The ATF is assisting in the investigation:
Investigators in Forsyth County are still pursuing leads in a fire that destroyed the home of a supporter of President Obama.
They have confirmed that the blaze at the home of Pamela Graf was intentionally set but are not releasing any specifics, Steve Anderson, chief of investigations for the fire department, said Tuesday.
Graf’s home burned Jan. 18 after she left town to attend Obama’s inauguration. Racially charged graffiti was sprayed on a nearby fence.
{ 56 comments }
Next Comments →
If this was a crime I hope they catch the person and throw the book at him and or her. But I hope we are past the point of adding on a hate crime charge. This should be considered at the sentencing phase but why do we need a hate crime added on?
Well, that does it. Looks like Lowery was entitled to say what he said, right Tondee’s Tavern readers?
And John, I agree with your “hate crime” charge comments. A murder is more horrible because someone hated the person because of their ethnicity? Sorry, no. All that leads into is legislating thought and not actions.
Rogue109
Very good point!
Hate crimes – crimes where the intent and the result is to intimidate a large group of people by attacking members of that group just because they belong to that group – merit special attention because they are a form of terrorism. When that’s the case, it does make a murder more heinous, and it also raises the seriousness of crimes like vandalism.
I see Rogue109 is taking on apparent racism that would logically be committed by Caucasians with the same fervor and intent he takes on his perceived (and misplaced) racism perpetuated by African Americans.
“A murder is more horrible because someone hated the person because of their ethnicity?”
Yes. It simply adds to the heinousness of the crime.
What I don’t get is that many conservatives seem to recognize there are degrees of heinousness with regards to a crime, yet the instant the ante could be upped with any sort “-ism”; that can’t work.
Now, if one is going to say “racism is bad” (or at the very least it shouldn’t be tolerated or that it should be eradicated or what have you), it seems pretty easy to say that yes, crimes based on racist intentions are bad and deserve some further degree of prosecution. Of course you could justify a lack of hate crimes by arguing racism isn’t bad (which is ****ing bat **i* insane but I digress) and get away with not supporting hate crimes. However, a serious and earnest claim that racism is not a good thing seems to justify a support of hate crimes.
“All that leads into is legislating thought and not actions.”
You know what, who effing cares if racist/homophobic &c. thoughts are deemed illegal.
However, let’s assume that the government should eradicate hatred, you know how one would stop the spread of such actions, by having laws that criminalize hatred and stop people from doing them. Call them, hate crimes, if you will.
And this is why leftists are so scary…
“Well, that does it. Looks like Lowery was entitled to say what he said, right Tondee’s Tavern readers?”
I think you really just need to go out and kick a cat or stray dog and get whatever bug is up your ass out of your system.
Your constant claims to perfect knowledge and independence indicate a trust fund existence.
“And this is why leftists are so scary”
Good thing I’m not a leftist.
You can keep playing however.
Hate crime legislation and prosecutions perpetuates racism and bigotry.
“Hate crime legislation and prosecutions perpetuates racism and bigotry.”
That’s totally why they let Rodney King off. Really improved the neighborhood of Watts, too.
“…constant claims to perfect knowledge and independence indicate a trust fund existence.”
That statement reminds me more of Princess Kennedy and the Harvard and Yale limousine crowd (including GWB) than Rogue.
As for the Forsyth County arson, let the evidence lead to the criminal/criminals before your mind is made up on the exact nature of this case.
rugby
In all due respect in the sentencing phase is when the seriousness of the crime should be taken into consideration. I agree with Rogue109 that we do not want to have the based on “thought and not actions.”
MINORITY REPORT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gn2sLUJ-eLk
…..not want to have the law based ……
Minority Report was a terrible movie John, why would you suggest I watch it again?
LOL
I think Bowersville advice is the best in this case, and similar ones like it. Things are not always as they appear, and it’s best to let the investigation proceed before we all dig into our positions.
That does it, from now on I only shoot peopl ethat I LIKE!!
That’ll be ok, right?
“Hate Crimes” are “Thought Crimes” straight out of Orwell.
Murder is murder and it doesn’t matter WHY they did it. Period.
I disagree Icky… well sort of… If we would emphasize the property damage aspect instead of the racism aspect, there would be no need to hold off.
I wouldn’t care if someone painted SOB on my house or painted pretty little hearts and flowers. I would still want them prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If government would get out of the business of trying to control thought and do what they’re suppose to do protect life, liberty and property life would be much better and government would be a lot cheaper.
so what dale is saying is all murders are equal–but some murders are just more equal than others??
