St. Charles high school freshman charged with hate crime

**kfrost06** · 03-25-2008, 11:28 AM

A St. Charles high school student who scrawled a racial slur on the locker of his former girlfriend after their breakup has been charged with a hate crime, police said Monday.

The ex-boyfriend is white and his former girlfriend is African-American. The 14-year-olds are freshmen at St. Charles East High School.

"He was bitter about their breakup, and he wrote some disparaging comments about her race on her locker," St. Charles Detective Sgt. Steve Huffman said. The incident reportedly took place March 17.

The youth, who is to appear Tuesday in Kane County Circuit Court, has been charged as a juvenile.

School officials are still investigating the incident, said Area Assistant Supt. Ronald Knapik of School District 303.

The school district's policy handbook prohibits racial harassment or intimidation. Should the district decide to discipline the student, Knapik said, it has a variety of options, from a parent-teacher conference up to suspension or expulsion.

In a similar case, two Aurora teenagers were each sentenced to 30 days in jail Monday for uttering racial slurs to an interracial couple in 2006 over the telephone.

Juan Recio, 19, pleaded guilty to committing a hate crime, and John Chapman, 18, pleaded guilty to attempting to commit a hate crime for repeatedly calling the couple up to 20 times in October 2006 and making derogatory racial remarks, said Assistant DuPage County State's Atty. Anne Therieau.

The men, both of the 2700 block of Prairieview Lane, were also sentenced by Judge Kathryn Creswell to 2 years of probation and ordered to perform 200 hours each of community service.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...1,209570.story

**kfrost06** · 03-25-2008, 11:35 AM

This is an interesting hate crime(the first one). Did the kid go to far, absolutely! Hate crime? Well, now thats a gray area to me in this case. I think in a break up people say and do some very stupid things. If 2 gay guys break up and one calls the other a derogatory name, you know which one, does that mean he can then be charged with a hate crime? I can't argue with the reasoning behind hate crime laws, perfect sense however giving the government more power that they will abuse is scary to me. Look what Canada has done with their hate laws, they monitor your use on the web and charge you for what you post on messageboards and throw you in jail if they deem it hateful speech.

**LawMan018** · 03-25-2008, 12:12 PM

Plus you need to take into account that the kid is only 14... Like they said, he's obviously bitter over the break-up so he's going to try to make her feel as bad as he can. He's obviously not a racist, seeing as he dated an african american girl. I think the school went way too far calling it a hate crime. I actually had something similar happen to me. I was 14 and in 8th grade at the time. I had just watched some specials on Hitler or something on the History channel and saw some of there symbols and thought it was cool. Next day at school I remember being bored in class and drawing the eagle holding the swastika (very tiny) and quoting Hitler on my desk and forgot to erase it when class was over. They found out it was me and asked me why I did it. I told them I didn't mean anything hateful by it I just thought it looked cool and was bored. They asked me if I or my parents were racist and I said no. They then basically told me not to draw those symbols at school and not write on desks and that was that... I know for a fact if I knew what I do now I would not have drawn those symbols out of boredom... But I was a kid and kids do stupid things. I think this school has gone way too far in calling this a hate crime... Just my 2 cents...

**thegodfather** · 03-25-2008, 01:43 PM

Hate crime legislation is a tradgedy to the 1st amendment. It penalizes people for their beliefs. I do not support ALOT of things, racism included. However, I support peoples rights to hold whatever viewpoints they like, even if it includes racist sentiment that I don't agree with. I do not believe its fair to punish a suspect convicted of assault more harshly for using a racial slur during the attack, than someone who just assaulted someone because they were having a bad day. You cannot attach stiffer punishment to "hurting someones feelings," or else we might as well start penalizing people harder for assaulting someone and calling them ugly or stupid as well. Both could be equally as offensive to one person, as a racial slur could be to another. Hate crime legislation is just another law that infringes on civil liberties and was propagated by the liberal interest groups to restrict freedom of thought and speech. The original INTENTIONS of the legislation were great, but when put in to practice they fail the litmus test of a free society... All of this, in my opinion of course.

**lotaquestions** · 03-25-2008, 02:26 PM

distruction of property, maybe but hate crime seems rediculous. would it still be a hate crime if he would have wrote BI@#$? as for the other guys wouldnt that be considered more along the lines of harassment? i dont understand this hate crime, wouldnt there be other charges that make more sense in these situations?

