Transgender Child Attacked With a Baseball Bat in Ballard

Comments

1
Please educate me -- I honestly don't know the answer to this and am not trying to be contrary. What do the police do differently when investigating a "hate crime" as opposed to other crimes? I'm not sure what methods would be different in the investigation.

Prosecution, on the other hand, is a different matter. It's clear that once charges are brought up against the suspect that the penalties should be harsher, as per law.
2
Jesus Christ. Get better, Tiva.
3
So, so wrong. My heart breaks for this child and her parents.
4
UGH! This makes my blood boil so much I want to set the police dept. on fire for not taking this as seriously as they should. So if a woman is attack and only later when she's actually awake says it was rape, will the attacker not be charged accordingly? If this had been one of the officer's kids, it wouldn't even be up for debate whether or not this was a hate crime. WTF SPD?
5
@1 Well, for one thing I'd think police investigating it as a hate crime would look into people/groups in the area who are known to be particularly hostile to trans people instead of focusing on trying to find people who might have a more specific grudge against Tiva than "I hate trans people."
6
You get the police dept you're willing to pay for.
I know the Stranger is all about calling out the cops for the shit they do wrong, and they do plenty of it wrong around here, but really so much of the problem with the Seattle Police is that there aren't enough of them to do the job effectively.
This wouldn't have gotten investigated any more than any other fight, as in it wouldn't have been investigated at all, except now that there is a slight amount of media attention. There aren't enough cops to go and do follow up interviews, let alone investigations of lower profile crimes. There aren't enough cops to even do occasional patrols FFS, let alone the traffic stops that any other city would have. I'm just shocked that our crime rate isn't much higher than it is, and that's more about the citizens wealth than it is about the effectiveness of the policing.
7
@Dan, hate crime laws are bullshit. It's not the law's job to prosecute people for how they feel or what they feel; our laws should only seek justice for *actions.*

The act of attacking a child with a baseball bat is a crime regardless of why it was done. We shouldn't have thought crimes on the book as well.
8
Poor young woman. What age, I wonder? Learning disabilities and gender identity issues, what a challenging road.

The officer who took the report noted the fact that Tiva was "dressed in women's clothing at the time of the attack" - I'm very surprised the dots didn't connect themselves in the SPD system at that point, checking the "hate crime" box automatically no matter how the woozy young victim managed to self-identify.
9
It is perfectly reasonable to consider the motive for a crime when prosecuting that crime and in sentencing. We already do it when deciding whether someone should be charged with 1st, 2nd or 3rd degree murder, for example. This is no different.
10
Poor child. Hope she's better soon.
11
@9, it is different when you're creating a completely separate charge.

Say a man attacks someone because they slept with his wife. That's no less an act of hate but it's not prosecuted as a hate crime. I recognize that intent is relevant but it's being weighed unequally with hate crime prosecutions.
12
@7, the reason we have hate crime legislation is not to control what people think. A hate crime, or bias crime, is one in which the attack is primarily because a person is perceived to be a member of a group that has faced bigotry. If this woman hadn't perceived the child as trans, she wouldn't have attacked her.

The point of such attacks is to cause fear in the community, to cause people in that community to live in subservience and attempt to be invisible. It isn't random, and it isn't motivated by profit or greed. It's worse.
13
@12 - well said. :D
14
Oh wow, my teen boys used to spend a great deal of time in this skate park. This is terrifying. I'm going to ask them if they know Tiva. What the cops need to do is talk to the ravers and street kids who hang out in that park at night. At least one of them knows something no matter how high they were when it happened...
15
@14, it's a good idea to ask your kids if they knew of Tiva or anyone who had it in for her at the skate park, but bear in mind the attack itself happened about ten blocks north of there. Dan's excerpt above is a copypaste from My Ballard that didn't capture that site's strikethrough of the phrase "the skate park at Ballard Commons Park".
16
@12 Yes, thank you. I would only add "and it has broader negative effects." Causing fear in the community is effective. Attack someone for money and people are afraid of that alley. Attack someone and call them [category slur of your choice], it doesn't matter what your intent was, but you've just made most members of that category reluctant to go out at night. It's poisoning the well.
17
The crime is not being investigated as a hate crime because there is no indication in the official police report of any trans-bias. The "you should not be wearing those clothes" comment is not in the report; that's from the parents' own investigation.

