NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.sunjournal.com/story/210466-3/LewistonAuburn/No_charges_in_ham_incident/

LEWISTON - A student who tossed ham on a school table occupied by Somali students last month will not be prosecuted by the Attorney General's Office.

But that decision, announced on Wednesday, will not have any bearing the school's handling of the incident.

The Lewiston Middle School student who placed the bagged ham has been suspended, according to Lewiston school officials.

Police who investigated found that no crime had been committed, and their part of the probe ended shortly after.

Local news organization covering local news.

While I think it's a stupid thing to do, it's the kind of thing that kids do - and I don't believe it's a "hate crime".

IIRC, there were some people here in the past week who were laughing at the idea of the ham steak story being fake.

Apparently, it's a real story.

I don't believe it's a "hate crime".

Hate crimes (also known as bias crimes) are violent crimes, hate speech or vandalism, motivated by feelings of enmity or animus against an identifiable social group.
-Wiki

Whether or not you think hate crimes are just, I don't see how you could argue it wasn't a hate crime.

http://www.sunjournal.com/story/210466-3/LewistonAuburn/No_charges_in_ham_incident/



Local news organization covering local news.

While I think it's a stupid thing to do, it's the kind of thing that kids do - and I don't believe it's a "hate crime".

IIRC, there were some people here in the past week who were laughing at the idea of the ham steak story being fake.

Apparently, it's a real story.

I think you misunderstood that thread. Or the people posting about the ham steak misunderstood.

The ham steak was a real incident that was then lampooned and satirized by an Onion-esque website, where it was converted into a ham sandwich that had simply been placed on the table.

While I think it's a stupid thing to do, it's the kind of thing that kids do - and I don't believe it's a "hate crime".


Well, it doesn't actually matter what you think about it. It does matter what the people involved in the incident thought, or were thinking, at the time. Sounds like a hate crime to me.

-Wiki

Whether or not you think hate crimes are just, I don't see how you could argue it wasn't a hate crime.

But putting a ham on a table is not a criminal act, so it can't be a hate crime, no matter what motivated it.

But putting a ham on a table is not a criminal act, so it can't be a hate crime, no matter what motivated it.

Difficult to argue really.

Putting the ham on the table could be seen as a form of expression which could bring it under hate speech laws.

Difficult to argue really.

Putting the ham on the table could be seen as a form of expression which could bring it under hate speech laws.

I think it has everything to do with the intent behind the action, not the action itself.

Difficult to argue really.

Putting the ham on the table could be seen as a form of expression which could bring it under hate speech laws.

It happened in the US though, where that kind of thing is generally protected. Like hate speech is legal in the US too.

I agree that if this happened in the UK it would probably be illegal, but it would be hate speech anyway.

Difficult to argue really.

Putting the ham on the table could be seen as a form of expression which could bring it under hate speech laws.

Fortunately in the US, we have the First Amendment.

I think it has everything to do with the intent behind the action, not the action itself.

Except hate crimes are treated rather more like aggravating circumstances than as crimes in and of themselves.

Except hate crimes are treated rather more like aggravating circumstances than as crimes in and of themselves.

How they're treated is far from universal. I know Americans feel they should be dismissed as being trivial, or even encouraged as some sort of mutant form of self-expression - but this is not how all societies operate, not even among western democracies.

Well, it doesn't actually matter what you think about it. It does matter what the people involved in the incident thought, or were thinking, at the time. Sounds like a hate crime to me.

Hold on there is this true? Are you saying that the victim gets to decide if it was an act of hate, rather then the perputrater deciding what his intent was?

That sounds a bit backwards to me. So I can then plead hate crime for every religous nutter that accosts me and tells me I'm going to hell? Ohhh okay yeah I can dig that!

Fortunately in the US, we have the First Amendment.

Even the first doesn't cover all speech.

If the kids who got hammed were Jewish, the meat-slingers would be sharing kielbasa with Big Bubba by now.

But remember boys and girls: Muslims are evil hivemind terrorists and they all have Osama Bin Ladin on their speed dial, so it's okay to bait their religious beliefs and dehumanize them!

Even the first doesn't cover all speech.

It covers throwing ham on a table.

Hold on there is this true? Are you saying that the victim gets to decide if it was an act of hate, rather then the perputrater deciding what his intent was?

That sounds a bit backwards to me. So I can then plead hate crime for every religous nutter that accosts me and tells me I'm going to hell? Ohhh okay yeah I can dig that!

You don't decide what your intent was after the fact.

IIRC, there were some people here in the past week who were laughing at the idea of the ham steak story being fake.

You don't recall correctly.

Kinda like Fox News in this thread, you are... (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=525304)

You don't decide what your intent was after the fact.

