The victim was Michael Sandy, a gay, black 28-year-old. The suspects were a group of young whites who ran out of money and drugs on a Sunday night and figured a gay man would be an easy mark for a robbery.
Police said the men, using an online chat room, lured Sandy to a remote New York City beach by promising a date, then beat him and chased him into the path of a speeding car. Mayor Michael Bloomberg called the crime “a pernicious scheme” to single out a victim because of his sexual orientation. Prosecutors filed murder and hate crimes charges.
But a trial has produced a surprise: The man who first suggested going after a gay target was probably gay too.
Taking the stand in his own defense, Anthony Fortunato testified about having a series of one-night stands with men he met online. He said he had been having homosexual impulses since he was around 13, although he kept that hidden from friends.
“I was living two complete double lives,” said Fortunato, 21. When asked directly about his sexual orientation, he said, “I don’t know. I could be homosexual. A homosexual. Bisexual.”
The revelation  corroborated by three men who testified that they had sexual encounters with Fortunato  was intended to question the validity of charging him with a hate crime, an offense that could add years to his prison sentence if he is convicted.
Defense attorney Gerald Di Chiara said his client clearly had no hatred for gays.
Well, at least he’s not black. Anyway, is he gay beyond a reasonable doubt?
Two complete double lives sounds complicated. Meh. Must be a Rethug.*
Related: Gisele Bundchen caught kissing aboriginal Australian
Would be more interesting if she were caught kissing a Brazilian.
*America is filled with people like Dan Collins, some of whom may be in your own families. I recall a relative of mine arguing in favor of extensive war in the Middle East, saying that if we didn’t bomb the Arabs into submission, they would come over here and “fuck us in the ass.” That’s a direct quote, by the way. I remember that line well because I had no real come back to it. I mean, what do you say to that: “To the contrary, they won’t fuck us in the ass”? Not exactly Oxford debate material. Still, the rightwing fascination with homosexual rape and queer-tinged scenarios in general says more about their confused psyches than the actual politics of the real world. I’ve run into this time and time again. Hell, twenty years ago I heard similar violent and gay-oriented rhetoric from the ex-Dartmouth Review editors and writers I had gotten to know. Back then, it was the Sandinistas who wanted to fuck us in the ass. You’d think that the U.S. has the most tantalizing rear the planet has ever seen, given how many countries desire cramming their dark, uncircumcised pricks deep inside our cheeks. This is why we must kill them before they drop their pants and pull out the bad news. Call it the Tucker Carlson school of international diplomacy.
h/t Dennis Perrin, cited approvingly by James Wolcott.
Now that Fortunato is on trial, perhaps we’ll get the answer to what he did to Montresor.
“Anyway, is he gay beyond a reasonable doubt?”
Naah, he only needs to create a reasonable doubt. He might need the court to find a preponderance of the evidence to get a jury instruction although I can’t imagine what kind. Maybe, “If you find the defendant is a faggot you cannot find that he hates faggots”?
If he screw the shit, you must acquit?
Of course I hate crime. Who wouldn…. Oh. Sorry.
Hater.
Maybe this is just a bigoted callous thing to say, but it looks to me like this was less a matter of preying on the gay then preying on the stupid-who-in-this-case-was-also-gay.
Who, in this day and age, goes for a face to face meeting with someone fromt eh intarwebs, alone and to a dark loaction with few people around?
It could still be a hate crime if he’s one of them self-loathing gays. You know, opposing same-sex marriage and horrible things like that.
4 lives?
Homo, homo, bi…1 + 1 + 2 = 4. Okay. It does add up.
That’s an eye-opener.
Oh, those pesky protected classes! Always pulling their own pigtails. If it’s not black on black, it’s queer on queer.
And this is one reason hate crime prosecution is so tricky.
It wouldn’t be tricky because, by legislation, you’ve made what’s in someone’s heart and mind a crime and now you have to prove that as well?
I don’t know, cynn. I think it ought to be illegal to beat and rob gay men (and women!) and to chase them into oncoming traffic. It’s wrong. And it’s not sporting.
Shouldn’t it be illegal to rob and beat anyone and then chase them into traffic?