The signs point to slow police work, not a conscious choice to disregard hate crime evidence.
18
Just to add on, another reason that hate crimes legislation exists is to automatically trigger investigation at various levels, to make it harder for a local law enforcement official who sympathizes with the attacker to sweep things under the rug.
19
Thanks, @12, that's a succinct articulation that I will have to remember.
20
@12, then it should be prosecuted as an act of terrorism, not as a hate crime.

Again, it goes back to the issue of a thought crime. If you want transgendered and cisgendered people alike to feel safe, put more honest cops on the streets and prosecute equally. Charging someone with a hate crime does nothing to change the minds and hearts of other bigots.
21
At this point, it sounds like the cops are just trying to find the fucking perp. What does the crime being hate-spurred have to do with simply finding that worthless piece of shit?

@5,

You have to be kidding.
22
@20, most of the terrorism laws are federal. Bias crime laws tend to be local or state. Do you think it's appropriate to bring in federal prosecutors in this case? Also, the results tend to be the same--enhanced sentencing.

What is your beef with bias crime legislation?
23
@ 20, this law might not change the hearts and minds of bigots but it may prevent them from engaging in violent acts against others based on their own perception of another's identity.
24
@22, my beef is that it's criminalizing bigotry. Yes, I know, we all hate it and rail against it but this is the United States where even the hateful (non-violent) speech of bigots is protected.

And no, I don't think this should be turned into a federal case. I think more laws need to be written to deal with the varying levels of terrorism. You said the act was meant to put fear into a specific community. That's the very definition of terrorism.
25
@23, like the death penalty prevents people from committing murder?
26
@24, bashing in a kid's skull is not a form of speech.
27
@26, correct. That's why bashing a kid's skull in is a crime. We should prosecute the action, not the thoughts.
28
@7: You are:
1) misusing the term "thought crime" which refers to criminalizing thought itself, before there is even any intent or action; and
2) you are totally ignorant of our entire system of law.

EVERY crime depends on the thought behind it. That's what makes it CRIME, is criminal intent, or 'mens rea' under the law.

The nature of the crime depends a lot on the intent of the person behind it. If a person picks up a gun and shoots somebody to death, that depends largely on what the person at the time was thinking.

And lastly, hate-crimes are really just a form of terrorism. When Al Qaeda blows up a building, that's a crime of terrorism significantly more egregious than simple murder, because the intent behind the crime is entirely different, and is prosecuted and punished differently. Hate crimes are a particular subset of acts of terrorism that are often based in bigotry and intended to victimize an entire class or group of people.

This is why, say, burning a cross in a black family's front yard is not simple arson, but an act of terrorism.

The cry of "oh hate crime laws are criminalizing thought" is totally bullsh*t, and completely ignorant. That line of non-logic would undo OUR ENTIRE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. Aka, you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. The next time you have a thought, just let it go.
29
@27: Except that what makes the action CRIMINAL is the THOUGHT behind the action. If there's no THOUGHT behind the action, then IT IS NOT A CRIME.

EVERYTHING is a crime because of thought.

That's. how. criminal. law. works.
30
@27: That's why bashing a kid's skull in is a crime

Also, NO, it is not. Bashing a kid's skull in with the requisite criminal intent, THAT is a crime.

If a kid breaks into my house in the middle of the night with a gun, and I bash that kid's skill in with a baseball bat, that is NOT a crime. Why not? Because the person committing the second act is THINKING SOMETHING ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.

If the law worked your way, then we'd have to change OUR ENTIRE SOCIETY to fit your totally unworkable bullshit idiocy.
31
I disagree with hate crime laws. I have disagreed with them ever since I was working in felony criminal defense as a paralegal and worked on a couple cases involving a hate crime. I do not believe that attacking a person because they are gay, black, or any other minority group makes a person any more of a threat to the community than a person who simply attacks a person because they want their purse.