Huh? Naaa I was taking the piss. Somebody said that it is up to the 'victim' to decide on intent. Which mean's that I can claim insult from street preachers, or JW's that knock on my door, and to take it further callit a hate crime.

'Yes your honor , it is correct that the defendant threatend me with hell'

Sarcasm man!

Difficult to argue really.

Putting the ham on the table could be seen as a form of expression which could bring it under hate speech laws.

I don't think we have hate speech laws in the US. We respect people's civil rights to speak their minds regardless of how unpopular their opinions are.

Nobody was harmed by the incident were they?
Did the child who did it have a history of violence or aggression toward the victims of his prank?
Does anyone in his immediate freinds or family have said history of violence or aggression?
Did he place a bomb inside the ham?
Did he smack someone with the ham? (Heheh... hamsmack)
Did he shout a montage of racial/religious slurs at them before, after, or during the act of placing the ham on the table?

If the answer to all or most of those questions is no than there is not sufficient evidence to constitute a hate crime. It was just a stupid and harmless prank pulled by an immature adolesent unless one or more of those circumstances apply.

If the kids who got hammed were Jewish, the meat-slingers would be sharing kielbasa with Big Bubba by now.

<snip>

That's plain old bullshit. The fucking KKK and neo nazi groups are allowed to stage marches and protests and spout all kinds of antisemitic garbage and they don't face prison time for it.

Said pranks sometimes end in Virginia Techesque incidents...

And if he yelled "fuck off you rancid niggers" and threw a ham, even if it was harmless, it is a hate crime. You can't just wait until he slams them with a stick until they bleed to punish him.

Nobody was harmed by the incident were they?
Did the child who did it have a history of violence or aggression toward the victims of his prank?
Does anyone in his immediate freinds or family have said history of violence or aggression?
Did he place a bomb inside the ham?
Did he smack someone with the ham? (Heheh... hamsmack)
Did he shout a montage of racial/religious slurs at them before, after, or during the act of placing the ham on the table?

If the answer to all or most of those questions is no than there is not sufficient evidence to constitute a hate crime. It was just a stupid and harmless prank pulled by an immature adolesent unless one or more of those circumstances apply.

That's not the point. To those kids, ham is obscene, and the kid throwing it knew that.

It would be like me knowing you were a devout christian and dressing up like Jesus and having buttsecks with another kid dressed like Moses right on your dinner table.

P.S: No, I've never actualy done that. ...

<_<

>_>


Well, not buttsecks. :p

Said pranks sometimes end in Virginia Techesque incidents...

And if he yelled "fuck off you rancid niggers" and threw a ham, even if it was harmless, it is a hate crime. You can't just wait until he slams them with a stick until they bleed to punish him.

And I used to have a ton of respect for you... :p

Yes it is obsene and rude. But to call it a hate crime is pretty rediculous, it was investigated and since the answer to all those questions was no, they cannot charge him with a hate crime because they have no evidence, let alone sufficient evidence. That is the point I am trying to make.

That's not the point. To those kids, ham is obscene, and the kid throwing it knew that.

It would be like me knowing you were a devout christian and dressing up like Jesus and having buttsecks with another kid dressed like Moses right on your dinner table.

P.S: No, I've never actualy done that. ...

<_<

>_>


Well, not buttsecks. :p

Is ham really obscene? I doubt it. I'm sure your just not supposed to eat it.

And I used to have a ton of respect for you... :p

Well, here, that kind of incidents would had been followed by two of this variants:

1) Knife fight just after classes. (I witnessed one)

2) Gun fight the next week, with a lot of non-students, friends of the ones offended, involved.

Of course, I live in a hell hole, and that's why I stopped working as a teacher, I'm no Michelle Pfeiffer enough. I have seen how the simplest pranks turn out to be life and death issues.

I don't think we have hate speech laws in the US. We respect people's civil rights to speak their minds regardless of how unpopular their opinions are.

Perhaps they mean something similar to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement_to_ethnic_or_racial_hatred)?

Is ham really obscene? I doubt it. I'm sure your just not supposed to eat it.

Are feces obscene? I doubt it, because I am pretty sure a masai student could throw some at you, and say it isn't, because you are supposed to build houses with that?

Is ham really obscene? I doubt it. I'm sure your just not supposed to eat it.

Varies from sect to sect, just like it does for most religions that have dietary restrictions. For some, it would be an insult, for others, not so much.

Is ham really obscene? I doubt it. I'm sure your just not supposed to eat it.

Neither is seeing Jesus having buttesecks. I'm sure you're just not supposed to do it. :)

Well, here, that kind of incidents would had been followed by two of this variants:

1) Knife fight just after classes. (I witnessed one)

2) Gun fight the next week, with a lot of non-students, friends of the ones offended, involved.

Of course, I live in a hell hole, and that's why I stopped working as a teacher, I'm no Michelle Pfeiffer enough. I have seen how the simplest pranks turn out to be life and death issues.

