Justice served in cross-burning cases
CVK
It’s good to see some legal action being taken against the still-common phenomenon of cross-burnings. These burnings often target interracial couples and families. Interesting that in both of these cases, the defense’s case centered around painting the incident as a “prank” rather than as racial intimidation.
First, a Utah man convicted of burning a cross in the yard of an interracial couple in Salt Lake City lost his appeal to the Supreme Court:
In 1998, Magleby and a juvenile companion burned a cross on the lawn of Ronald Henry, who is black, and his former wife Robyn Henry, who is white. An all-white jury found Magleby guilty of several charges including conspiracy to violate the civil rights of the Henry family. Magleby has insisted he was not racist and it was a prank protected by the First Amendment.
Quite a sense of humor you’ve got there, Mr. Magleby! You must do really well with the ladies - women love a guy who can make them laugh, you prankster!
Next, four boys in Spokane, Washington, who attempted to burn a cross on the lawn of a mixed family’s home two years ago are being sued in federal court:
The four made a 4-foot-tall cross and carried it to the Elk-area home of two black Riverside High School classmates, whose father is an American Indian.
They soaked the cross with motor oil and tried to ignite it, but failed, according to sheriff’s reports.
The defendants claimed the crime was a prank, motivated by boredom and lacking malicious intent. But victim Dave Anderson contended he and his adopted sons, 15-year-old twins Adam and Aaron Anderson, were devastated by the act.
Brad wrote:
A “prank”? How about a legal maneuver designed to diminish a sick crime and portray the defendants as “misunderstood, mischevious youth.” T.P.’ing and egging someone’s house is a prank. Burning a cross is a deliberate racist act designed to intimidate and terrify. Kids without a racist motivation wouldn’t do burn a cross in someone’s lawn. I wonder if the boys’ parents are just pooh-poohing their actions because they were the ones to teach their children racist ideology?
Posted 16 May 2006 at 8:58 am ¶
Lyonside wrote:
Brad: It’s more subtle than that…
You can have parents who don’t spout Stormfront propaganda, but they have no minority friends and family, there are few in the community, etc. The parents then think, “It’s not our problem, we’re not like that” and go about their merry way.
You can have kids who know it’s been done before, but don’t know (and don’t care about) the full history and physical and emotional consequences. I.e. they may think that white people did this to blacks in the South, but won’t know the extent of it, or the lynching, maiming, and assult that went with it. Therefore in their tunnel-vision-impaired minds, it’s a “prank,” but that does nothing to change the message or the effect. We do have an obligation to let the defense attorneys TRY to use the defense. IMO it would only apply justifiably to a minor or adult who is mentally impaired and therefore unable to understand the context… but then, that would allow for a whole ‘nother set of defense tactics.
Posted 16 May 2006 at 12:45 pm ¶
Keya wrote:
When will they ever learn
Posted 17 May 2006 at 9:29 am ¶