Via Amardeep Singh comes this report of a racially motivated attack in Chapel Hill:

A Sikh student at UNC claims he and his friend were beaten by a trio of teenagers on Franklin Street after one of them called him Osama bin Laden.

Chapel Hill police charged each of the teens with assault inflicting serious injury and simple assault after the student identified them shortly after the assault Sunday morning. Although police categorized the assault as a hate crime, they did not charge the teens with ethnic intimidation -- the state statute that covers hate crimes. Chapel Hill Police Chief Gregg Jarvies said the charge of ethnic intimidation was not filed because it was not clear whether the assault occurred because of the victim's race, clothing or religion. The charge of ethnic intimidation would have to be provable, Jarvies said. "You may believe one thing, but we can't prove it," he said.

Gagandeep Bindra, who has a short beard, brown skin and wears a Patka, a scarf wrapped around his hair, said that it is not uncommon for people to call him and others with brown skin Osama bin Laden or a terrorist.

"This is like a normal occurrence after 9/11," Bindra said Friday. "Every night when I go out to Franklin Street, someone shouts out bin Laden." Bindra's parents emigrated from India, and Bindra attended middle school and high school in Raleigh. He is a senior economics major at UNC.

People who have brown skin get harassed all the time, he said. "They don't know I'm from India and I'm a Sikh. They think anybody brown is Middle Eastern. Anybody brown is a terrorist."

The incident began shortly after midnight Sunday as Bindra, 24, and a couple of friends were walking from East Franklin Street to a restaurant on West Franklin Street, the student recounted.

As the group of friends walked along West Franklin Street near the intersection of Church Street, they crossed paths with three young men, he said.

"Basically, they shouted bin Laden to me," he said. "I wasn't too happy."

Bindra said he replied, "Your mother."

One of the young men began asking him, "What did you say? What did you say?" Bindra said, but he and his friends kept walking west on Franklin Street. At the intersection of Mallette Street on the north side of Franklin Street, the teens caught up to them and one of them, who was about six feet tall, pushed his face one inch from his face, Bindra said.

"He was trying to look at me to see if there was some sort of fear," he said. "I didn't really care that he was so close to my face, so he just threw a punch." The blow landed on Bindra's jaw, he said.

One of Bindra's friends, Sean Michnowicz, told the other two teens not to join the fight, and they began to hit him, Bindra said. "They started beating him, and they all started beating me. It was gang mentality at that point. After they got done with me, I saw Sean. He was down, and there was blood pouring from his face," Bindra said. "He has hemophilia, and blood was gushing out from a laceration."

The attack was unprovoked, Bindra said. "I didn't hit them. Sean didn't hit them," he said.

I report a lot on fake hate crimes on this site. One reason I find them so repulsive is that they detract from the credibility of people like Bindra, who really are targeted by bigots, and who really do suffer the absurd and terrifying violence born of ethnic intolerance.

Singh knows the victim personally.

I would question whether you should categorize this incident under any form of "hate crime"; it appears more like the general "agressive teenagers out looking to find trouble" type crime. It starts off with one set of young men commenting on the sikh's resemblence to Bin Laden - and then the Sikh responds with a more general insult. The first group in turn respond to that insult and the stakes get upped. This has nothing to do with "hate crime" and everything to do with the agressive nature of young men: The aggressiveness of both sets of young men on both sides of this incident.

To categorize this as "hate crime" is to pander to victimization. The incident was easily defusable by both sides, but they both took an offensive stance. Such is the way of aggressive teenagers when they are afraid of losing face. Losing the fight and being beaten up and/or ending up in court might hopefully make them all think again.

Maybe they all will learn from it, but if the Bindra the Sikh is given the mantle of innocent victim from a situation which he himself helped escalate then the only thing of importance that will be learned by any of the involved parties is that it is a good thing to take offense at anything anyone says because he who is most Politically Correct gains the most power.

Worth noting: while the police classified this event as a "hate crime" it is not being pursued as one under the law for reasons closely connected to those you outline. It's still an ethnically motivated assault, though. Yes, Bindra said "Your mother" when he got called "Bin Laden." But he also walked away, and he also never threw a punch.