Not to minimise those incidents, but none of them involves a ham being chucked at someone. Even if they did, though? Get the fuck over it. There are always going to be assholes who don't like you for whatever reason -- be it your race, your religion, your gender, whatever. Suck it up and move on.

Neither is seeing Jesus having buttesecks. I'm sure you're just not supposed to do it. :)

Engaging in anal on the lunch table, regardless of what biblical character you're impersonating, would violate laws against indecent exposure though. Throwing ham would be more like dressing up as Jesus and just making out with Moses. That might be offensive, but I don't think it's illegal.

Are feces obscene? I doubt it, because I am pretty sure a masai student could throw some at you, and say it isn't, because you are supposed to build houses with that?

I thought it was tossed onto the table, not thrown at someone.

And, I suppose, if I was in a country where they built houses from shit bricks, and it was normal to have shit bricks on the table, and someone tossed one on the table to piss me off, there wouldn't really be all that much I could say.

I'm not saying the kid shouldn't be punished for being an asshat. I just don't think this was a criminal act. And it's silly to act as if it is.

Varies from sect to sect, just like it does for most religions that have dietary restrictions. For some, it would be an insult, for others, not so much.

No, I get the insult part. I'm just curious as if it was as grave an offense as some people make out. A bit like the piggy bank thing in the UK, where it turned out most muslims didn't really care that the bank was handing out piggy banks.

Not to minimise those incidents, but none of them involves a ham being chucked at someone. Even if they did, though? Get the fuck over it. There are always going to be assholes who don't like you for whatever reason -- be it your race, your religion, your gender, whatever. Suck it up and move on.

That is a level of maturity that is hard to expect from teenagers...I agree with that, when we are talking about adults.

Engaging in anal on the lunch table, regardless of what biblical character you're impersonating, would violate laws against indecent exposure though. Throwing ham would be more like dressing up as Jesus and just making out with Moses. That might be offensive, but I don't think it's illegal.

Well,throwing ham onto a school lunch table probably violates the health code. :p

...but I get it. ;)

Still, I think you see my point that 'hate crime' is in the interaction between perpetrator and victim. What isn't offenseive to you can be deeply offensive to someone else. If the perpetrator's actions were clearly intended to offend and that offense occurred, does it really matter how you'd react?

Nobody was harmed by the incident were they?
Did the child who did it have a history of violence or aggression toward the victims of his prank?
Does anyone in his immediate freinds or family have said history of violence or aggression?
Did he place a bomb inside the ham?
Did he smack someone with the ham? (Heheh... hamsmack)
Did he shout a montage of racial/religious slurs at them before, after, or during the act of placing the ham on the table?

If the answer to all or most of those questions is no than there is not sufficient evidence to constitute a hate crime. It was just a stupid and harmless prank pulled by an immature adolesent unless one or more of those circumstances apply.
Is it really harmless? Harmless to establish the students as 'others,' to allow them to be unwelcome? To wonder what the next assault on them might be? To be sent a signal that they are unwanted and subject to public ridicule? That they now get to look over their shoulder waiting for the next hillbilly to make some sort of 'statement?' It's a school, they are supposed to have equal access.

And yes, it happens all the time, yes kids are picked on all the time. And you know what? When the bullies are caught they are punished. That's a lame fucking excuse. People speed all the time, but that won't get you out of the ticket. And if the bullying is because of race or religion it's a societal problem.

Is ham really obscene? I doubt it. I'm sure your just not supposed to eat it.
It's really the kind of misguided, stupid, thing that is done when some moron decides to hate instead of even try and understand.

Well,throwing ham onto a school lunch table probably violates the health code. :p

...but I get it. ;)

Still, I think you see my point that 'hate crime' is in the interaction between perpetrator and victim. What isn't offenseive to you can be deeply offensive to someone else. If the perpetrator's actions were clearly intended to offend and that offense occurred, does it really matter how you'd react?

I see your point but I don't agree with it. It's like when Jerry Falwell tried to sue Larry Flynt for putting a parody ad in Hustler where it stated that Falwell screwed his own mother in an outhouse. Clearly intended to offend, but the supreme court ruled that offensive speech is protected.

Well now, If there is anything we should all learn from this is that ham is not a toy...

It's really the kind of misguided, stupid, thing that is done when some moron decides to hate instead of even try and understand.

No, look, I'm not saying it was a good thing to do. The kid should obviously be punished: push-ups, detention, cross county runs in the rain, that sort of thing. I just don't think you can make the case that this act, in a secular society, is the type of thing that should bring in the full weight of the judicial system.

It's not like he was setting fire to mosques or something. He's just a little asshat.

