April 22, 2008
Charges Against Georgetown Student Accused of Hate Crime Dropped
We mentioned it briefly at the end of the day yesterday, but more details are available about the charges against a Georgetown University student accused of committing a hate crime against another student in September, which were dropped by the U.S. Attorney's office due to a lack of evidence.
The victim, who today remains unidentified in news reports, said he was followed September 9 by two men who yelled homophobic slurs at him; one of them ultimately tackled and began beating him just off campus on 36th Street NW, between O and P streets. The victim was treated at GU Hospital for cuts and bruises on his face and a broken thumb.
D.C. police arrested sophomore Philip Cooney on an assault charge on September 27. The victim identified Cooney on Facebook based on information passed onto him by a friend.
After the arrest, the U.S. Attorney's office designated the charge as bias related, or in other words, a hate crime, but withdrew that designation several weeks ago, according to the Washington Blade. Now, the simple assault charge has been dropped as well. In a statement, U.S. Attorney's office spokesperson Channing Phillips said, "After further investigation of this matter, we concluded that there was insufficient evidence to obtain a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt."
Nearly three weeks passed before GU students were notified of the crime. The delay led students to hold protests including one on October 11 – National Coming Out Day. Later that month, GU President John DeGioia announced the school would have a dedicated LGBTQ resource center by next fall. A February 8 report in the Hoya, GU's campus newspaper, indicates the project is moving forward.
Photo by Ronnie R.
|
Charges against the son of a well-connected Bushie were dismissed? Color me dismayed.
Is that a swarm of angry insect around the clock tower, or just HDR gone bad?
I'm curious, how come it's not considered a hate crime when a group of black youths assault a white person while saying things like "get out of our neighborhood, [white person]" in Columbia Heights?
Who said it isn't?
Nearly three weeks passed before GU students were notified of the crime. The delay led students to hold protests including one on October 11 – National Coming Out Day. Later that month, GU President John DeGioia announced the school would have a dedicated LGBTQ resource center by next fall. A February 8 report in the Hoya, GU's campus newspaper, indicates the project is moving forward.
When did "queer" get added to the Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgendered parade?
Doesn't Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual already covere that?
I'm curious, how come it's not considered a hate crime when a group of black youths assault a white person while saying things like "get out of our neighborhood, [white person]" in Columbia Heights?
As Black people, we're genetically incapable of racism. You didn't know that? Fucking racist!!
I hate these stupid hate crimes designations, all it does is create another red herring issue that doesn't do shit to solve the underlying problems that led to the crime. Like in this case, why do these dumb ass Brosephs like to get drunk and get into fights? Seems like that's the real issue, not whether or not the object of their aggression was gay.
Now that the Pope's left town, can we go back to hating on the Jesuits?
When did "queer" get added to the Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgendered parade?
Doesn't Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual already covere that?
Not necessarily (gender queer, for example.)
Politburo: How come this GTown case got so much attention? Rich, preppy, white guy beats up the 'out of place' gay man and it's a hate crime.
The poor, ghetto, black guy beats up the 'out of place' white man and it's called an assault and nothing more. Why? When have you ever heard of that being a 'hate crime'?
Hillrat: Agree with you 100%.
Can we please move GU across the river to Virginia, preferably someplace like McLean? With all of the rich, white assholes that seem to populate that school, that would be a more fitting location.
And maybe they could take GWU with them.
fregistering: We may be talking about two different things. The FBI would consider your original hypothetical a hate crime.
Whether the media agrees is a completely different topic.
I thought this whole thing sounded familiar, then it occurred to me: it's pretty much the plot of Love Story, except with more fagbashing and Facebook. Erich Segal called and he wants his story back and if you ask me, he can keep it.
And all the rich honkeys moved out of McLean, HCE. They're all either in Front Royal on their horse farms or their trying to unload their Manassas McMansions for ten cents on the dollar.
Politburo: Fair enough. Frustrates me when the media makes big deals about these 'kinds' of hate crimes, but not the kind I mention - especially considering they're happening with a lot more frequency in certain areas.
HCE: How is generalizing the students as 'rich, white, assholes' any better than writing 'homophobic slurs'??
When did "queer" get added to the Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgendered parade?
Doesn't Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual already covere that?
agreed. when will they stop adding letters to the end?
the blind hate towards GU is so predictable from this site ... GU students come in all stripes and colors
It sounds to me that the assault in Georgetown started with harassment by means of the homophobic slur and then descended into violence.
The Columbia Heights example, if I read it properly, has the assailants verbally berating the victim in the middle of the act. The crime in face value doesn't establish a bias toward a protected class before the assault began. That may be the difference.
The assault could've been started by a different motive, i.e. a mugging, where as that wasn't the case in Georgetown. They just wanted to kick the sh*t out of the victim. I can't say for sure without know what exactly happened in Columbia Heights.
But I should point out that in 2006, 20.6% of all hate crimes in the U.S. were caused by blacks, and 52% of victims were targeted by race. So the Columbia Heights example might be a case of the exception and not the rule.