I think it is a massive insult to the families of victims who are not the victim of a hate crime to say that their family deserves less retribution because they were only victimized because they were being robbed. Regardless of the reason a person commits a violent crime, it is worthy of prosecution, no more, no less. We all deserve equal protection under the law, and not just minority groups. Everyone. I say this as a member of two separate minority groups.

I simply believe all violent crimes should be punished severely. I think rape should be a life sentence. I think that the perpetrator of a savage beating resulting in near death of the victim should receive a very lengthy prison sentence, and perhaps a life sentence.

I do not believe that hate crime legislation will make a difference in crime statistics. I believe, firmly, that an individual or a group that perpetuates a horrific crime is a person or group that is beyond reasoning, beyond logic, beyond sane. You cannot reason with a crazy person. Therefore, a perpetrator will not take into account the penalty of a crime. And frankly, some people convicted of horrible crimes occasionally receive light sentences. Personally, I think it would be best for the community if we simply had stricter laws regarding violent crimes, crimes which are not chosen...I do not think that two adults engaging in a fist fight by choice should be severely punished, for them, a misdemeanor will do.

But for those who will perpetuate a heinous crime upon another, I care not for the reasoning behind the crime, I simply care that they are punished severely with a lengthy prison sentence. Of course, I would make an exception to the law for a person who was out of their mind, say, a boyfriend who had a GF that was raped who then savagely beat the rapist. Or say a mother who kills the molester of her child. For these individuals, I would still punish them, although more leniently.

I just think that a violent crime is a violent crime, and unless it is self-defense, or retribution for another horrific crime, that we should simply have very stiff sentences.

And by the way, I am a huge supporter of the gay community since I was about 8 years old and first exposed to gay culture. I used to, and still do, argue endlessly with those who would look down upon homosexuals. In no way do I think that homosexuals deserve less protection than a straight person. I simply think that they deserve equal protection. Equal.

That is what we want right? To be equal, right? If this is not the goal anymore then what is, to be superior, to be treated better and with more protection? I think we are losing sight of the issue. It is about equal protection, not more protection.

My two cents.

I probably won’t have time to revisit this blog today, so you can save the nasty comments and save yourself some time, as with my schedule I will likely not have time to revisit.
32
@21 How so? If the cops are not aware that the crime happened due to her being trans why would the focus on groups/people who hate trans people? Conversely, if they are aware of the motivation then why wouldn't/shouldn't they focus at least part of their investigation on such groups?
33
Hate crimes laws are largely about equalizing risk. A person in a targeted group is several times more likely to be a victim of violent crime than the average muggle. But, adding another five years onto the potential sentence for that crime? Might make the attacker think twice about doing it.

It's imperfect, of course. Sometimes people are motivated by hatred so strong that the potential consequences--no matter how severe--don't factor into it. But if some angry kid with an axe to grind knows he's likely to get 10 years for beating the crap out of some poor gay man, instead of the 5-and-parole he'd get for doing the same in a random bar fight, it's definitely possible he'd be less likely to actually follow through with it. Which means his potential target is, at least slightly, somewhat safer than he would've been otherwise. Still nowhere near the average level of safety for a straight guy, but at least a bit closer.
34
@25, you do raise an interesting point. Is there any evidence that bias crime legislation in a locality results in fewer bias crime attacks? Has anyone compared the statistics? We've had bias crime legislation in lots of places for a long time now. A little Wikipedia search says that California's 1978 law was the first of its kind in the US. It covered race, color, religion, and national origin.

So: Who here has strong Google-fu?

My question is, can we compare violent crime in general to bias crime? We know that, over the last 30 years or so, violent crime has gone down. Has bias crime declined at the same rate? In the same places? Is there a higher rate of attacks against queer folks in places that do not include sexual orientation/identity in bias crime law? In short, does it actually make a difference or are we just doing this because it makes us feel better?
35
I also want to say that I will keep this poor kid and her family in my thoughts and prayers. My heart goes out to you and your family. This was a totally senseless crime.

You deserved better and I hope that you make a speedy and full recovery.

