Provincetown’s Civil Rights Officer Sgt. Carrie Lopes is quoted as saying that the perpetrator’s words and actions were not directed at a “specific individual” (as opposed to a group of gay men) and thus do not rise to the level of a crime. Given the information Ms. Lopes provides to the Times, it appears that the perpetrator has been identified and interviewed, but police are refusing to press charges.
It is astonishing that the Provincetown Police would fail to see the clear criminality in the throwing of stones at GLBT people. The conduct could be charged as forcible interference with civil rights, assault and/or battery intended to intimidate because of sexual orientation, and assault and/or battery with a dangerous weapon. Stoning can result in serious injury and, indeed, is the means of capital punishment prescribed in the Book of Leviticus for acts of male homosexuality. This ancient pedigree gives throwing rocks a grisly significance as a type of gaybashing. Even if no one was hit, the act put the victims in reasonable fear of harmful physical contact, and constitutes an assault within the meaning of the law.
It is bizarre that stone-throwing is considered free speech while Barry Scott’s criticism of the police drew both a brutal beating and criminal prosecution. According to the Bill of Particulars produced by the District Attorney, Barry Scott was violently arrested and charged for uttering the following words (which he and witnesses deny he said): “Provincetown Police are here to ruin our night. We hate them.” Is the American GLBT community to understand that the First Amendment protects the stoning of gays, lesbians, or transgenders as a permissible way to express hatred, while vocalizing displeasure with the Provincetown Police is treated as a criminal offense?
The law enforcement situation in Provincetown seems evocative of Alice’s adventures through the looking glass. The Anti-Violence Project has serious and mounting concerns for the safety of GLBT visitors to what has been one of our favorite travel destinations for many decades.
Are they vying with Ft Lauderdale in some weird ‘phobe contest? I’m taking my queer bucks elsewhere. When and if they get their sorry act together, they can look forward to a rekindling of my interest in ever dropping a dime there again.
I would venture to guess that a majority of the summer population of P-Town is gay. They make most of their money from GLBT folks. They have for at least thirty years gone out of their way to cater to the alternative crowd. There is more to this story.
<
p>
Wait til the islamo-fascists take over. Then you will have something to complain about!
I’m not about to boycott P-town over this. I feel like there are more facts to this case which aren’t being discussed.
<
p>
If I knew them…I’d bring them to light. But I don’t.
You’re right Matthew. The position of the Provincetown Police doesn’t make any sense. If you click on the link to the CCT story and scroll down to the comments section, you’ll notice that a relative of the perp, who was caught, is speaking out. The gist of her excuse is he’s sorry for what he did but shouldn’t be punished.
<
p>
There is no organized call for a boycott of Provincetown at this point, but Laurel’s sentiments are becoming more wide-spread from what I can tell.
…we can’t boycott PTown over this incident, largely because we’ve been boycotting PTown since 1984, after it became obvious that the merchants there were largely gouging the tourists. PTown then was largely a dump.
<
p>
On the substance of the matter of the post, I am surprised that the PTown police could not consider rock throwing an assault, if not a battery (if someone had actually been hit), and perhaps disturbing the peace. And that is regardless of whether they wanted to elevate it to a hate crime because of contemporaneous ravings by the perp.
<
p>
Maybe people in the group that was attacked should be encouraged swear out an arrest complaint at the police station.
is a felony to wit:Assault by means of a dangerous weapon.
( Comm V Kelly) striking anyone with the weapon constitutes battery.
<
p>
There is more to this story ie mitigation I suspect.
…might be an issue in a civil suit, but I have yet to see mitigation as being an issue in a criminal complaint.
<
p>
Example: it would be mitigation if a gunshot victim was fast enough to be able to get out of the way of a bullet, but his not doing so would not give rise to a defense based on mitigation.
i was expressing my personal sentiments above, and not calling for a boycott. whether others choose to go to p-town or anywhere else is their own decision. but my time and resources are limited. i choose carefully who and where get rewarded with them.
<
p>
i do agree that there is probably more to the story – isn’t there always? but i’m no longer willing to put up with nasty anti-gay infrastructure, particularly police, in towns i patronize. when a town can demonstrate that it is even-handed, i’m happy to put it back on my list of consideration. same goes for states. i no longer travel in states where the majority of citizens have voted me as a gay person a lesser human being. fuk ’em.
i do actually travel to anti-gay states on occasion, for the purpose of sticking a burr under the bigots’ saddle. it is most satisfying to help to bolster the efforts of LGBT-A in such places, including my natal state. but they get no leisure spending out of me.