That’s not really what I’m getting at Daniel, but I’ll let my original comment stand for now.
Let’s go from there, shall we?
Now, if one is going to say “intolerance is bad” (or at the very least it shouldn’t be tolerated or that it should be eradicated or what have you), it seems pretty easy to say that yes, crimes based on motivations of intolerance are bad and deserve some further degree of prosecution.
We can’t tolerate intolerance. Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?
That’s a poor example, and an even worse conclusion.
DaleC said it perfectly @ 4:52
Question for the thought police ( I’m really trying to gain some understanding):
If one(white guy… or black guy and is there a difference?) burns down the house of the Grand Wizard of the KKK, because he hates racist. Is that a hate crime?
How is it different than if he did it because he thought the Grand Wizard was an a-hole and just didn’t like him? And what if the guy just liked burning down people’s houses and it was just chance it was a racist’s house?
Just a generic PP question: Is there a place to discuss SB27? It actually makes for one of the more interesting bills I’ve run across while examining the State Senate thus far. (For anyone that is interested, my name should be linking to the new blog where I’m discussing most of them.)
Because the Grand Wizard of the KKK is a specific individual, and was targeted for that reason.
A better analogy is if a group of black guys from East Point decided they didn’t much care for those Sandy Springs pricks, got hammered, and wandered the street until they found a place that was obviously empty for the weekend. They proceed to scrawl things like “dumb cracker” and stuff about the family’s nubile blond daughter in the yard, kill the dog, and set the place on fire. Double points if this is the kind of thing they’ve done before.
So you need the combined evidence of pre-planning and choice of the victim as a random member of a targeted group. I’ll go with the ACLU rules that you can’t call it a hate crime just because the person committing it is a racist or a part of a racist org. The evidence has to show that particular act was committed due to hate.
Of course, juries are imperfect, your mileage may vary, etc., etc.
DK:
SB 27 – Confederate Heritage/History Month; create; encourages observances/celebrations; provide statutory construction
That SB27? The only way that bill merits a thread is to mock the morons who introduced and sponsored it.
“The only way that bill merits a thread is to mock the morons who introduced and sponsored it.”
Isn’t that one of our top criteria?
Chris:
Yes, that bill. But don’t just look at the title. Read the bill. It actually makes a lot of sense.
But wait, I thought y’all didn’t want to do victimhood. I mean come on, Georgia’s main contribution in that time was to be burnt from Atlanta to Savannah.
Odin:
Point being the Civil War was a major turning point in GA history, for a variety of reasons.
Honestly, I doubt seriously that we would be in the position we are in now – both good and bad – had it not happened, and therefore it deserves the month of recognition.
Again though, I could make the same arguments against it that I make against Black History Month. (Chiefly, that said history should be integrated throughout the year and not simply singled out for one month.)
PTB, I seriously think this is a topic worthy of consideration in its own thread.
I would highly encourage people to read up on some Libertarian philosophy. And of course some of us have been “force fed” the stuff being pushed into the Libertarian camp due to the whole “snooping and spying” activity of the neocons, among other things. But personally I”m glad I’ve been enlightened somewhat. But with “hate” legislation, if you look at the effect, all the sudden you see whites defending “hate” (because they’re not covered) and the resultant “race based” divisions. So what is the real goal of hate legislation????????
Thanks od,
Personally, I believe for every situation I described, maximum prosecution for destruction of private property was warranted.
So, what you’re saying, as a defense, in order to get a lighter sentence, the perpetrator has to get the jury to believe he is not a racist or doesn’t hate his victim because the victim has been categorized by the masses to belong to some group that the perp has ill feelings for? Interesting.
Socialism is complicated… I’ve been fighting it so long, I figured I needed to start catching up.
So what is the real goal of hate legislation????????
Even though some of what I’m saying sounds to be a little tongue in cheek, actually… really, as a libertarian, I’m really interested in trying to understand the goal as well. I suspect, it is another one of those instances where the heart is in the right place… but the logical philosophy is flawed and therefore perpetuates the thing they would like to get rid of (I also believe, for some, that is the goal).
Daniel,
Well, you can look at the goal three ways.
1) Which I’m really not down with, is the revenge for the victim, which somewhat includes the targeted community.
2) Greater dissuasion from the crime, which one major reason for scaling penalties in the first place.
3) If you are looking at someone that will attack people or property based just on what they resemble, that’s a scary mofo and it’s better to get them out of society. Kind of the same logic as with serial killers – it’s more likely for a repeat when it is not just a beef with a given individual.