43.9% of all statistics are false
Q = Questioning
That's not a joke, just what it actually stands for...
"43.9% of all statistics are false"
Haha, so is that a true statistic then?
43.9% of all statistics are false
There are lies, there are damn lies, and then there are statistics.
The victim has not been identified, but the person who was never brought to trial and never really identified in any sort of real manner is named everywhere. Excellent.
The crime in face value doesn't establish a bias toward a protected class before the assault began. That may be the difference.
Incorrect. The hate crimes statute says that if the violence and intimidation if motivated by bias, then it is a hate crime. In other words, if the victim is attacked specifically because the victim is black/white/gay/Mulsim/whatever, then the hate crimes statute comes into play.
i agree with the classification of hate crimes. i understand that it's clear that a lot of assaults and what-not occur because of the victims skin color, sexual orientation, etc., and it helps aggregate statistics to have that information, sure.
but in the end, if one person beats the hell out of someone else, shouldn't they just have the book thrown at them for assault? are there degrees of assault (like degrees of murder)? could we just go with that classification?
The victim has not been identified, but the person who was never brought to trial and never really identified in any sort of real manner is named everywhere. Excellent.
Same deal here. So much for innocent until proven guilty. Even though I'm most emphatically not down with rape, naming the alleged perpetrator before they're convicted seems pretty shitty to me.
IMGoph: I think you mean battery and not assault. Assault is an intention, where as battery is an action. Think of it this way:
Say I chase another man down the street, swing my fist and punch the man in the face. The act of chasing the man and swinging my fist is assault. The act of actually striking the man is battery.
There are a couple types of battery: simple, sexual, family violence and aggrevated battery. Of this, only aggrevated battery is a felony.
drew: thanks. i guess it's clear i'm not an attorney, eh?
in the end though, i just want to see people who commit violence get in trouble for committing violence. why they did it is of less concern to me than the fact that they did it.
Hillrat: I disagree. Once someone is arrested and/or charged for a crime, it's fully appropriate to identify them. The city is acting in our name against an individual, we have a right to know who that is. This has been long established in our legal system. I do think, however, that it is inappropriate for a city to identify someone before they've been arrested or charged (i.e. while they're investigating him).
I'd much rather the state identify all people formally accused of a crime rather than the opposite. I think it's more about keeping sunlight on the judicial system.
Drew: Yes we're all very impressed with your first year law student education, but for the record, while the legal definition of assault does not include a physical attack, the dictionary definition does. Since blog comments are not legal briefs, I would argue that it's perfectly acceptable to use the word "assault" to mean a physical attack.
@Reid
Interesting point and I guess I could roll with the argument you make in your second paragraph, but a person can be arrested for anything. So my concern is that someone arrested for "contempt of cop" can have their name and picture splashed all over the paper if someone has an ax to grind. There's also that saying that you can indict a ham sandwich, so getting arrested and charged doesn't necessarily mean that you've done anything wrong.
You know what, after reading IMGoph's post again, I see he was using more the legal definition of assault, so the correction wasn't so inappropriate. I apologize for my criticism.
(although I will point out that sexual assault does cover the physical act of rape.)
Yes but Hillrat, wouldn't you as a citizen want to know that your prosecuters are indicting ham sandwiches?
Reid: I've never been to law school. I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
Isn't GU one of the largest employers in DC? I don't think I want them moving to VA. Maybe the solution is to move Georgetown's bars to VA. A brisk walk across Key bridge would sober them rabble-rousers up. Even better, federal hate-crimes legislation would could kick in across state lines... oh wait, there is no Federal hate crimes legislation for GLBTQ attacks...
Yeah, the alleged assailant is rumored to be the son of a Bush crony (detailed in An Inconvenient Truth)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Cooney
"When did "queer" get added to the Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgendered parade?"
It's like metro stop names. They always get longer, never shorter.
I'm of mixed opinions on the hate crime thing.
If you get the shit kicked out of you it sucks, regardless.
And hate crimes punishment comes uncomfortably close to punishing people for their thoughts in addition to their actions.
But there are certain crimes that are done not to just kick the shit of of someone, but to send a message to 'the others' to keep their place in society.
In many places this can have quite a chilling effect on how people live their lives. This is especially true in small towns and rural areas, where one incident of someone getting their ass kicked while being called a nigger or a faggot is something that everyone remembers for quite some time.
One could argue that the reverse may be true in DC, where people targeted for being white will remember that targeting just as much as the actual violence.
Let's look at, say, burning something on your neighbor's lawn.
If you burn a lawn chair on their lawn for no apparent reason, you are an ass or possibly just a nutcase.
If you burn a cross on their lawn and they are black, that's something totally different.
Should the punishments for the two be the same?
In cases like these, I'd argue that the added attempt at intimidation of an entire group of people is perhaps a legit reason for additional punishment.
The 'faggot' slur is a bit more complicated. Many stupid people will use the term 'faggot' even when they have no reason to believe the person is actually gay - it's meant as an insult to one's manhood regardless of sexual orientation. But it's rare when someone uses the term 'nigger' when the person isn't black.