**VWbug66** · 03-25-2008, 05:45 PM

i believe he shouldnt be charged with hate crime.. but ya he's 14 and stupid as shit! i know i was.. and he should be punished by the school, i would give him the rest of the year In school suspension..or alternative school..but def not suspension bc then he's at home chillin or whatever, depending on how his parents are..

but fukin a, hate crim for that shit? i gurantee thats happened many schools than that one n not a hate crime charge

**VWbug66** · 03-25-2008, 05:47 PM

wow and seriously in canada they can do that just for postings on the web?? explain a little more man im curious..i dont have nothing againts canada or nething.

**kfrost06** · 03-25-2008, 07:28 PM

Originally Posted by VWbug66

wow and seriously in canada they can do that just for postings on the web?? explain a little more man im curious..i dont have nothing againts canada or nething.

http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpo...77e860&k=82020

here's one of several incidents

"REGINA -- A Regina man charged with wilful promotion of hatred says his release conditions are keeping him from work.

Terrence Cecil Tremaine appeared briefly in Regina Provincial Court on Monday morning. He's accused of posting Internet messages that are hateful against an identifiable group between Feb. 1, 2004 and Nov. 1, 2007.

When Judge Dennis Fenwick asked what the 59-year-old wanted to do with the charge -- to which he pleaded not guilty last month -- Tremaine said he wanted to submit a motion to the court.

He was cut short by Fenwick, who first wanted to know what the motion might be about. Tremaine said he had three requests: About altering his release conditions; having the charges dismissed; and seeking a further adjournment.

When Fenwick suggested Tremaine talk to the prosecutor about changes to his release conditions, Tremaine replied, "They're fairly intransigent."

Fenwick then tried to simply adjourn the matter, since Tremaine said he is trying to arrange for a lawyer.

"I haven't made a final decision," the accused said.

However, Tremaine went on to explain that Legal Aid is having trouble assessing his application because of his current job situation.

One of Tremaine's release conditions, imposed by a justice of the peace following his arrest in January, prohibits him from having access to the Internet and computers. But because the former University of Saskatchewan lecturer is working at a call centre -- which requires the use of a computer -Tremaine is currently on leave.

Fenwick asked Crown prosecutor Loreley Berra about a change in the conditions that might allow Tremaine to use a computer specifically for work.

She said the offences allegedly occurred primarily on a home computer, but the prosecution remains concerned about any access to a computer.

In the end, Fenwick adjourned the matter to April 8.

"I think that's in your interest if you're going to have a lawyer," said Fenwick, explaining a lawyer could then address Tremaine's motion.

During his previous court appearance, Tremaine told reporters he was simply taking a stand against the Jewish community "power" in Canada and disputes having committed a criminal act."

**BgMc31** · 03-25-2008, 09:08 PM

Originally Posted by thegodfather

Hate crime legislation is a tradgedy to the 1st amendment. It penalizes people for their beliefs. I do not support ALOT of things, racism included. However, I support peoples rights to hold whatever viewpoints they like, even if it includes racist sentiment that I don't agree with. I do not believe its fair to punish a suspect convicted of assault more harshly for using a racial slur during the attack, than someone who just assaulted someone because they were having a bad day. You cannot attach stiffer punishment to "hurting someones feelings," or else we might as well start penalizing people harder for assaulting someone and calling them ugly or stupid as well. Both could be equally as offensive to one person, as a racial slur could be to another. Hate crime legislation is just another law that infringes on civil liberties and was propagated by the liberal interest groups to restrict freedom of thought and speech. The original INTENTIONS of the legislation were great, but when put in to practice they fail the litmus test of a free society... All of this, in my opinion of course.

You can't compare being called stupid or ugly to being called a ******. That's ridiculous! Hate crime legislation wasn't enacted to prevent people from having their feelings hurt, those laws were enacted to prevent a climate of fear and intimidation. The klan and other groups rally all the time around the country publicly using these terms.