I don't love the legal category "hate crime" because hate is not itself a crime; the category seeks to criminalize matters of conscience, which is a very frightening business indeed. My feeling is that existing laws should serve us just fine in prosecuting those acts we now designate as "hate crimes." A physical assault is a physical assault, no matter what is behind it.

At the same time, it seems to me that it's morally incumbent on us to acknowledge that there are people out there who resort to violence to express hatred of someone's race, ethnicity, orientation, and so on. It's not pandering to a victim mentality to do so; it's stating a fact.

Young men need no reason to be aggressive other than to show off or prove a point. Hatred doesn't matter... if anything the hatred comes after the event.

We also need to keep in the forefront of our mind that it is the terrorists that are promoting division (ideological and ethnical etc...). The terrorists seek to make us see differences as things to be feared. They have given Western Society good reason to feel wary of people who dress in a similar style to those who involved in terrorism. It is unsurprising that people comment on such forms of clothing and hairstyle.

The suspicion that Sikhs (etc) feel from people within western communities is something that is sadly understandable and can only be expected, it is also well publicised. It requires close watching from all communities. What is the Sikh community counselling it's men to do about it? They surely aren't advising them to take offense at every passing remark?

Bindra could have walked away- but he didn't.

This young man, Bindra, took offense and in his turn took the offensive at what was said and replied in kind, and in doing so turned a stupid remark into "fighting talk". That brought hot headed pride and vanity into play -on both sides... ethic hate? - who need's it when you've got a couple of hotheads.

If we start taking offense for others in cases where they themselves actively seek to take offense then we are judging more by prejudice and less by paying attention to the facts.

Yes this can be argued to fall under the heading of ethnic "hate case", but whether it really was or not, both sides were at fault. When Bindra was confronted and asked what he had said he was provided with an excellent opportunity to explain his clothing and win a stranger over to his side- a non violent way out- he chose not to take it.

Somehow I get the feeling that the assailants are not white frat boys named Bubba and Jethro. If they were, the "hate crimes" charge would be a slam dunk.

Gosh, Kate, you could be right.

Erin, I'm not sure it's incumbent on us to acknowledge hatred. Probably all violence is a hate crime, when you get right down to it. A man who beats up his girlfriends might hate women. How is that different from hating black people or white people? I think we're better off prosecuting illegal actions and not worrying too much about sorting out hate- and non-hate-crimes.

Beating people based on race, religion and/or ethnicity is horrible. But I am still confused about the whole 'hate crime' thing. Can anyone provide me an example of a similar random beating that they would classify as a 'love crime'?

How awful. And how shameful.

These kinds of incidents are an embarassment to every one of us. No excuses. Americans as a group are some of the most genuinely tolerant people on the earth, and this is a stain on all our honor.

I really hope those kids get sent packing.

There are three "types" of hate crime: Mission, Defensive, and Thrill. This seems to fit the last category. It all has to do with intent.

Joe,

I find it disturbing that you so cavalierly dismiss this incident as "boys will be boys." I'm also bothered how you seem to place almost equal blame on both parties... please correct me if I'm wrong.

Obviously, it would have been best if Bindra said nothing back to the taunting teens... but it's clear his emotions got the best of him, especially because this is not the first time he's been called Usama or a terrorist.

That said, Bindra and his friends walked away... the teens pursued. The teens threw the first punch... there is NO MORAL EQUIVALENCE between Bindra's side and the attackers side.

Laura, isn't it important to understand why people commit crimes, for the purposes of prevention and rehabilitation? A safer society with fewer people imprisoned (meaning they're contributing rather than consuming tax dollars, as well as providing stabler families for the next generation) seems to me an important goal. Many causes may not be easily fixable (poverty, addiction, prejudice) or even ones we'd want to address (I would have considered it downright un-American had Bindra not verbally stood up for himself, as others have suggested he should have done), but I would think an understanding of why somebody committed a crime could only be of benefit.

Joe, I think you're being naive to believe that Bindra had "an excellent opportunity to explain his clothing and win a stranger over to his side" and that the situation was "easily defusable." I suppose he could have smoked a little crack with them to show he was just one of the gang? And I wouldn't say that "Western Society" has in any general sense been given good reason to fear those not adhering to the offical Western dress code. Ignorant people might have made that connection, but somehow I doubt that it took 9/11 for them to think "people-who-don't-look-like-me = bad."