This is a horrific crime and I hope they throw the friggin book at the SOB!
36
The foundation of our legal system is that the punishment must fit the crime. When society acknowledges that some crimes are worse than others even if the outcome is essentially the same - spray painting a swastika on a synagogue is worse than tagging it with your name - then it is promoting justice and sending message to all citizens about the values that the community holds dear. The purpose of enhanced sentencing is not just to reduce the criminal acts, or to make us feel better about ourselves - it is a statement about equity, tolerance, and the nature of justice.

We are saying, yeah, feel free to be a bigot, but the second you act on that bigotry (act, not just speech or thought), we as a people will stand united and condemn you. Powerful stuff, yes?
37
@Captain Wiggette,

1) I'm using a broader definition of thought crime that isn't restricted to preceding an action,

2) and no, I am not totally ignorant of our entire system of law; I was oversimplifying when I wrote about intent and thought. I'm sorry that you missed the point I was trying to make but it sounds like we partly agree.

I'm glad that you can see the terrorist nature in most acts of hate-related violence. But not all hate crime cases are guaranteed to be acts of terrorism, while many other crimes should be considered hate crimes but aren't because the hate isn't focused on an individual because they're part of an oppressed group.
38
@34, any study would be clouded by the fact that bigotry generally is on the decline (I don't have a source for that, I'm shooting from the hip on this one and hoping it's the case.) Hate crimes would decline as the cultural disdain for them increased. (For example, people aren't lynched in the South with blatant disregard as frequently as they used to be.)

Not to say that a study shouldn't be done, just saying it would have to be very careful/thoughtful with its statistical analysis.
39
@38, you raise another question: Is bigotry really down? Are some kinds of bigotry down but not others? For example, you state that lynchings don't happen much anymore--there have been a few high profile racial killings in the last ten years, but overall not very many. What about non-lethal assaults? Can we tease out from certain markers or previous surveys whether racial prejudice is down, and does that affect the incidence of bias crime with racial motivations?

Next, can we do the same for anti-gay violence? Is anti-queer bigotry down over the last twenty or thirty years? Has anti-queer violence reduced at the same rate as overall violent crime?

Seriously, *someone* must have studied this kind of stuff.
40
@37, what thought crime are you referring to when you say 'that isn't restricted to preceding an action'? I'm having trouble parsing that; it sounds like you're claiming that there are criminal laws against verbal statements of bias or hate. I know that's not right--you're not claiming that. Can you help me understand what you do mean? Thanks.
41
@37: in other words, you retract your bullshit argument, and switch instead to a vague "oh gee, it's, like, complicated and stuff" argument?

Spare me.

42
@32,

It was a person acting alone. Considering the low profile of transgendered people in society (due to their scarcity) odds are that woman had never even *seen* a transgendered person before, let alone had any notion about joining an anti-trans group, whatever the hell that is.

This case is a textbook example of a lone, know-nothing bigot who took out her plentiful inadequacies on a defenseless child.
43
Do we know how old the victim is? I didn't see it stated in the article, and of course her information was redacted from the police report. Could be 12 (or even younger), could be 17. Anyone know--did I just clean miss it in the article?
45
@40

Hate crime legislation, specifically, Washington State's Malicious Harassment Statute is specifically based upon a persons statements, and that is what is tantamount to 'Thought Crime".

If someone beats up a gay, then it's not a hate crime unless they're shouting 'faggot" during, before, or after to the extent the legislator defines the statute. That is oversimplified, but it is essentially so.
46
Clashfan, sorry, I wasn't clear (typing with only a few minutes free here and there). I should have said I'm using the term thought crime in a way that includes both thoughts that are and are not followed by an action. I've been arguing that the action is what should be prosecuted. Captain Wiggette made the assumption I was arguing that the thought/intent would play no role in prosecution. I guess I just assumed it would be understood that intent would remain relevant (ie killing someone on accident vs. because you're not sane vs. very much on purpose.) I've been trying to say it shouldn't be an additional crime to hate someone because they're gay, for example. But if their intent is to terrorize (whether physical violence is involved or not), that is a secondary act, a conspiring to instill fear, if you will. And someone could commit a hate crime but not necessarily be also committing a form of terrorism. Maybe their rabid bigotry is the result of fear. The intent isn't to terrorize but to rid themselves of a perceived threat. Does that make more sense?
47
@45, I understand the concept of bias crime, thanks. I was asking Aurophobia what s/he meant in the quoted bit.