By the way, Dan, I got the point of the faggot debacle, although I thought it was slightly off-key. But what are you trying to prove here? Pointing out a gay on gay crime and then following it up with a sardonic remark about the fungibility of gayness and then capping it with an excerpt of an interpretation of the raving right’s Fay Wray level fear of the LurkinLamists?
On a lighter note, go Rox and I’m waiting for that surgery show to come on!
OK, agreed it’s wrong to commit crimes against other people. Plus, clubbing baby seals is bad too. But what can you do? People are people; fags especially.
So killing this person should garner a greater punishment than that person despite that people are people?
I mean if there’s a point system, or something, that’d be great. Picking up a new rifle tomorrow and it’s always good to know the groundrules.
This particular crime has resonance. No point really, just was thinking about other stuff in ’86 and somehow missed that.
RTO – I suppose “hate” could be an exacerbating factor here. Three blocks away from me, a Latino kid is being sought in the shooting of two Korean shop owners in a burglary attempt. No hate mentioned there. So why the gay case? Just asking.
Of course the case Dan cites is awful. To his larger point, so is the threat involving Rose, who in my opinion has more balls than a McPlayplace for running those cartoons.
Can one crime have two or more hate crimes added to it?
I mean, just think if a white American beat up a foreign, gay, black, fat, geeky, Christian (oops, I mean muslim, it’s not a hate crime to beat up a Christian).
One year for the assault, plus all the hate crimes; life in prison.
No problem with exacerbating or mitigating factors. Do have a problem with making an opinion into a crime, or even a sentencing guideline.
I’m sorry, I apparently missed the point. Please clarify, RTO. What’s under discussion here?
… and I say that politely, before I suspect a head-but into the belly of politicor (political correctness), the handmaiden of the IslamObamafacsts).
So the next time a gang of black gays lure a white dude into a trap with promises of tailgate parties, Hooters waitresses and all-night Bachman-Turner medleys, I want FUCKING JUSTICE!!!
What were you thinking, Dan?
US marines likely to avoid
murder charges over killing of
Iraqi civilians
“The revelation  corroborated by three men who testified that they had sexual encounters with Fortunato  was intended to question the validity of charging him with a hate crime”
And instead a love crime? no dice yo.
OK. Now let’s suppose that this Michael Sandy had failed to show up. Instead some straight white male happened along that same deserted beach, and these punks beat him and chased him into the path of a speeding car, which strikes and kills him. And the punks are caught, as was the case here.
Presumably there would be no “hate crime” charge added on top of the murder charge. That being the case, whatever happened to “equal protection under the law”?
Just wondering…
Love hurts Andy.
insert comma
It seems to me also that hate crimes are biased against the poorly educated. I wonder if anyone ever accused of a hate crime has ever actually graduated college? Either way, I think it’s a lot easier to convict stupid people for this sort of thing cause stupid people tend to kind of look like they could be convincingly hateful. Think security guards.
So, if you sleep with a half-asian bisexual chick and her butch biker girlfriend beats you up for it…is that a hate crime?
Rhetorically speaking, of course…not that I, er, some guy I know was beat up by an Indigo Girl in Caterpillar boots and a lumberjack shirt…
The Rick – That, err, guy you know, by any chance, did he say whether it was worth it.
Totally.
A painful beating is temporary, Asian poon is forever (and it runs perpendicular…or so I’ve heard)
Plus, with how petite Asian chicks are, it makes your shlong look much larger when, ahem, posted on the interweb and sent via text message.
I’ll be in my bunk!
With the staggering amount of porn available online (or so I’ve been told) you’d think that particular myth would have been dispelled by now.
(Keeps Frank O’Hara joke to himself.)
“Two complete double lives sounds complicated. Meh. Must be a Rethug.*”
Heh. You must watch ‘Big Love’. Pfeh.
There’s also the three guys that had to miss work or whatever and get dragged into court for this nonsense. They can’t be big hate crime supporters after this you gotta figure.
Hate Crime sentencing guidelines is one of those ideas that doesn’t make much sense when you first look at it.
Then, when you take a deeper look and think about it a bit, it still doesn’t make sense.
But when you really reflect deeply on the subject, it still doesn’t make sense.
EXCEPT as a Sacrifice to the Narrative, a form of “criminal affirmative action.”