Jab, The idiot that called Bindra "Bin Laden" was at fault for initiating the process and deserves to be punished for starting the fight and moreso for the injury he caused to Bindra and his friend. Bindra is at fault for taking offense and retaliating with an insult. Maybe in the classroom where we are treated as children there is room to act like a child because the teacher will step in and sort things out before they get too far. In real life we have to control our own actions and stop ourselves before we make stupid retaliatory remarks. That is the difference between childhood and maturity. Bindra responded childishly and got slapped down by real-life.

He retorted to a comment(which was not necessarily an insult as it was an obvious comparison) - Bindra's retort was an insult and then he walked away (an act which is often interpreted as a greater insult). That is two serious errors of judgement and he and his friend paid heavily for it.

He had one last chance to save the day - he could have tried to talk his way out- pointing out that Bin Laden was his enemy placing his attacker on his side... but instead he tried to face his opponent down. Big error.

As for moral equivalence: The difference between Bindra and his attacker is that what Bindra did was stupid but what his attacker did was wrong. How wrong depends on how much weight you give to the stupidity of Bindra's actions as Bindra was the one who started upping the anti.

Ask yourself this: Bindra feels aggrieved to be called "Bin Laden" - and so expects all strangers to take his feelings into account, yet his words and actions show that he has failed to take their worries and feelings which cause them to comment on his appearance into account: Why the double standard? Is it right to maintain such a double standard in this?

Nels, When Bindra's attacker demanded to know what Bindra said - in doing so he gave Bindra the best opportunity Bindra had for changing the attackers point of view... Right up close - with his attacker in his personal space- Bindra was given a real chance to turn the whole situation around- no "dope" required.

People who look like terrorists = danger ... is a fair (and reasonably wise) response in any situation. How we act on that response is what's important.

These guys were not white frat boys named bubba.

Check out the name of the assailant and the other charge.

$10 says they're black.

David

Indeed, the best response is not "your mother", but "I'm a Sikh, dumbass, not an Arab."

Joe, people who look like terrorists = danger is a reasonable response only from somebody who irrationally fears everything. For such a person, cars = death and strangers = rape and Germans = Nazis. What tiny percentage of Arabs or Arab-looking people belong to al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations? It's hardly "wise" to assume that two people who look similar will think and act similarly. It might be innate to do so, as prejudices help prevent animals from repeatedly running up to lions and crocodiles, but I expect much, much more from people.

Equating someone with the person most hated by Americans is an insult, and a serious one at that, not a "comment." It's hardly the responsibility of law-abiding persons walking down the street to conduct cultural diversity lectures for the local crack dealers, or to nurse the precious "worries and feelings" of street thugs. Certainly Bindra could have ignored his assailants, or attempted to rationalize with them. I would expect no less from Jesus or Gandhi. But a normal person, particularly a normal American, would have responded similarly to Bindra, or even immediately retaliated with violence. Cowardly retreat, though perhaps sometimes the wisest course when outnumbered, is hardly considered a virtue in our culture.

I think you're looking at this story through very rose-colored glasses, imagining a utopia in which every criminal is just a hug and an I-love-you-man speech away from redemption. There was no "real chance to turn the whole situation around," just perhaps an opportunity to safely run away or get in a few lucky punches. And there's no double-standard as you outlined it. Bindra was insulted by something which was said to him, an action initiated by others, while his assailants took exception to Bindra's mere presence.

Nels, I'm with you in your conversation with Joe. But your reply to Laura is a real head-scratcher.

How does hate crimes legislation actually teach us about why people commit certain crimes? It ASSUMES that variable as given. The kinds of aims you outline are important in their own right, but they aren't the function of courts or legislatures, properly construed. Besides all of which, most hate crime statutes are basically just aimed at creating harsh sentences, and I can't see what we hope to "learn" about criminality by doubling a perp's time in prison.

A psychologist or sociologist might get a lot of traction out of parsing whether someone had "hate" in his heart when he beat another person to death, but in court it provides us with neither clarity nor the tools we're after for prevention. Add to that the fact that such statutes are notorious for the selectivity of their enforcement, and it isn't really obvious why your reply to Laura should command our assent.

I may have misunderstood your point, of course.

Nels, It is difficult to be in a rose tinted Utopia and in an irrational state of fear at the same time.