Now should this kid be charged with a hate crime? NO. Obviously the kid was doing whatever he could to get back at the broad for dumping him. BUT, he knew using the most offensive term possible would hurt her to the core (never heard of stupid or ugly having that type of affect on people). Therein lies the problem, people have a habit of trying to oversimplify things to justify their ideals. Anyone who believes simplistic insults are tantamount to racial slurs is simply niave and detached from reality.

I do believe the real culprits are the oversensitive principle and law enforcement that charged this kid. Hate crimes only need to be applied carefully.

And as a 14yr old I never thought any hitler propoganda was cool, no one I associated with did. Everyone knew that history and those who thought it was cool harbored many racists beliefs and somewhat supported that ideology.

On a funny note, I served 30 days as a juvenile because my wife's (then girlfriend) ex-boyfriend decided to exercise his free speech by scratching ****** lover on her car so I deprived him of his ability to use his right hand for a little over 3 months. Moral of the story free speech can get you put in jail! LoL!

**thegodfather** · 03-25-2008, 11:32 PM

Originally Posted by BgMc31

You can't compare being called stupid or ugly to being called a ******. That's ridiculous! Hate crime legislation wasn't enacted to prevent people from having their feelings hurt, those laws were enacted to prevent a climate of fear and intimidation. The klan and other groups rally all the time around the country publicly using these terms.

Now should this kid be charged with a hate crime? NO. Obviously the kid was doing whatever he could to get back at the broad for dumping him. BUT, he knew using the most offensive term possible would hurt her to the core (never heard of stupid or ugly having that type of affect on people). Therein lies the problem, people have a habit of trying to oversimplify things to justify their ideals. Anyone who believes simplistic insults are tantamount to racial slurs is simply niave and detached from reality.

I do believe the real culprits are the oversensitive principle and law enforcement that charged this kid. Hate crimes only need to be applied carefully.

And as a 14yr old I never thought any hitler propoganda was cool, no one I associated with did. Everyone knew that history and those who thought it was cool harbored many racists beliefs and somewhat supported that ideology.

On a funny note, I served 30 days as a juvenile because my wife's (then girlfriend) ex-boyfriend decided to exercise his free speech by scratching ****** lover on her car so I deprived him of his ability to use his right hand for a little over 3 months. Moral of the story free speech can get you put in jail! LoL!

It's quite a trivial argument to try and quantify whether or not you calling me "Ugly" has the same effect as a racial slur. That is a very SUBJECTIVE thing, and there is no way for anyone of us to identify which is more hurtful to person A versus person B. And then, who determines what a racial slur is? Is every racial slur written down on the law books somewhere? Should I be able to have a person of another ethnicity/race charged with a hate crime if they assault me while calling me "cracker" or "whitey"? Would you agree with that?

The problem is that hate crime legislation is an attempt to legislate words. It is a persons right under the 1st Amendment to call you or I whatever they please. Carving it into the girls locker, would fall under the destruction of personal property. Trying to qualify it as a hate crime is a real stretch in this instance and I think they are just trying to make an example out of the CHILD.

The other issue with hate crime legislation, is that while we punish crimes more or less harsh based on MOTIVES, it is not logical that we punish a crime more harshly based on FEELINGS or BELIEFS about a certain race/ethnicity. That is what hate is, it is a set of beliefs or feelings. So we have essentially legislated what feelings are morally acceptable and what ones are not. That is a start towards the slippery slope, Canada as an example. In the United States however, hate speech is perfectly acceptable, so long as it does not incite or promote violence. Basically, I oppose the legislation based on principle alone.

**Schmidty** · 03-26-2008, 12:08 AM

Originally Posted by kfrost06

A St. Charles high school student who scrawled a racial slur on the locker of his former girlfriend after their breakup has been charged with a hate crime, police said Monday.

The ex-boyfriend is white and his former girlfriend is African-American. The 14-year-olds are freshmen at St. Charles East High School.

"He was bitter about their breakup, and he wrote some disparaging comments about her race on her locker," St. Charles Detective Sgt. Steve Huffman said. The incident reportedly took place March 17.

The youth, who is to appear Tuesday in Kane County Circuit Court, has been charged as a juvenile.

School officials are still investigating the incident, said Area Assistant Supt. Ronald Knapik of School District 303.

The school district's policy handbook prohibits racial harassment or intimidation. Should the district decide to discipline the student, Knapik said, it has a variety of options, from a parent-teacher conference up to suspension or expulsion.