Of COURSE it violates equal protection. Duh. But what about
votessuffering?The gay man was targeted because the criminals thought it would be easier to attack a gay man and get away with it.
Poor people are targeted and attacked every day because criminals (rightly) think it’s easier to attack them and easier to get away with it.
Hate crimes laws don’t make sense, because criminals almost always choose their victims based on some criteria, and it’s rarely criteria that society is going to sign off on.
Some smart-alek Repugnicon should put up a bill that would add “middle-class” and “wealthy” people to the list of protected groups. That would expose hate crimes laws for the sham that they are.
I’m not sure it’s the actual crime that constitutes raising the level of prosecution. Beat down, tussle, chase into traffic, HORN, BONK, yawn – another day in NYC.
It’s the fact that these guys lured this poor soul by using the “hey little girl, want some candy?” ploy. As anybody with any sense knows: you sprinkle a couple “felches” and “rusty trombones” over your chat and your response rate for young gay males who carry a lot of cash goes to about 98%.
Many is the time that I’ll chat about broadheads or the latest “Hot Rutting Buck” lure, and the next thing I know I’m in the car with $3500 cash heading to a meeting with another hunter at his remote deer stand in the middle of 600 heavily wooded acres. So far I’ve been lucky enough to come to my senses and think “What are you doing, Al? It’ll be too dark to shoot by time to get there.”
[…] to Protein Wisdom homepage « Hate Crime [Dan Collins] | Home | October 5, 2007 Larry Craig Reiterates Claim […]
Cubs lost #2. ( There’s a double meaning in that.) They will lose again tonight.
“Some smart-alek Repugnicon should put up a bill that would add “middle-class†and “wealthy†people to the list of protected groups.”
That wouldn’t work. There is no list of protected group to add them to. There are protected categories. So you may add ‘socioeconomic status’ to the list.
If they ever enact a law against “apathy crime,” I’m in big trouble.
andy–
Please outline the distinction between a group and a category, in this context.
“andy–
Please outline…”
Hee. good one Dan.
“Please outline the distinction between a group and a category, in this context.”
Some examples: A category is “sexual orientation.” Groups would be “gay,” or “straight.” A category is “race,” groups would be “black,” “white,” etc… A category is “height,” groups would be “tall,” “short,” “average.”
The idea is everyone is in some place in a given category. But not everyone is in a given same group. Categories are ways to select or sort people. Groups are which particular selection you fall into for a particular category.
Thus there is “equal protection” because everyone has a place in a category. Everyone has a “height.” So protecting the category of “height” does not violate equal protection.
Has nobody ever explained hate crimes to you? Or you never looked into them? It seems like something you’d be fluent in.
So all sexual orientations are afforded the same protection, for example?
Two complete double lives? He had four lives? His carbon footprint must be huge!
“So all sexual orientations are afforded the same protection, for example?”
I doubt they would be constitutional if they didn’t. I think you’ll get this quite quickly if you read these laws. Try reading these laws. They say “sexual orientation.” So for example, the ADL model legislation for bias motivated crimes says:
You’ll see it lists protected categories. Not groups. If you find a group one, that should be changed. Because its wrong, yo.
– Dan, this is obe of those “differences without a distinction” the Left is so famous for whenever they get caught with thier special brand of spechul logic going full circle and poking them in the ass.
– Thus the landscape is littered with Progessive supported special interest/special protection groups, such as teh Gheys, leading to the real question they would never want to answer; How do you know anyones orientation without asking, assuming they aren’t whining for some advantage. Well, its simple. You (Gasp Oh the horror!). you profile.
You see, that’s the problem. Let’s say that everyone has some kind of entity status in each category (which is not a group). Each ought to be protected under each category from crimes motivated by hate. So, for example, if I hit on a lesbian at the bar, and one of her friends takes a tire-iron to the back of my head when I walk out, saying, “Fucking breeder!” as she does it, that ought to be a hate crime, right? In point of fact, what are the odds that the police or the DA would press it as such?
We can’t see into someone’s heart, right? So, she says “fucking breeder,” but she’s smacking me upside the head (with a tire iron) because she’s jealous of her girlfriend, and maybe doesn’t like guys much. Is it a hate crime, still?
