Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Crime The Courts United States Technology

Prosectors Say the Kansas Shooting of Garmin Engineers Was a Hate Crime (theverge.com) 227

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Federal prosecutors have filed a hate crime charge against 51-year-old Kansas resident Adam Purinton, according to the Department of Justice. Purinton, who is accused of shooting three people in an Olathe bar, reportedly told a local Garmin engineer to "get out of my country" before opening fire. Purinton is currently being held on first-degree murder charges filed by local prosecutors. Today's indictment accuses Purinton of committing murder "because of Kuchibhotla's actual and perceived race, color, religion and national origin," with additional charges for the attempted murder of Madasani and violations of federal firearm statutes. The Justice Department declined to say whether it will pursue the death penalty, although it is authorized by the hate crime statute.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Prosectors Say the Kansas Shooting of Garmin Engineers Was a Hate Crime

Comments Filter:
  • Hold up (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cfalcon ( 779563 ) on Friday June 09, 2017 @06:04PM (#54588147)

    So a state can take away the death penalty for murder, and there's no death penalty for murder. But if someone murders for RACISM, then the feds can come in overrule the state? That's a little bit odd, right?

    • Re:Hold up (Score:5, Interesting)

      by kronix1986 ( 1060830 ) on Friday June 09, 2017 @06:12PM (#54588207)

      No. Federal offenses may be capital offenses, e.g. treason or terrorism. If it's being prosecuted by the federal government because the crime is federal, the punishment is obviously going to be federal - e.g. the death penalty for a race-driven multiple murder.

    • I don't like Garmins either. But I wouldn't shoot at them.
      • I don't know what has happened to Garmin. The first one I owned was 100 times better than the one I own now. Seems that the screen has less contrast (as bad as Google Maps), and the ETAs are always way off.

        Maybe they need to rehire some of the older, smarter people who used to work for them.
      • I don't like Garmins either. But I wouldn't shoot at them.

        I don't know, was this guy responsible for either Viago or the Express Updater? I stopped using my Garmin 1450LMT because it wouldn't update any more. The updater just shits itself, it gives no useful error, and Garmin gave me no help. It doesn't have a lifetime warranty or I could just return it to Amazon. I also bought Viago for Android, which literally never worked (I never managed to get it to work for a single trip) and which they abandoned months after bringing it to market.

        Not that Garmin gives a shi

    • by msauve ( 701917 )
      There's state law, and there's federal law. They can differ, and some crimes are covered by both, so could be prosecuted under either. There's also the supremacy clause, which makes federal law supreme.
    • Re:Hold up (Score:5, Informative)

      by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Friday June 09, 2017 @07:04PM (#54588589) Journal

      The reason Federal hate crimes were created to begin with so that where a state's law enforcement, prosecution or courts would refuse to charge, prosecute or convict some mouth-breathing KKKer for lynching someone, they would still see justice. Do you have a problem with that?

      • by brunes69 ( 86786 )

        His problem (and mine) is with the death penalty, not the federal crime.

    • So a state can take away the death penalty for murder, and there's no death penalty for murder. But if someone murders for RACISM, then the feds can come in overrule the state?

      First of all, Kansas has the death penalty.

      Second, if you don't like the Feds prosecuting this as a capital case, you need to talk to the Trump Justice Department. They're the ones who brought the case.

      That's a little bit odd, right?

      Why don't you tell us what you find "odd" about it?

    • See (b) (1) B, C and D here [cornell.edu].
    • by Megol ( 3135005 )

      Now I understand that you may be drunk, high and perhaps having a basic problem with thinking and understanding the world around you. But I'd suggest you don't try to react and say/write/scream bullshit before actually making some effort to understand whatever you is upset about. Oh, and you may want to sober up before commenting.

      There are crimes classified as federal level crimes. Those crimes aren't handled at a state level, they aren't processed at a state level and if found guilty a person suspected for

  • by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Friday June 09, 2017 @06:41PM (#54588405)

    The annoying argument that "all violent crimes are hate crimes" is stupid and incorrect because a "hate crime" is a crime perpetrated not against an individual but rather indiscriminately against a member belonging to a group that the perpetrator hates.

    Glad we could clear that up.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The annoying argument that "all violent crimes are hate crimes" is stupid and incorrect because a "hate crime" is a crime perpetrated not against an individual but rather indiscriminately against a member belonging to a group that the perpetrator hates.

      Glad we could clear that up.

      NO that's not clear. Why should the punishment be different if the perp just hated the victim's group instead of the individual? "I just wanted to kill a [group name] instead of I wanted to kill [specific individual]? Specificity does not change the action or the result. Ideology/politics/religion be damned.

