull a trigger and kill sumone having a gun legal or not. Also most crimes are commited w/ legally bought guns their called pistols.
One thing tho bout guns it allows u as a renter or property owner to defend urself and i think we should allow the use of all forms of small arms that can be hand carried. Im sure a burglur would be less inclined to rob my house if he knew i had a nifty M16 type weapon.
<!--EDIT|wylin|Oct 20 2002, 10:17 AM-->
Andrew
10-20-2002, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by wylin@Oct 20 2002, 06:07 PM
One thing tho bout guns it allows u as a renter or property owner to defend urself and i think we should allow the use of all forms of small arms that can be hand carried. Im sure a burglur would be less inclined to rob my house if he knew i had a nifty M16 type weapon.
That may protect you (provided that you post notices outside your house prominently advertising your arsenal), but is it really sound public policy to have a society where so many people have M16's in their houses that would-be burglars consider that a high enough probability to deter them from breaking into houses in general? Would you want to live in a city where 100% of the people you encounter are walking around with a loaded handgun?
wylin
10-20-2002, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 20 2002, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by wylin@Oct 20 2002, 06:07 PM
One thing tho bout guns it allows u as a renter or property owner to defend urself and i think we should allow the use of all forms of small arms that can be hand carried. Im sure a burglur would be less inclined to rob my house if he knew i had a nifty M16 type weapon.
That may protect you (provided that you post notices outside your house prominently advertising your arsenal), but is it really sound public policy to have a society where so many people have M16's in their houses that would-be burglars consider that a high enough probability to deter them from breaking into houses in general? Would you want to live in a city where 100% of the people you encounter are walking around with a loaded handgun?
yes that'd be pretty kewl it'd be like certain cities in texas that are nearly crime free.
personally i like guns and i am in the market for a nice pistol ( ideally a HK USP w/ laser sight or a Sig) and sadly since i live in california a nice bolt action riffle or maybe preban HK G3 assualt riffle. im all for defeating the travesty of retroactive gun laws in california. because dude least be consistent and just dont keep making this and that illegal retroactively.
also its so easy get an illegal gun if i wanted i could have an Ar-15 modded to full auto or an AK47/AKM in bout a day or two. =P so guncontrol is pretty useless it just takes weapons outa the hands of law abiding citzens and gives criminals an incentive to not upgrade their already illegal hardware.
my optimum gun laws would be all riffles w/ front magazines allowed again in semiautomatic models foreign or domestic and pistols w/ more then 10 round clips. i really think that automatic fire is overated and relatively dangerous in home deffense. Also i think that machine guns and submachine gun type weapons should not be allowed for sale nor does 12.7mm or larger large caliper sniper/ big game riffles. u can kill an elaphant or bear w/ an Ak-47 just takes more skill then having to use a large anti-aircraft shell.
<!--EDIT|wylin|Oct 20 2002, 11:30 AM-->
Andrew
10-20-2002, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by wylin@Oct 20 2002, 07:26 PM
yes that'd be pretty kewl it'd be like certain cities in texas that are nearly crime free.
Well, I certainly won't be taking the kids trick-or-treating in your neighborhood this year! :HH:
kimpossible
10-20-2002, 12:44 PM
will> satisfy my curiousity. have you ever *owned* a gun before? I know you know a lot about them, but how much actual experience do you have with them?
wylin
10-20-2002, 12:46 PM
mostly i fire my dads stuff, he has let me fire off sum stuff from his collection an M1 garand and M1 carbine, one of his 2 pre ban AK type riffles, shotgun, 9mm pistol, bolt action riffle in 30-06 scopped. i havent had ne experiense w/ AR15/M16 type weapons yet nor HK G3 or spanish CETME rifles, same w/ .45 calibur pistols.
<!--EDIT|wylin|Oct 20 2002, 12:50 PM-->
wylin
10-20-2002, 12:51 PM
accuracy wise im ok w/ pistols i prefer riffles overall cuz i feel more accurate and am more steady w/ them. ALso i like bolt actioned weapons even though they have recoil i like the accuracy and i just like cocking them.
angel nympho
10-20-2002, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 20 2002, 12:02 PM
From the information in the news articles we have stipulated that the basis for Anderson's selection of Wang as the target of the predicate act (as referred to in the various descriptions above) was the fact that she was Asian. (From the beginning, I have been careful to say that hate crime reporting is warranted "if it is the case that Anderson singled Wang out because of her race.") Further investigation will be necessary, but the comment that Anderson made to his colleague about Asian women (and the fact that the colleague saw this comment as pertinent to what happened to Wang) indicates the theory of a racial selection basis is well worth pursuing.