In a similar case, two Aurora teenagers were each sentenced to 30 days in jail Monday for uttering racial slurs to an interracial couple in 2006 over the telephone.

Juan Recio, 19, pleaded guilty to committing a hate crime, and John Chapman, 18, pleaded guilty to attempting to commit a hate crime for repeatedly calling the couple up to 20 times in October 2006 and making derogatory racial remarks, said Assistant DuPage County State's Atty. Anne Therieau.

The men, both of the 2700 block of Prairieview Lane, were also sentenced by Judge Kathryn Creswell to 2 years of probation and ordered to perform 200 hours each of community service.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...1,209570.story

LOL thats right down the street form were i grew up at.

**Tock** · 03-26-2008, 04:00 AM

Originally Posted by thegodfather

The problem is that hate crime legislation is an attempt to legislate words. It is a persons right under the 1st Amendment to call you or I whatever they please.

( s n i p )

Basically, I oppose the legislation based on principle alone.

I'm not a big fan of hate crime laws either. Basically, I like to call Christians "idiots" (and other things) whenever appropriate. Hate crime legislation prevents that sort of thing . . .

However . . . suppose I'm walking down the street, and a couple pickup truck loads of "idiots" surrounds me and start hurling gay slurs at me, and read the homophobic sections of the Bible at me. Or suppose a bunch of "idiots" follow me on the street and read the Bible at me. Knowing what I know about the attitude of Conservative Republican judges here in Texas, things could get out of hand and I could get hurt (or killed), and the judge could say to himself (as what happens down here), "Oh well, he was just an atheist fa--ot out spreading AIDS, and these guys are, after all, Bible beleiving Christians."

So . . . knowing that when people start stating their anti-gay opinions on the street next to me, that means that I might get hurt pretty bad in the next few minutes; well, shouldn't that sort of behavior be punishable as intimidation?

-------

I don't really know what the solution to this problem is . . . On one hand, I'll agree that everyone has the right to free speech, and should be free to express their opinion whenever they like. On the other hand, groups or packs or mobs of people sometimes get out of control, and other people sometimes need to be protected from them (protection for their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness).

There's a difference between the intimidation and violence wrought by bullys and anti-minority bigots, and the mumblings of jilted teenagers and the inexpert prose of amateur writers. I don't know that hate crime legislation always differentiates between Constitutionally protected speech and criminal acts -- but it should . . .

**qualityclrk1** · 03-26-2008, 04:22 AM

guarantee the chick wouldn't be charged with a hate crime if she wrote "cracker" on his locker....8 black kids could beat up 1 white kid and be charged with nothing but assault and mob action....1 white kid beat up 8 black kids and he's got assault and a hate crime and a march through his town by Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton... the white male is the biggest victim to racism....

**lotaquestions** · 03-26-2008, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by Tock

I'm not a big fan of hate crime laws either. Basically, I like to call Christians "idiots" (and other things) whenever appropriate. Hate crime legislation prevents that sort of thing . . .

However . . . suppose I'm walking down the street, and a couple pickup truck loads of "idiots" surrounds me and start hurling gay slurs at me, and read the homophobic sections of the Bible at me. Or suppose a bunch of "idiots" follow me on the street and read the Bible at me. Knowing what I know about the attitude of Conservative Republican judges here in Texas, things could get out of hand and I could get hurt (or killed), and the judge could say to himself (as what happens down here), "Oh well, he was just an atheist fa--ot out spreading AIDS, and these guys are, after all, Bible beleiving Christians."

So . . . knowing that when people start stating their anti-gay opinions on the street next to me, that means that I might get hurt pretty bad in the next few minutes; well, shouldn't that sort of behavior be punishable as intimidation?

-------

I don't really know what the solution to this problem is . . . On one hand, I'll agree that everyone has the right to free speech, and should be free to express their opinion whenever they like. On the other hand, groups or packs or mobs of people sometimes get out of control, and other people sometimes need to be protected from them (protection for their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness).

There's a difference between the intimidation and violence wrought by bullys and anti-minority bigots, and the mumblings of jilted teenagers and the inexpert prose of amateur writers. I don't know that hate crime legislation always differentiates between Constitutionally protected speech and criminal acts -- but it should . . .

i wouldnt call you a f-got or a c-ck sucker i would just ask you politely to go be gay somewhere else because you are making my stomach hurt.