So what it comes down to is the perceived motivation of the perpetrator, which is perceived due to difference. For example, in the presumed sexual orientation of the perpetrator in the article linked above. Fortunately, for the prosecutor, the victim is also black, so he can still claim that there’s a difference that motivated the hateful act. In point of fact, what the law seems to claim, since we cannot peer into the human heart, is that it is worse to injure someone different from ourselves (in terms of the categories that the law contemplates) than someone superficially like us. This is the version of “diversity” that lawyers and universities claim is important. The matter of disagreement on principles or way of thinking about things is not addressed.
I say we are at war with those who wish to supplant our values with theirs. I am an advocate of our values. Personally, I don’t care if the person who shares them is Asian, Muslim, homosexual . . . whatever. If people who believe in freedom have slanty eyes, it makes no difference to me. In them, I survive, as much as I do in my children. An insult against one person is an insult against all. Hate crime penalty enhancement is a justification of the kind of discrimination–profiling–that the left decries, until it becomes a matter of power relations.
– andy, andy, andy. When was the last time you reviewed the meaning of “Equal”. To make it simple for you, Lets say I’m a 275 lb Bi, redheaded male Emmu breeder from Downtown Burbank. Why would I be afforded any less protection than my Ghey next door neighbor. It doesn’t matter which label, or parameter, or metric you use. Singling out any cluster of citizens of a specific characteristic for special treatment under tje law is wrong, yo.
(But then the Demdorks wouldn’t have all those political Easter baskets to hand out.)
Let’s add to the kerfuffle.
SEN Kennedy has added an amendment to the 2008 Defense Authoirization, passed by the Senate on Monday. The amendment lowers the threshold of proof relating to hate crimes and expands the meaning of such crimes to include those relating to homosexuals, transsexuals, or the disabled.
Under current federal law, hate crimes apply to acts of violence against individuals on the basis of race, religion, color or national origin. Federal prosecutors have jurisdiction only if the victim is engaged in a specific federally protected activity such as voting.
The bill would extend the hate crimes category to include sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability and give federal authorities greater leeway to participate in hate crime investigations. It would approve $10 million over the next two years to help local law enforcement officials cover the cost of hate crime prosecutions. Federal investigators could step in if local authorities were unwilling or unable to act.
The President has taken the view that this is a a poison pill and may become the first President in US history to veto a defense authorization over this amendment.
And of course, hate crime has what to do with defense spending?
Simply put, giving a “hate crime” stronger penalty than a…”non-hate crime”? Is a LARGE step toward giving the government the power to punish citizens for wrongful thought. Whether I stomp a mudhole on a darky, a redman, a tard, a honky, a chinaman, or a dyke I am committing violence on another person, period. Why is it worse if I do it for hatred, vs. greed, jealousy, or just out of bloodlust?
And of course, it’s a step toward making the hate illegal without the crime. Eventually, we’ll be looking at a Bush I broccoli prosecution.
The main problem with these laws is that we are individuals, not categories. laws are addressed to the conduct of individuals towards other individuals, not categories.
Hate Crime laws are Thought Crime laws. Pure and simple. Trying to justify it is just cheesy PC tapdancing and PoMo bullshit.
I’m for proximity crime legislation. That’s where it would be illegal to commit acts of violence against someone on the basis of their proximity.
“So, for example, if I hit on a lesbian at the bar, and one of her friends takes a tire-iron to the back of my head when I walk out, saying, “Fucking breeder!†as she does it, that ought to be a hate crime, right?”
You’d have to show beyond a reasonable doubt that she was motivated by bias towards your actual or perceived sexual orientation.
“So, she says “fucking breeder,†but she’s smacking me upside the head (with a tire iron) because she’s jealous of her girlfriend, and maybe doesn’t like guys much.”
So there’s also bias towards gender?
But it looks like she can raise reasonable doubt. It looks like you’re on to something: hate crimes prosecutions are hard. Usually thats considered a problem by people who want perps found guilty. Here you consider it a problem because you want the perp found innocent?
Who hates disabled people? I know they’re big on that in Europe, but really, I’m not really sold on that idea. The cancer survivor down the hall is a little annoying the way someone will ask her how she’s doing and she’s all like “I’M DOING GREAT!!!!!” like she won the freaking lottery or something. Which that would actually be the lady a floor up.