Do you understand the idea that bias crimes are not just against the individual, but also against the community the victim is perceived to be part of? And that intent has always played a role in determining the severity of the consequence? If you answer yes to both of these questions, then I respectfully ask you to connect the dots between the two concepts.

However, I'm still curious as to whether bias crime legislation has an actual effect on the incidence rate of bias crime.
48
@46, I'm sorry, I must have my stupid hat on today. Thanks for responding, but I'm still not clear on what you mean.

You say that some bias crime may not come from hate, nor from a desire for the victim/community to be further marginalized, BUT instead from fear inherent to the perpetrator. What would that fear look like? Can you give me an example of this kind of fear, that does not carry any concurrent hate or desire to stifle?

The stereotype of the bias crime is a few louts gaybashing, or beating up a black guy 'cos he's black. (Or Latino, or trans, or Jewish, etc.) Am I missing something? Is there another possibility?

If a perpetrator feels that much fear, without hate, then either they were in actual danger and can use an affirmative defense, or they are unbalanced and can use a M'Naghten defense.
49
Scratchmaster's right -- prosecutors can only prosecutor on the basis of law, and individual(s) are victims, not the community. The community may feel it's an emotional victim, but that's not how hate crimes are prosecuted.
50
@Clashfan, I'm not saying that a bias crime doesn't come from hate; I'm saying a hate crime isn't always a form of terrorism, that the hate and hate crimes can come from fear and not be based on a motive to terrorize an individual or a community. For example, someone could believe that all gay men are pedophiles and they're afraid for the safety of their child. Someone could also be afraid that they'll come on to them which in turn they see as a threat to their manhood/womanhood. Inexcusable a reason as that is, that's a fear that can hit to people's core and wouldn't be an example of terrorism.
51
@50
Really. Would they not be lashing out in an attempt to make the supposed threat (and all other possible threats) afraid of them?

Actually, that doesn't matter. Either way, their case needs more attention (and possibly more punishment) than a normal assault and battery case. A guy who gets drunk and gets into a fight with another guy in front of a bar is not the same as a guy who gets drunk and beats up a guy he thinks may want to hit on him. That behavior has a different motive, and motive matters in sentencing.

When someone kills an abusive spouse or perhaps a cheating spouse, that's not the same as killing them for the insurance money. We take that motive into account because one of those murderers is a guilty of a greater crime AND a greater threat to the community.

It's not that it doesn't matter whether or not the criminal means to terrorize the community. But it also matters whether or not the criminal IS terrorizing the community.
52
Of course, it could just be a case of a retarded trannie just making up shit after falling over.
53
We shouldn't need hate crime laws. Sadly, we do.
54
@50, I see what you're getting at now. I honestly believe that all anger comes from fear--not just anti-gay fear, but all fear. So I get what you're saying.

However, if you asked the perpetrator in your examples if they were scared of the gay man, I bet they would say no. It is an *irrational* fear, and we don't cater to those as a society. A crime of this type still says, "Go be gay somewhere else, your kind are not welcome here." And as a society, that motivation is worse than the drunken punch-up in a bar.

@49, the Washington State has bias crime legislation. Sounds like the community would like the prosecutor to apply that, should the perpetrator be caught. Perhaps I don't see your point; it's clear I'm not firing on all cylinders today.
55
I've been arguing that the action is what should be prosecuted. Captain Wiggette made the assumption I was arguing that the thought/intent would play no role in prosecution.

No, I made the assumption that this exact argument, that "the action is what should be prosecuted" is completely anathema to our entire legal system.

Such an argument is nonsensical, idiotic, and ignorant.