But it still makes me a bit uneasy, as it comes awfully close to punishing people for what they think rather than what they do.
If you burn a lawn chair on their lawn for no apparent reason, you are an ass or possibly just a nutcase.
Back when we ran all the Irish out of DC in ninteen-dickety-two, it was common practice to burn lawn gnomes to intimidate the Paddys. When the Italians moved in behind them, we burned pizzas on their lawns. And wouldn't you know it, they turned around and sold them back to us at a handsome profit. Well, by that time we gave up burning stuff on people's lawns. But goddammit, I'll not have a daughter of mine dating a filthy lawn chair! So go back to where you came from Mr. Chaise Lounges, if that is indeed your name. We'll have none of your kind around here. This is hammock country, and keep your nasty thigh-burning PVC support straps to yourself. The chair is not my son!
Paddy? Paddy O'Furniture, is that you?
And now we just burn coffee and call it Starbucks.....
And now we just burn coffee and call it Starbucks.....
Oh snap! But with Sova and Sidamo both a pretty short walk from me, I have no reason to ever darken the doorstep of a Starbucks.
First they burned the lawn chairs, but I didn't say anything, because I was not a lawn chair. Then they burned the badmitton sets, I did not say anything, because I prefer Jarts. Then they burned leaves, and I did not say anything, because I love the smell of burning leaves. Then they burned me, and there was no one left to speak for me, because I am a registered sex offender and I've been holding down the property values for years.
@Hillman
I love to bust your balls about the length of your posts, but the above (while quite lengthy) was quite thoughtful, lucid, and a good use of bytes.
Your point about the intention to intimidate vs "thought crimes" is interesting and probably not one that we'll hash out here on DCist despite our best efforts.
Best,
HR
Good thing they don't punish people for thought crime (yet). If they prosecuted people for what I'm thinking right now, they'd have to wind my bowels out on a windlass, draw and quarter me, burn my entrails, and stick my head on a pike. And that's only for what I want to do to the brunette in Accounting.
WTF is a windlass?
Windlass.
Oh.
nothing like monkey to bring the crazy out.
Today's fun fact: Saint Elmo became the patron saint of sailors when he was martyred by having his bowels wound out on a windlass!
Also, the brat pack movie that bears his name would have been immeasurably improved had its cast suffered the same fate.
"The 'faggot' slur is a bit more complicated. Many stupid people will use the term 'faggot' even when they have no reason to believe the person is actually gay - it's meant as an insult to one's manhood regardless of sexual orientation. But it's rare when someone uses the term 'nigger' when the person isn't black."
I think the complication arises because the derogatory insult against gays is an all too common part of vernacular. People say it as an attack on a man's masculinity without actually thinking the man really is gay. It creates a gray area.
But if the person is attacking a man (or woman for that matter) who is an out gay person, and is kicking the sh*t out of them for that very reason and no other reason, then it becomes very clear it is a hate crime. You'd have to establish that the assailant knew the sexual orientation of the victim prior to the attack, be it 5 years or 5 minutes. Otherwise, it would be very hard to prove.
Teh gheys really need to reclaim the term "faggot" and make it their own. Because they're actually quite tasty when served with gravy.
"Spotted Dick" on the other hand I can do without. Who knows where it's been?
On a somewhat related topic - how did the word "faggot" become an anti-gay slur? I remember going to jolly ol' England in high school and being aghast at some guy asking us if he could bum a fag off of us (ironically, we were from an all-boys Catholic high school in NYC). We were ready to throw down. Then he realized his error and said he was just looking to bum a cigarette. We let him live.
I've always heard the term faggot came from the practice of burning gays alive at the stake. Supposedly the pieces of wood in such a burning are known as faggots.
I guess a cigarette, then, would just be a little fag. Like that short guy on Will and Grace, I guess.
I'd assume that's also the same reference for when you say one of your particularly effiminate gay friends is 'on fire'.
It can also be used as a term for worn out or exhaustion, as in "my constant verbal battles with Hillrat, while enjoyed by all, have fagged me out."
"I love to bust your balls about the length of your posts,"
Call it what you want, I call it whispering sweet, tangy mochalicious sweet nothings in my ear.....
Actually, the primary etymology is that women were in charge of gathering faggots of firewood; the connotation being that effeminate men were like "faggot gatherers." And although witches were accused of homosexuality, there's no evidence of gays actually being punished as such.
"I have no reason to ever darken the doorstep of a Starbucks."
We get it. You're black.
Why's it always gotta be about the black?
I'm off to pasty-pale-up the doorstep of anyplace but Starbucks.
Monkey.
Little Monkey.
You're just 'gay friendly.'
I'm actually a real, live cocksucking homosexual. Ok, actually, I prefer to be in the company of a cocksucking homosexual mostly, but I digress.
As simply 'gay friendly', you cannot fully understand my victimhood, nor it's many nuances and the violent pink fury that me and mine can launch ourselves into at the slightest provocation.
So stop entering facts into your argument. It's tiresome and confusing.
Plus, I've got to explain 'on fire' somehow.
Flame on, Johnny Torch.