Pat Falkenstern

My initial email was intended to reach only my close friends to inform them of the incident after first learning about it. It was circulated beyond my intended scope and because there was nothing in the media, it became the unintended and unqualified “news source” of the story.

Although I am an attorney, I do not practice civil rights law nor work for the government and any reference in my initial email to “hate crime” was more descriptive of my personal opinion and own thoughts on the matter than any type of legal conclusion.

The information we have learned since, through talks with the D.A., is that the D.A.’s office has not decided whether to prosecute this as a “hate crime” under the statute. They are continuing to investigate the matter, build evidence, and seek eyewitnesses that can shed light as to what occurred that evening and what was said. Accordingly, those of us who have volunteered our time to help Ashwani and Asheesh have the understanding, from what we know so far, that although racial animous was a factor that played out at some point in the attack, at least towards Asheesh, we do not yet have the information (nor does the D.A.) to label this as a “hate crime” under the statute. Ultimately, we seek to encourage eyewitnesses to come forward, to educate the community on what occurred so that people can be conscious of what can happen, and to inform those who are in a similar situation as to who to call and which organizations to reach out to. Whether a “hate crime” or not, any violent attack in my opinion is fueled by some type of hate. The fact of the matter is that two members of not only the South Asian community, but the community at large were attacked and one of them happens to be someone I consider a friend. If this crime is ultimately labeled under the law as not a “hate crime”, I find it no less appalling. I am inspired and truly amazed at the way the community has mobilized and given their consideration and time to this. I am truly sorry that Ashwani and Asheesh had to pay the price — but to see such strength and concern in our community — South Asians and beyond — is uplifting.

it *does* feel good when our community rallies against violence, when we do take a stand together. and more often than not, we don’t do enough of that. we find regional/religious/ethnic differences within us to never stand up for each other. so, it was an honor to be there with those who came to help support this man, his friends, and his business

I think you’ve expressed a sentiment that most of us feel, and did so beautifully.

” Let’s see if you’re willing to try and learn something beyond your own anecdotal experience “

I’d advise you to not make light of anecdotal experience. When the cumulative anecdotal experience of a vast representative sample doesn’t quite square with the results of certain reports/studies it leads to frustration. IMO, it is this frustration that metamorphoses into part of the bread and butter of right wingnuts. Don’t have the time to elaborate on this but I hope you get my point. Besides almost every study/report has as its nemesis yet another study/report.

Jeet and Desildki came up with unvarnished, honest accounts of the incident. To me they were saying ” I don’t think it was racist. ” and you and others interefered by asking ” Are you sure? Think again.”

That’s the only point I have been making in this discussion at all, and it’s a rather elementary, banal point well-grounded in basic understandings of discrimination, human psychology, and the law. Your principal response — dare I say your only response, at least to me — has been to say that I have a problem with white people and am “desperately looking for the hate angle.” Which is all just so much nonsense.

You want to talk about losing credibility? You lose credibility when you fail to directly and respectfully engage substantives perspectives with which you might disagree in even a remotely intelligent fashion. And you continue not to do so now.

Let’s not obfuscate the simple issue at hand by bringing up reports/studies that might or might not far fetchedly burnish our respective positions laid out on this post. I don’t deny racism my friend. I refuse to believe it is pervasive in the America of today. That’s what my difference is with you. Mine is not a casual dismissal of people’s credibility. I have been around this blog long enough to justify my opinion of certain commenters.

You said

” Before you start with ad hominem attacks on supposedly liberal judges and people “desparately looking for discrimination,” “

You lose credibility again because you assumed I’d do the above. In one of my comments on this very page I had actually this to say about people who do indulge in such attacks on supposedly liberal judges ;

” I also believe for example that Dinesh D Souza, Hannity, O’Reilly and other conservative talk show hosts have the combined intellect of a dead bird.”

I think we both have said enough. Let the readers decide.

Let’s see if you’re willing to try and learn something beyond your own anecdotal experiences. Here’s an article about a 2003 Supreme Court opinion on mixed motive discrimination. The author of the article frames the issues as follows:

The federal courts of appeal have long disagreed about what to do in “mixed motive” discrimination cases – that is, cases in which an adverse employment action (such as a firing, demotion, or failure to hire) occurs for both legitimate and illegitimate reasons. Last week, in its decision in Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, the Supreme Court provided some much needed clarity on this issue. The bottom line of the Court’s decision is this: Plaintiffs do not need a “smoking gun” to bring a mixed-motive discrimination case. Instead, less obvious evidence of discrimination can also suffice. That’s welcome news for discrimination victims. Employment decisions are rarely made for a single reason. If discrimination enters into the mix, plaintiffs should have the opportunity to sue – without facing any special, higher standards for the proof they must use. [link]

Before you start with ad hominem attacks on supposedly liberal judges and people “desparately looking for discrimination,” the author of the Supreme Court opinion was Justice Thomas.

Next, an excerpt from a guide on hate crimes by the American Proscutors Research Institute discussing mixed motives in the context of hate crimes:

It is important to understand that many hate crimes have dual motives, such as economic/hate and road rage/hate. Often, defense counsel will attempt to use the hate allegation against the prosecutor. Clever defense attorneys attempt to portray the defendant as the hapless soul of an overzealous prosecutor, who is turning a simple misunderstanding into a hate crime. Prosecutors should be prepared to explain the dual motivation and why it is not a legitimate defense. Illinois and other state and federal courts interpreting general hate crime statues have held that bias must be a motivating factor for a hate crime, but it need not be the sole factor. Although some defendants have argued that a “but for” relationship between the motive and the act is necessary to establish guilt, Illinois courts have consistently rejected such an argument. Thus, a hate crime can be charged even if the underlying offense resulted from a mixture of discriminatory and non-discriminatory motives. [link]

This report comes from a prosecutors’ organization, not a community group.

So what was your point again? Oh right, you didn’t have one — rather than responding to any of this on the merits in the first place, you instead resorted to name-calling, finger-pointing, and stupid comments purporting to read people’s minds. Oh, and how could I forget — casual dismissals of people’s “credibility” based on absolutely nothing.

So, are you going to remain true to form, responding this time by attacking Justice Thomas and the prosecutors organization because they are supposedly just “looking for a discrimination/hate angle”? This should be good.