There are legitimate arguments to be made against hate crime legislation. Your consistent attempt to argue that "the action is what should be prosecuted" is, at best, staggeringly ignorant of our legal system. And I react vehemently against that argument, because it is the type of argument consistently deployed throughout history to shield and protect bigotry, hatred, and a vicious legacy of relentless terrorism committed against minorities in this country and elsewhere.

There's centuries of legal history where minorities walk into a courtroom with two strikes against them automatically. And the minute anyone starts attempting to undo that stacked deck with tools like hate crime legislation to defend a protected class, then people start screeching about some bullshit like "thought crimes" or similar idiocy that some moron spoon-fed their ignorant asses.

It is an absolutely bullshit and vicious argument that has no place in what purports to be some kind of vaguely thoughtful discussion about hate-crimes legislation.

So fuck off. If you don't like hate-crimes legislation, come up with a real argument. Equating hate crimes with 'thought crimes' is bullshit, regardless of whatever on-the-fly "oh, well actually I semantically intended to mean..." back-tracking load of shit definition you're going to try to twist into some vague argument is not going to fly with me.
56
Cp. Wiggette, I believe the point you're trying to make is that some subset of what we call 'thought' (say, intent, premeditation, etc.) is part of the definition of crime. And I believe what Aurophobia is trying to say is that the same 'thought' (intent, etc.) is not all the definitiion of crime.

If that woman had felt the same hate, the same desire to do something, yet for some reason (even sheer coincidence) had refrained from striking that girl with a baseball bat, no crime would have happened, despite her bigotted thoughts.

So it appears that, even though 'thought' as you defined it is a necessary condition for a crime, it is not a sufficient condition. And this is as it should be.

What Aurophobia is worried about is that at some point the 'thought' might become a sufficient condition (thought crimes). And since bigotry is indeed despicable and our society is definitely turning more and more against it, there's the danger that it could happen.

It could happen even if the law doesn't change appreciably in form. After all, in Russia, they have laws that read very well for dealing with extremism, but since the definition of extremism is often interpreted with a bias favoring the agenda of the powers-that-be, the end result is dangerously clause to anti-thought-crime legislation: the practical result is often that those who disagree more vehemently with the guidance of the United Russia party are preferentially pro- (and per-)secuted.

In other words, there's a place in this world for both your concerns, and Aurophobia's. Even though I understand where your outrage is coming from, there is no need for vehement rhetorics here: a more civil tone will probably do more to help get your point across.
57
Captain Wiggette, I think you've touched a nerve with the homophobes. And i think you're absolutely correct. Please keep up your 'vehement rhetoric' as it might get through one of these thick skulls eventually. Those who disagree and call for civil tone can kiss your ass.
58
@12 -- By that definition though, wouldn't rape be considered a hate crime in most cases? Most victims of rape are targeted because they're women (members of a persecuted group). Most rapes aren't random, and they aren't for profit or greed. You could argue that the rapist is "profiting" or benefiting from whatever gross gratification he gets from raping someone, but I'm sure the sicko who hit this kid in the head with a baseball bat got her rocks off in a similar way. Some people derive pleasure from hurting others, and that isn't a quality that's necessarily specific to bigots. There are bigots who take to the streets and commit violence and there are those who just sit in their houses. Same goes with people who aren't discernibly bigoted.
59
If I tell you I'm planning on murdering somebody and then I murder them, the fact that I told you beforehand can mean the difference between manslaughter and premeditated murder.

Thoughtcrime? Should I face death/life in prison simply for the crime of thinking through my murder before I commit it?
60
@58 Most people, even the violent ones, don't get sexual gratification from beating someone with a bat.
61
@58, I've heard some people argue that rape *is* a bias crime, just as you suggest. There may be some element of truth to it. Last night, I mentioned to my partner that I was discussing this topic, and she did a little research. Seems that one element of bias crime is that the victim is unknown to the perpetrator (in violent crime). Other violent crimes are usually done against people known by the assailant. I don't think it is a part of the legal definition of bias crime, but it can be a helpful way to separate the two conceptually. As we all know, most rapes are committed by someone the victim knows.

