Early Friday morning, Barbara Jefferson said she woke up to the sound of glass breaking inside her East Austin home.

She called police but didn't learn what had shattered the double-paned window in her 4-year-old son's room until after police arrived. Officers showed her a brick with a note attached: "Keep Eastside White. Keep Eastside Strong."

The incident doesn't fall under the hate crime category, which is a classification of a charge but not a charge itself, said Austin police Sgt. Richard Stresing. He said the charge probably would be criminal mischief and deadly conduct, both misdemeanors.

Crimes based on race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, disability or gender are flagged as hate crimes, Stresing said, so they can be referred to the Department of Justice. The note attached to the brick didn't include hate speech, he said.

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news...ies/local/2009/07/25/0725brick.html

How is that not a hate crime?

HE HATES THESE CANS

"Hate crime" is pretty stupid in general. All crimes meant to hurt and injure are hate crimes.

God I love that movie.

DIE MILKFACE

I bet any judge (not the honorable "Sgt. Richard Stresing") WOULD call it a hate crime.

You fucked up the whole story. It said "Keep eastside BLACK. Keep eastside strong"

I have no idea!

Yeah, I see what he did there.

Since we're all equal, does it really matter which group was wronged?

No it doesn't. Read my 2nd post above (made before I noticed your trick, btw). I have had a problem with hate crime legislation for a long time.

Not because it doesn't apply to white people, but because it's applied selectively and excludes gays and lesbians who in my opinion, need it more than ethnic minorities.

And of course there's the more obvious point that I think it's fucking stupid to tack on a heavier sentence because a crime has racist motive. If someone beats a black kid for being black, rapes a woman because they can, or shoots a white convenience store manager in the head...it's all hate crime.

Putting more weight on the first one because it's race-motivated seems, to me, to make light of the later two. I can see how this kind of extra punishment might have had it's place before, but I think it's outdated and pointless.

I agree Pam, especially about the Gay/Lesbian point.

I love how Conservationist simultaniously promotes and degrades rebellion. Sorry it didn't fit in your "parameters".

We agree here, except for the implied notion that EVERY community should tolerate EVERY group, if it exists. I think freedom includes the right to live in a community without certain groups, or every group but one's own, and it should not be illegal to do so.

We absolutely do not agree on that.

Why not?

Why would you want to limit the ability of a single community to be, say, white, Christian, straight and conservative?

They're not telling everyone what to do -- just selecting what they want to do.

Why would you limit their freedom to do that?

I value my free time entirely too much to have that kind of debate with you on the internet.

How about a simple reason, then, and we don't debate it?

Just explain why. It'll take 2-3 lines of text. That cannot be an exertion?

Simple? OK. Because entitled assholes who are too ignorant and hateful to tolerate people who don't share their exact ancestry or sexual preference do not deserve to get what they want.

There's a lot of other reasons, but that would be the simplest one.

According to "Macolm in the Middle" throwing a brick through someone's window is just another way of saying you have a crush on someone.

Well, it's interesting Thanks for replying.