The Boston-based Anti-Violence Project called on state and police attorneys in Salem and Rockingham County,
New Hampshire to prosecute the July 29, 2011 attack on fitness expert and LGBT
ally Scott Herman as a hate crime. In a letter-brief filed on August 23, 2011,
the Anti-Violence Project cited New Hampshire’s anti-hate crime statute to
argue that alleged offenders Dean Bidgood and James Leavitt of Atkinson, NH should
be met with the enhanced penalties prescribed for bias crimes, after
perpetrating the hate-laced “road rage” incident.
According to the Lawrence Eagle-Tribune, http://www.eagletribune.com/latestnews/x1406722102/Salem-road-rage-victim-speaks-out
Herman was flagged down—stopped at a red light—by Bidgood and Leavitt in the
early morning hours of Friday 29 July. He pulled over because he thought he
knew them. They charged his car (which advertises his fitness studio), threw
open the doors, and goaded him to get out and fight, taunting him as a
“faggot.” Bidgood kicked at Herman from the passenger side of the car, but Herman
kept his cool and called 911. Bidgood, who has a prior criminal record, has a
probable cause hearing in the Salem, New Hampshire District Court scheduled
Wednesday, September 7.
Anti-Violence Project Chairperson Don Gorton
stressed the bias indicator evidence which is the signature of a hate crime. As
they accosted Herman, the alleged perpetrators yelled, “You want to get fucked
up tonight you faggot!” Herman is a visible ally to the LGBT community on
issues including bullying prevention and marriage equality—and allies of
targeted groups are themselves exposed to hate crimes. Herman believes that he
was identified and singled out. Moreover, Bidgood and Leavitt made no attempt
to rob Herman. According to Gorton, “the only plausible motive for what
happened to Scott was anti-gay hostility. Bashers don’t have reliable ‘gaydar.’”
Gorton continued: “The LGBT community must stand with our straight allies as they too
can become targets of homophobia. The attack on Scott was an attack on all of
us.” Gorton praised Herman for remaining calm in the circumstances and not responding
with violence himself. “Scott is demanding justice under law, which is the
civilized way to deal with outrageous behavior like that exhibited July 29th.”
The Anti-Violence Project will be monitoring the prosecutions as they go forward,
and raising community awareness of Scott’s cause.
I’m not buying his story of why he pulled his car over “in the early morning hours”. Sounds like he was cruising for love and picked the wrong fellows.
I don’t believe in hate crimes. The beating is enough to send these guys away for awhile. But keep in mind, most people are not pulling over to talk to two males at 1:00 a.m.
When a woman is raped at 2:00a walking on the esplanade, do you make snide comments about what she was doing at that place and time?
You agree that it sounds like a hate crime — so let’s please skip the “but……”
Scott is straight and a very nice guy who would stop and help somebody out if they needed it. But if he was cruising and was attacked for it, that would strengthen the evidence of a prohibited hate motive, which, under existing law, increases the penalty.
The victim in this case is protected by criminal assault statutes. No hate laws needed.
Same for rape victim.
But Somerville tom wants more protection for the individual who gets beat up because while driving his automobile at 2:00 a.m. he stops and asks an unknown person of the same sex to ‘suck his cock’ as opposed to telling the same person he’s fat, ugly, and stupid.
If a person continues to do any one of those two things he will eventually get the shit kicked out of him.
What, are gay people better than the rest of society?
How same situation but only asking members of the opposite sex to suck his cock? The chicks boyfriend comes out from shadows and kicks the crap out of him?
Hate crimes are a joke.
I do think there’s a debate to be had about hate crime laws. I don’t doubt that hate crimes occur, but if we enforce existing laws and protect everyone equally, it should all work out.
And I suppose that’s easy for me to say, but to Ernie’s point, risky behavior is risky behavior. It used to be true — and probably still is — that there was a fight, every Friday night, outside the clubs in Kenmore Square. Those guys were engaged in risky behavior.
The thing that makes a hate crime worse than a regular crime, the logic goes, is that it terrorizes a whole community, not just the victim. Or, maybe it is that it is intended to terrorize a whole community, whether it does or not. The idea is that the victim is chosen to be a token representative of some class of people, in order to send a message to the whole group to go home or stop being uppity or demanding rights or something.
So it is confusing whenever the victims do the terrorizing of the community themselves, especially when the perps didn’t do anything to send a message to the larger community. If the heinous part of a hate crime is broadcasting it to the public to instill fear, then who’s guilty of that here?
The parallel to Ernie’s confusion (Dan Kennedy Has Me Confused) is wanting the bad thing to happen in order to feel righteous anger about it. They’re more interested in stoking righteous anger (aka hate) than protecting people and fostering safety and security.
Hate crimes must be identified, investigated, and punished if they are to be stopped. LGBT people know these crime occur; denial won’t reassure anyone.
All crimes should be investigated and punished, but it makes no sense to publicize crimes that are intended to spread fear. I think you ought to be identified, investigated and punished for causing fear and stoking hate, since that is apparently a crime.
This is why we have hate crimes laws in place, because some people have so much hate and fear in their hearts for what they don’t understand that they act out their fears in the form of violence.
Imagine if this was someone less able to defend themselves what might have happened, and all because of sexual orientation. I can’t say I’m surprised though, Salem’s Representative David “Hates” Bates is a staunch opponent of any form of GLBT equality. With leadership like his in place I wonder what’s next?
Spreading hate and fear is a crime? You’d have to round up the entire religious right.
No, speech is protected under the First Amendment. Hate crime laws do not interdict hate. Only when the line is crossed into criminal conduct do hate crimes laws come into play. Penalties take motive into account, notwithstanding the fact that motive involves a mental process.
It matters that a proven hate motive increases the penalty for a misdemeanor in New Hampshire to a mandatory two year prison sentence. Our goal is to deter hate crimes, not pretend they don’t exist. Ignorance is not bliss.
I think the question many of us have is why isn’t the penalty for the act itself appropriately harsh. It seems an assault is an assault. I remember during the 2000 debates then-Governor Bush was challenged on why he did not sign hate crime legislation in TX. The example of the James Byrd case was brought up and Bush’s response was that the felons in that case were put to death for the act itself despite the absense of specific hate crime legislation. Bush’s somewhat exasperated implied question was, “What more do you want?” I can understand the emotion behind wanting to stick it to people who hold detestable views, but I tend to lean toward punish the act, not the thought process behind it.
was disposed of by a unanimous Supreme Court in Wisconsin v. Mitchell in 1993. In an opinion by Chief Justice Rehnquist, the Court noted that a bias motive alone could turn the lawful act of refusing someone a job into the wrongful act of employment discrimination. Your logic would eviscerate the anti-discrimination laws, which address conduct permissible but for the “though process behind it.”
…I would disagree. If it is only the motive that makes an act illegal, such laws DO need to exist to turn something like a lawful act of refusing to hire into an unlawful act of discrimination. However, if the act itself is already against the law in my mind that should be sufficient and such acts should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Christopher, I was trying to rebut an argument you weren’t making, but which I constantly encounter in my anti-violence work. I sort of go on automatic pilot with Wisconsin v. Mitchell. You make a policy argument against existing law, which is fine. But laws still need to be enforced.