This part, I'm just throwing out there: Rape is more about a man using his personal power over one woman for his own ends, rather than saying, "All those bitches better not . . ." That is strictly conjecture.
62
Funny, no one on Slog gave a shit last year when a white kid in West Seattle was viciously beaten because he was white, by members of the 'community of color'. I guess we all know why people think 'hate crime laws' can't be taken seriously when clearly they are 'political crime' laws to most of you.
63
" the attack is primarily because a person is perceived to be a member of a group that has faced bigotry"

So straight white guys need not apply.....unless we're wearing skirts.
64
@60 -- No, the gratification isn't of a sexual nature, but I'm sure this woman got some satisfaction from what she saw as putting this kid in her place. Bullying and intimidation are all about a power trip -- pushing someone else down to pump yourself up.
65
@63, yes, a bias crime covers victims who are part of a community who have been the targets of bigotry. Straight white guys who don't cross-dress have not been the targets of systematic oppression. Assaults against them are still assaults, just not bias crimes.
66
"Assaults against them are still assaults, just not bias crimes."

@65 Even if a white person is attacked for their race, as Shane McClellan was in West Seattle, they should not be covered by hate crimes law?

"Straight white guys who don't cross-dress have not been the targets of systematic oppression. "

Tell that to the Irish.
67
So sad to hear... no one deserves to be a victim of violence simply because of how they dress. I hope they find this attacker!
68
@66, you learn something new every day. I was not familiar with the Shane McClelland case; thank you for bringing it to my attention.

I stand by my assertion that white guys have *not* been the victims of systematic oppression. If you want me to qualify that by saying 'in the last 50 years', then I'm happy to do so.
70
I'm so glad our resident troll has a hobby. Somebody has to speak up about the silent epidemic that is oppression of straight white people
71
@66: The Irish were not considered white.
72
"t white guys have *not* been the victims of systematic oppression"

What about Apalachia whites then?
74
"you learn something new every day. I was not familiar with the Shane McClelland case; thank you for bringing it to my attention. "

Of course you weren't. Slog doesn't report on anti white hate crimes. Think James Paroline, Tuba Man and Kris Krimes. Clear cases of individual white people attacked by gangs blacks because if their race
76
"@66: The Irish were not considered white."

Black people weren't considered people, so therefore they weren't being oppressed?
77
#46
Maybe their rabid bigotry is the result of fear. The intent isn't to terrorize but to rid themselves of a perceived threat. Does that make more sense?

That is called the gay panic defense which is also uhh, slightly problematic.
78
@ 62, 65, 66 - Ahmed Mohamed and Jonathan Baquiring were both charged with and pleaded guilty to malicious harassment along with first degree robbery.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/lo…
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/th…
79
@77: Good point.

It is also the logical foundation that under-girded centuries of segregation.

The Klan was motivated significantly by fear, yet nobody would deny that the Klan is a long-established terrorist group.
80
Wow and yet the Seattle Police Department, and it's supporters, wonder why people are rising up against them. First you start shooting and killing innocent people and now you are letting people get away with assaulting CHILDREN in your communities. What's next, is the Police Department going to start handing out guns to criminals and telling them what groups to kill first.

Blessed Be Tiva. We, are all praying for a speedy and full recovery. And don't worry sugar there are a lot more people who have your back than there are people to harm you.

*Hugs and positive thoughts*

81
" why people are rising up against them"

Rising up? Where, in SLog's comments section?
82
Hey! ...this is a kid getting whacked upside the head with a bat! Because of how she's dressed. It kills me NOT one person has come forward to narc out the piece of shit bitch who did this. A bat! If a hate crime isnt going to be option, then attempted murder certainly should be on the table. Oh, andif the bad ass bitch and her friends are reading this, how about quit being a pussy and own what you did. Thats what bad ass bitches do. Follow through! I think your mother tossed out the baby and raised the placenta, you fucking sniveling shit eater.
I hope Miss Tiva and her parents receive justice and dont lose faith in humanity. Tiva and others like her deserve to be treated alot better than whats been dished out to them.
83
People wonder why I hate humanity .... this is a golden example of why humanity as a whole sucks.

I really can't post any more than that on this, I just can't bring myself to politicize this story at all.