Smart defense attorneys should save the news footage of one of these buffoons threatening to kill the "n*****" bus driver. If a threat to kill combined with a racial epithet doesn't amount to a felony violation of civil rights, what does? Future juries / judges in civil rights cases, especially in Suffolk County, need only be shown the footage and lack of charges on this case to prove that the law is being applied selectively.

Do you actually care?

By Michael on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 10:48pm.

Or are you just making some random and pointless noise about not being allowed to use a word you'd like to use?

It's not random and pointless

By pu on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 11:07pm.

It's not random and pointless if you can be given an extra 10 years in prison if you use that word during an assault.

Everyone should care when a felony is charged randomly

By O-FISH-L on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 11:32pm.

Michael, I care when any felony is charged or not charged at random, especially when the crime is caught on tape and there is little doubt about guilt. The n-word itself isn't illegal so anyone can use it in certain circumstances. I choose not to, but thanks for asking. Whether my "noise" is "pointless" remains to be seen, but defense lawyers have been quite successful in tossing cases when they can prove that a law is being applied selectively. Do you agree that the n-word combined with the threat to kill should have been condoned in this instance? Do tell. Also, if you could explain why the following case resulted in charges and this week's case didn't, please do.
http://articles.boston.com/2011-01-25/news/2934610...

A 1/2way decent defense lawyer would get that thrown out

By adamg on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 12:14am.

Merely hurling an epithet is not enough to justify a bias-crime charge, which I suspect is why the T, which really wants to punish these guys, did not bring one. Especially in a community where the epithet in question is now routinely used to refer to other people in all sorts of circumstances that have absolutely nothing to do with bias.

Merely hurling an epithet or threatening to "kill that n*****"?

By O-FISH-L on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 10:22am.

Adam what case are you talking about where someone merely hurled an epithet? I'm talking about the bus crash video that clearly shows an agitated man trying to force his way into the locked bus where only the driver remained, while saying something to the effect of, "I'm going to kill that n*****". So it wasn't merely hurling an epithet, it was a threat to kill, after an ambush assault and battery, arguably an attempted carjacking (attempting to access a locked, occupied vehicle) and certainly a violation of civil rights by using a racial epithet during the violent crime. Interesting analysis that the epithet in question is now "routine" in that neighborhood. Does that exempt everyone from future civil rights charges if said epithet is used?

I am not a lawyer (obviously)

By adamg on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 10:36am.

But you'd have to argue the guy was yelling that in the commission of a civil-rights offense, which this doesn't appear to be. A&B? Attempted murder? Sure. But he doesn't appear to have been targeting the driver because of his race; even the MBTA police, who have every reason to want to pile on these two guys, aren't arguing that (at least, not so far).

As for "routine" use of the word in particular communities? Yes, it is routine - just like some feminists have appropriated "bitch," and there's a Jewish magazine called Heeb and, way back in history, some Americans claimed "Yankee." It happens. And context, and intent, matter. Some white guy walking down a street with a bat attacking any black he sees as he yells the word at them? Hate crime. Some black or Hispanic kid yelling the word in a chaotic situation in his own neighborhood? No.

The law never mentions the attacker must be of different race

By O-FISH-L on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 2:51pm.

Adam, "Wassup n*****?" amongst acquaintances is a far cry from "I'm gonna kill you n*****!" during a violent assault. As for your scenario of a white guy with a bat attacking any black person he sees, that's graphic but the law hardly requires the offender to be armed, have multiple victims or be of a different race. It only requires a mere assault (battery not required) and intimidation based on race. The attacker didn't call the driver fatso, dickhead, fuckface or any of the unlimited invective out there, he chose the most vile epithet for the driver's race. The attacker's minority status shouldn't be a barrier to prosecution and if it is, the law has been irreparably cheapened. Sad.

I just find it hard to believe

By Michael on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 10:02am.

...that people can't tell the difference between language that's used selectively and maliciously, and language that's just thrown out in a cornucopia of insults and stupidity. It's much easier to believe that people pretend not to understand so they can rail against something that, frankly, doesn't need to be railed against.

Even the Devil's Advocate here doesn't speak well for them

By Kaz on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 2:00pm.

Devil's Advocate: "They are right and he tried to hit them with a bus."

Well...um, if they didn't beat him to the point that he wanted to hit them with a bus, then they wouldn't have found themselves under the tire, n'est pas? I mean, when has "he was bad too!" ever worked. It sure as hell never got me out of trouble as a kid.

I never had a chance to speak up to say "he was bad too...because I had already pissed him off" to know if that's any better an excuse for my own behavior than just the antecedent. I'm guessing it's not.

Idiots. You controlled your own fate when you decided to beat a man just trying to do his job for all of our benefit because you decided your cigarette was more important than his well-being.

Two teens charged for Roxbury bus crash

Comments

Support Universal Hub

In other Roxbury news