“Again though, I could make the same arguments against it that I make against Black History Month. (Chiefly, that said history should be integrated throughout the year and not simply singled out for one month.)”
Somewhat agreed. I seem to remember a lot of my history instruction as learning about wars and shifting state boundaries rather than the much more interesting stuff that happened in between. I mean, sure, there was a few blurbs on frontier life and the Depression here and there, but what about things like the Bonus Army or the Wobblies or all the various other ebbs and flows of the realm.
Oh, and a slight confession of bias – I don’t think I ever learned anything about the South other than it being the home of slavery and the loser of the Civil War.
In history class, I mean. Atlanta’s history vis-a-vis the rest of the state actually intrigues me whenever a get a spare moment to read a bit about it.
1.) goes to the perpetuation I mentioned.
2 and 3 to some extent.) gets somewhat into the legislating morality, which history has shown doesn’t work and that education and ridicule is a better alternative (if a person has no respect for life and property, incarceration doesn’t give it to them, but debts, even to society, should be paid).
3.) The serial killer comparison and get them out of society in order to protect society, I can go along with and I’ll give more thought to that aspect, even though the property damage and taking of life, I believe, is sufficient without the “hate crime” attachment.
It’s just that a lot of times, especially with graffiti, it’s more of a rebellious, get a rise out of the public, more than really targeting a group with hate. But that is what verbal, free speech should be used for (but too many laws or rules have hurt this vents use). Destruction of property (graffiti and burnings) or the taking of life (if a murder is involved) should be the focus of the crime committed and should be the one prosecuted… due to the fact that this is a legitimate role of government to do so.
Graffiti inferring that a certain person( in this case the POTUS) will die is not destruction of property.
But then again, all the evidence is not in on this case.
My comment should have read ” not merely destruction of property.”
Understand bv, but still not convinced, even when prosecuting a threat, that “hate crime” status makes it more or less of a crime. Other than to ramp up emotion… then that gets us back to, what is the goal?
I’m not into the “hate crime” status either.
We need to be done with the whole hate crime issue. Period. If a crime was committed then procecute it. If the criminal is a repeat offender, un-remorseful, throughout the trial then take that into consideration during sentencing.
If what the guy was doing has some sort of terroristic implications – lets say attacking a small group of white households that are “holdouts” in a neighborhood that has become mostly black in the past 5 years
– then tack that on as one of the crimes. If you can’t prove that, then leave it alone. It just perpetuates the various divisions. Calling it a “hate crime” and trying to prove that does nothing to what anyone else thinks – a homophobe isn’t going to change her opinion because her boyfriend gets tossed in jail for extra time when he beats up the local drag queen…
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/northfulton/stories/2009/02/04/obama_supporter_fire.html?cxntlid=homepage_tab_newstab
weel its looks all that hate crime chatter might be moot in this case anyway—interesting
Looking at her picture it makes me think she left her meth lab running while she was out, thus causing the fire.
Icarus said it best:
There are too many scum in this world who would use the inflamed emotions of staged racial attacks to their own sick ends. Sometimes that end is just there own publicity, sometimes it is for money. In either case, jumping to conclusions is what rewards them.
well i think its worth noting the histrionics some people were having here and at the tavern where flack said there was a special place in hell for the folks who do this kinda stuff and blah, blah, blah–we’ll see if he updates folks on the story there–i thought it should be updated here as well…
actually flack has jumped on it w/ both feet–it will be interesting to here the final outcome on this case as it unfolds…
Very interesting, and right on target with what I was thinking/suspecting.
Not knowing this woman or anything about the case except for news reports, there was no way I was going to post on a blog that she should not be overlooked as a suspect. If she had been the victim of a racial attack, the last thing she needed was being attacked by bloggers for possibly setting her own house on fire.
I know of two prior cases, however, that were very similar, where an arsonist tried to cover up their crime by making it look like a racial attack. In addition, this arson occurred when she was out of town, which is typical in a lot of arson cases, as the suspect believes it gives them a good alibi.
It further made no sense because she claimed “she was the only one in her neighborhood who had an Obama sign in her yard”. That, frankly, just doesn’t pass the smell test.
there are plenty of subdivisions in my area that were pretty monolithic in the yard signage this past cycle…
It wasn’t just that she claimed she had the only Obama sign, it was what she said, and how she said it.
She “just knew”, and stuff like that. She also played the “Forsyth County” card pretty hard. Let’s just say that when watching her objectively with past knowledge of similar claims that were total fraud, I did not find her overwhelmingly credible.
Next Comments →
Comments on this entry are closed.