As far as I can see, race was only the basis for selecting Wang to be his target of admiration. His motive for murder came about later, because she wouldn't return his favor. I see his motive as "if I can't have her, nobody can." I don't think his motive was "she's Chinese." I think his sexual preference for Asian women dictates that he's just like an awful lot of white guys out there, but it didn't really have anything to do with his ultimate decision to kill her.
Had this man also been Chinese (a Chinese man with a preference for Chinese women), I don't think anybody would be screaming hate crime.
angel nympho
10-20-2002, 01:13 PM
And I agree with Will... While I'll never have a loaded weapon in MY house, I'll agree that gun control won't keep criminals from owning guns. If somebody really wants one, gun control won't stop them from getting one. It keeps law abiding citizens from being able to protect their families from gun-toting criminals.
Andrew
10-20-2002, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 20 2002, 09:10 PM
As far as I can see, race was only the basis for selecting Wang to be his target of admiration. His motive for murder came about later, because she wouldn't return his favor. I see his motive as "if I can't have her, nobody can." I don't think his motive was "she's Chinese." I think his sexual preference for Asian women dictates that he's just like an awful lot of white guys out there, but it didn't really have anything to do with his ultimate decision to kill her.
Had this man also been Chinese (a Chinese man with a preference for Chinese women), I don't think anybody would be screaming hate crime.
I just hope my wife is spared that kind of "admiration."
ren28
10-20-2002, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 20 2002, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by ren28@Oct 20 2002, 01:35 PM
Even if it was considered to be a hate crime by a legal technicality, I would not point it out this incident as a hate crime because it will look like Chinese are crying wolf. A lot of good crying wolf will do to further our goals as Asians. Until we know for a fact that Anderson hated Asians, it would serve Asians no purpose to cry wolf.
Why is it a "technicality" for a court to acknowledge that an Asian American woman may have a cognizable perspective regarding her own murder? At least for the past 35 years or so, such a perspective is just as valid as a white person's perspective in a court of law, and, where the white guy happens to be a psychotic murderer, it's arguably more valid.
Also, although penalty enhancement is not in issue here, one of the rationales for increasing criminal penalties in the case of hate crimes is that they victimize an entire community; i.e., that they raise the fear among members of a relatively small and vulnerable community (e.g., one from which there is no escape, because it is defined by immutable characteristics) that they will also be singled out as victims. If the only thing that Wang did that led to Anderson's conduct was being Asian at the wrong place and the wrong time, then Wang's murder gives all Asian American women reason to fear that something like this will happen to them. That's not crying wolf.
I've already demonstrated very clearly why I think it would be a technicality. You are just repeating yourself using different wording. I have nothing more to add so I will agree to disagree with your view.
ren28
10-20-2002, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by ChinaLama@Oct 20 2002, 04:54 PM
there may be a time constraint to hate crimes, but i think it's kind of moot in this case. It's not like this guy was infatuated w/ her 10 yrs ago-- i'm assuming he's always had the notion that he liked Asian women b/c they're smart and quiet. And he was clearly still infatuated (or rather, OBSESSED) with her since he KILLED her.
Also, it doesn't matter if he killed her for reasons other than race, as long as race can be proved to be one of the factors. Maybe he killed her b/c he didn't want anyone else to have her, maybe he doesn't have the same perceived notion of all Asian women, but as long as one reason he was obsesses w/ Asian women was racist (ie they study hard and are quiet), and one reason he killed this Asian woman was because she wouldn't give him what he wants, I think it's possible to argue it's a hate crime.
If race only has to be proved as a factor, how about this. I'll edit my small scenario from another post so emotions don't get in the way as much.
If a gay white guy is obsessed with Chinese men and chooses to chill with a gay Chinese guy (because he says Chinese gays are meek) and then three days later they get into a heated argument and the white guy murders the Chinese guy, it's a hate crime?
If the gay white guy liked Asian men because he thinks gay Asian men have usually work in laundries, it would be a hate crime? I see something very wrong with being able to classify this as a hate crime due to the choosing of a partner because of a racial stereotype. I also don't think it right to call it a hate crime if the Chinese guy was killed because he would not give what the white guy wanted. He was killed for not giving what the white guy wanted, not because he is Asian.
kimpossible
10-20-2002, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by Andrew@Oct 20 2002, 12:51 AM
There's been a dearth of female posters on this topic, which seems inappropriate, given that we're exploring the nature of intersectional race and gender discrimination against Asian American women. Would any of you care to weigh in?
The only reason I hesitate to call the murder a hate crime is due to my volunteer experience at a domestic abuse org. We get trained so hard to look at abuse, because this sick crime has NOTHING to do with love, and that abuse transcends all lines: income levels, race, sexuality (abuse also occurs in same sex relationships), nationality, culture.
At all times we had to assume both we and our clients could be in danger of our lives. It's all too common for an abuser to kill a woman who tries to leave him (there are some female abusers, but the last stats I've seen