I see your point but I don't agree with it. It's like when Jerry Falwell tried to sue Larry Flynt for putting a parody ad in Hustler where it stated that Falwell screwed his own mother in an outhouse. Clearly intended to offend, but the supreme court ruled that offensive speech is protected.

Offensive against a person, perhaps. But offensive against a religion, gender, race, etc...?

Offensive against a person, perhaps. But offensive against a religion, gender, race, etc...?

Where do you draw the line? When you establish the prescedent that groups have a right not to be offended then you end up with people drawing Mohammed and being punished for it or perhaps a movie like Pulp Fiction or a book like Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, which use the word ******, being banned.

No, look, I'm not saying it was a good thing to do. The kid should obviously be punished: push-ups, detention, cross county runs in the rain, that sort of thing. I just don't think you can make the case that this act, in a secular society, is the type of thing that should bring in the full weight of the judicial system.

It's not like he was setting fire to mosques or something. He's just a little asshat.

I agree with that, although. He needs to be punished, that is simple. And orientation too, just punishment will make it think "those damn negro muslims bitches earned me this, they are gonna pay for it next time".

Going for criminal charges is a bit...overstretched.

Where do you draw the line? When you establish the prescedent that groups have a right not to be offended then you end up with people drawing Mohammed and being punished for it or perhaps a movie like Pulp Fiction or a book like Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, which use the word ******, being banned.

The Supreme Court has been wrestling with that line for a long time.

That's a good thing. Because you're right; it's a fuzzy line. *nod*

Punish them for throwing ham around the cafeteria or punish them for littering because they left the ham there, but don't punish them for their opinions even if they're stupid opinions.

[QUOTE=Cannot think of a name;12609153]Is it really harmless? Harmless to establish the students as 'others,' to allow them to be unwelcome? To wonder what the next assault on them might be? To be sent a signal that they are unwanted and subject to public ridicule? That they now get to look over their shoulder waiting for the next hillbilly to make some sort of 'statement?' It's a school, they are supposed to have equal access.
[QUOTE]

Its life, assholes shit on people, so be a dick and fuck them!

Now to be serious, it only harms you if you LET it harm you. I been in many situations where I was on the recieving end of far worse things and I never let them bother me. Its the people who let it bother them and over react that are the reason people do things like this.

School is not a nice place, it is full of hostile groups of people that want nothing more than to bellittle and deride other groups for little or no reason, just like the rest of the real world. By getting prissy about it you can't make it go away, and there is not much to be done for it, in reality... people suck.

Now to be serious, it only harms you if you LET it harm you. I been in many situations where I was on the recieving end of far worse things and I never let them bother me.

Totally doesn't work in Middle School. Not now.

I graduated from high school less than 5 years ago, so I was in middle school less than 7 years ago. Its the same things now as then, people let things bother them even when it doesn't bother the people involved. We all need to stop being so hyper-sensitive on things.

I graduated from high school less than 5 years ago, so I was in middle school less than 7 years ago. Its the same things now as then, people let things bother them even when it doesn't bother the people involved. We all need to stop being so hyper-sensitive on things.

Some people do things that bother you because it's fun to do those things. And that's all there is to it. They might'n care if it really bothers you or not, they have fun just doing it. It really wouldn't matter how one reacts.

And let's not get into how recently we've been in middle school, M'kay? Trust me.

Now to be serious, it only harms you if you LET it harm you. I been in many situations where I was on the recieving end of far worse things and I never let them bother me.

Always easier said than done

Nobody was harmed by the incident were they?
Did the child who did it have a history of violence or aggression toward the victims of his prank?
Does anyone in his immediate freinds or family have said history of violence or aggression?
Did he place a bomb inside the ham?
Did he smack someone with the ham? (Heheh... hamsmack)
Did he shout a montage of racial/religious slurs at them before, after, or during the act of placing the ham on the table?

If the answer to all or most of those questions is no than there is not sufficient evidence to constitute a hate crime. It was just a stupid and harmless prank pulled by an immature adolesent unless one or more of those circumstances apply.

Its littering at best.

The penalty? Make the hammer clean up.

The only way I could possibly see this as a hate crime is if he slapped this kid with the ham.

At worst, this is littering, otherwise it's just a dick making a racist joke.

And if the bullying is because of race or religion it's a societal problem.



And if it is motivated by something different, say, financial position, is it not a 'societal' problem as well?

I also fail to see how it is a societal problem, I am considered part of society(usually) and have had nothing to do with this ham incident. It is the individual's problem.

Whether it was motivated by the shoes the people were wearing, or that the person just wanted to dump a pirated ham, has rather small significance. Unless of course, the motivation helps predict if there will be a repeat offence, and help in cutting that off at the pass.

You don't decide what your intent was after the fact.

Au contraire, mon frere! Man is a rationalizing animal, not a rational one. I often act, then spin my "intent" to suit the outcome. Makes me look schmart *nods*