      • by c0y ( 169660 ) on Friday June 09, 2017 @07:14PM (#54588673) Homepage

        When the crime is committed on the basis of victim's group identity, the other members of the group have reason to fear being targeted for the same reason and there are more victims. More victims = more punishment.

        These laws are intended in part to prevent civil unrest (in the form of race riots) that can occur when one community perceives they are being targeted and law enforcement is not adequately protecting them. They (understandably) may take law into their own hands through mob violence and then we're in for full scale civil unrest (because mob justice is rarely so.... "just" and is more likely to create the same kind of racial hostility in return.

        The motive matters because when that motive is animus towards a large group of people, the consequences of group-level retaliation are bad for all of society.

      • Generally in the US criminal law is a state matter. However, the Federal Government, via the Supremacy Clause, can create its own criminal statutes. Hate crimes, in particular, grew out of the civil rights issues of the 1950s and 1960s, and gave the FBI and Federal prosecutors the power to pursue criminal charges against accused individuals who were often either given excessively lenient sentences, if they were even charged, tried and convicted at all, for attacks on African-Americans in certain southern st

      • Think of it like this: generally speaking, it's possible to have collateral damage in any crime. Laws are often about identifying this and addressing it.

        Alice wants to kill Bob. She walks into Carol's restaurant with an AK-47 and sprays bullets around, killing Bob. The bullets shred seats, break windows, and generally make a mess. Do you argue that Alice should not be responsible for the damage to Carol's restaurant because murder is murder, and murder is what Alice was doing?

        Alice wants to kill Bob. S

  • by 140Mandak262Jamuna ( 970587 ) on Friday June 09, 2017 @07:01PM (#54588563) Journal
    Just last week there was a panel of law enforcement officials having an out reach program at our Hindu temple. FBI, state attorney, local police chief, etc. One thing they said was "ethnic intimidation" can not be used as a charge by itself. It can only be an additional charge, on another crime. They said, paraphrasing here, "intimidation is a crime, harassment is a crime, no matter who does it to whom. If we can show that it was motivated by hatred or prejudice then we can tack on an additional ethnic intimidation charge. If we can not prove this we will not add this charge. Sometimes adding an iffy secondary charge makes the jury dismiss the primary charge as well. Sometimes the press focuses on us not making the ethnic intimidation charge and people don't notice we made a standard plain vanilla intimidation charge. Report all harassment, all intimidation. Even if we can not charge the ethnic intimidation, we can make the primary charge stick. Even if the ethnic intimidation is not charged, just regular harassment/intimidation charge is enough to send the signal that these are crimes and there are consequences. Victims not reporting crime emboldens criminals, even more than charges getting dismissed. "

    All the people who attended it were fairly affluent well educated Indians. I am sure in every community outreach people who have the time, energy and motivation to listen to bunch of law enforcement officials on a Wednesday evening would be fairly affluent and well educated. Made us realize despite conflicting media portrayals these are just plain hard working underpaid unsung unheralded Americans trying to do the best job they can.

    • Made us realize despite conflicting media portrayals these are just plain hard working underpaid unsung unheralded Americans trying to do the best job they can.

      For some of them, that is true. For others, it is not true. Police officers have discretion as to whether to make an arrest, and when making an arrest, whether to take a suspect into custody. Statistics show that they overwhelmingly abuse this power to punish and abuse certain groups on an individual level, and also that they are targeted specifically at those groups by those who manage them. The situation is frustrating because a society can't really exist without policing, but who watches the watchmen? Ev

      • Friend, I don't disagree with you at all. The impression I got was, "gee these suits don't look or talk like the high handed officials portrayed in the news reports and web fora".
  • Bhagat Singh Thind was a Californian, who challenged the US Govt. Curiously he did not disagree with the law that said "Only Free White people can be naturalized as citizens of USA". It was in the 1920s. He argued that he was a Free White person!

    He claimed he was a high caste Hindu speaking an Aryan language. (The language family currently known as Indo-European was called Indo-Aryan then). He claimed he belong to the ruling caste from Caucusus that conquered India. He avowed that he has as much prejudice

  • Sam Tyler: I think we need to explore whether this attempted murder was a hate crime.

    Gene: What as opposed to one of those I-really-really-like-you sort of murders?

  • Beaumanish should be prosected for hate crimes against the English language.

  • What is a prosector?

Don't steal; thou'lt never thus compete successfully in business. Cheat. -- Ambrose Bierce

Working...