You have constructed wild imaginings about things I never mentioned: "cultural diversity lectures" and "cowardly retreats", "Nazis" and wild animals, acts worthy of Gandhi or Jesus - none of which was contained nor even implied as necessary in my post... but I've got to admit the ability to perform a Jesus and pass through an angry mob unharmed is something probably worth looking into :)

My suggestion was simply for Bindra to use a little thought before action, so as not to inflame something which may produce harmful consequences he isn't able to deal with.

I did misspell "ante" though.

You nail a very important point when you say "Bindra could have ignored..." The fact is he didn't ignore- yet you then give him a free pass not to accept any responsibility for this action.

You may do so - but real life doesn't - it comes with consequences; as Bindra and the idiot attackers have all needlessly discovered.

Sigivald has the right idea - although it's probably wiser not to say "dumbass" aloud (unless you are that much bigger and better armed ;)

I can appreciate that you expect "much much more" from people... In my own experience I have found that people are just people. They come with faults and tend to do stupid things. Some eventually equate consequences with their own actions and grow older and wiser - the others don't.

Sage, I wasn't supporting hate crime legislation, which I oppose, but rather the collection and study of data pertaining to the motivations behind crimes, which it seemed to me Laura (and I perhaps misunderstood her) was suggesting were unimportant. I think it is necessary that we classify crimes as motivated by hate for a particular group, or monetary greed, or drug-induced violence, or teenage posturing, and so on, even though the punishment does not change based on the motive. Law enforcement already gathers information on motive during its crime investigations so I don't see this as an unreasonable or additional infringement on thought.

It doesn't mean that we (by which I don't necessarily mean the government) always act on what we find - hate-speech and hate-crime legislation probably would result in fewer hate crimes but the tradeoff is an undermining of our basic liberties, and so they are well-intentioned but flawed solutions - but I think we are better off with that information than without.

Nels,

Fair enough. Though I'm not sure about the claim that "hate" laws will have a deterrent effect, I definitely concur with the point you're otherwise making. Information is powerful, and it's something we can't have too much of where these issues are concerned.

(Note that I don't say information is power. Power is power. Neither is time money or ignorance bliss. But that's neither here nor there. :))

Nels, the collection and study of data pertaining to motivations of criminals is a worthwhile thing, but I don't think it should drive criminal law.

I'm very distressed by the fact that mentally disturbed women have been murdering their children since Medea, but we seem no closer to helping women not do that or to understanding how to deal with them under the law than we've ever been. I'd love to have a mechanism for identifying these women and helping them before it's too late. But criminal law has to deal with the aftermath when it happens, and it's not the mechanism for prevention, here or in the case of juvenile delinquents who may have harbored hate for the other, or who may have just felt like being thugs, and who themselves probably don't know which it was.

If the assailants were black youths, then by definition they could not be guilty of a hate crime, or any racist intent whatsoever. I thought you people understood this. Perhaps you need sensitivity training?

This has been a great thread, Erin.

i work for an Internet Service Provider. One of our customers' first names is Osama. I can hold a normal conversation with him and even call him by his first name without missing a beat.

Laura, I would guess that, as distressing as instances of mothers murdering their own children may be, such crimes account for a minute number of the killings each year and therefore little research has been done in this area. Similarly, Lou Gehrig's Disease (ALS) is a well-known fatal disease yet, as it affects very few people, little research has been done on it, the cause is unknown, and no real treatments or cures exist. Contrast this with cancer, which affects a huge number of people and has therefore been heavily studied leading to knowledge of causes, risk factors, courses of prevention, methods of detection, and high success rates for treatment. We no longer prepare for a certain death at the diagnosis of cancer.

There aren't solutions to every problem but we won't know unless we continue to look for them.

I agree that the aim of government and law enforcement should be responding to crimes, as a focus on prevention leads too easily to a police state, but (just as with health care) prevention is far preferable to waiting until there are victims, and knowledge of the causes and motives behind crimes can enable individuals, families, private and religious organizations, etc. to better prevent them (just as an understanding of the causes of cancer have enabled people to make informed choices about their diets, smoking habits, exposure to chemicals and radiation, sunbathing, etc.)

I suspect we are actually in agreement.

Prevention, yes. Thought police, no.