**BgMc31** · 03-26-2008, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by qualityclrk1

guarantee the chick wouldn't be charged with a hate crime if she wrote "cracker" on his locker....8 black kids could beat up 1 white kid and be charged with nothing but assault and mob action....1 white kid beat up 8 black kids and he's got assault and a hate crime and a march through his town by Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton... the white male is the biggest victim to racism....

That's the biggest load of bullshit I've ever heard!

**lotaquestions** · 03-26-2008, 04:39 PM

i think that it had more to do with a guy doing it to a girl than with race. but the word cracker dosnt have the same stigma as ****** (see what i mean, i was hesitated to even type it).

**kfrost06** · 03-26-2008, 09:08 PM

I know everyone is using "**" to substitute the word but maybe we could stop posting it or referring to it. No need for it as far as I am concerned

**kfrost06** · 03-26-2008, 09:11 PM

Originally Posted by thegodfather

It's quite a trivial argument to try and quantify whether or not you calling me "Ugly" has the same effect as a racial slur. That is a very SUBJECTIVE thing, and there is no way for anyone of us to identify which is more hurtful to person A versus person B. And then, who determines what a racial slur is? Is every racial slur written down on the law books somewhere? Should I be able to have a person of another ethnicity/race charged with a hate crime if they assault me while calling me "cracker" or "whitey"? Would you agree with that?

The problem is that hate crime legislation is an attempt to legislate words. It is a persons right under the 1st Amendment to call you or I whatever they please. Carving it into the girls locker, would fall under the destruction of personal property. Trying to qualify it as a hate crime is a real stretch in this instance and I think they are just trying to make an example out of the CHILD.

The other issue with hate crime legislation, is that while we punish crimes more or less harsh based on MOTIVES, it is not logical that we punish a crime more harshly based on FEELINGS or BELIEFS about a certain race/ethnicity. That is what hate is, it is a set of beliefs or feelings. So we have essentially legislated what feelings are morally acceptable and what ones are not. That is a start towards the slippery slope, Canada as an example. In the United States however, hate speech is perfectly acceptable, so long as it does not incite or promote violence. Basically, I oppose the legislation based on principle alone.

Well, godfather, you won't hear me say this often but I agree with you all the way. There can be good arguments made for both sides of the issue but in the end the government will use the laws to legislate their beliefs and will be abused. We need look no farther then Canada to see how the law can be abused. Just read how a guy was charged with a hate crime there for flushing a Koran down the toilet.

**thegodfather** · 03-27-2008, 01:46 AM

Originally Posted by kfrost06

Well, godfather, you won't hear me say this often but I agree with you all the way. There can be good arguments made for both sides of the issue but in the end the government will use the laws to legislate their beliefs and will be abused. We need look no farther then Canada to see how the law can be abused. Just read how a guy was charged with a hate crime there for flushing a Koran down the toilet.

Yup...one word for this bro... Liberals

**qualityclrk1** · 03-27-2008, 03:30 AM

Originally Posted by BgMc31

That's the biggest load of bullshit I've ever heard!

i'd like to find a scholarship for being white......like they give for being black... NAACP - North American Advancement for Colored People......good luck at forming a NAAWP....i could keep going, but really its all opinion...

**qualityclrk1** · 03-27-2008, 03:31 AM

they try to make things "even" when actually all they're doing is giving benefits to one group which are denied to the other.....thats not treating all men as equals....

**BgMc31** · 03-27-2008, 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by qualityclrk1

i'd like to find a scholarship for being white......like they give for being black... NAACP - North American Advancement for Colored People......good luck at forming a NAAWP....i could keep going, but really its all opinion...

1st of all Mr. Intelligent, its National Association For thr Advancement of Colored People. And the NAAWP does exist! Lastly in terms of scholarships, how about the Italian-American scholarships the Knights of Columbus give out. The Sons of the Confederacy also provides scholarships, as does the Daughters of the Confederacy. Jewish organizations also provide scholarships. Several Scottish Clans (Cambell and Wallace come to mind) here in the U.S offer scholarships to their members. The list goes on and on. Pick up a book and do some research before you shoot your mouth off!