It is good to know that The Oregonian thinks children should be the final arbiters of whether Oregon’s Intimidation laws have been broken in the case of the Tri Met light rail beating.
The newspaper of record apparently believes that Oregonians are too timid to have a discussion on whether the white 14 year old girl beaten by three black teens constitutes a racial intimidation crime. Its suggestion? We shouldn’t have the discussion at all. Reading the language and intent of the law and then applying it is just too—uncomfortable.
The Oregonian’s Joseph Rose contends here that 14 year old Karley Backland should decide if she was racially intimidated on the Max train December 26th. See previous posts about it here, here, here, here. He figures she was the one there and– I guess by inference–should be the primary decision maker. His rationale, of course, contains the normal “pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain*” realities of Portland.
Yes, Karley told me, one of the strangers referred to her as “white girl.” But it was an encounter of a hundred insults. The girls were drunk on their own spit. These are the things bullies say.
“I really don’t think they singled me out because I was white,” the Centennial Middle Schooler said. “This wasn’t a racial thing.” (Remember, she was there.)
This rose colored view of the purpose of why Oregon’s intimidation (not hate) laws exist is not only light-between-the-ears it is dangerous. This view pretends that somehow by using language like, “spit drunk”,”a hundred insults” and “thugs” to either distract or intentionally disregard the specific language and intent of the law that we should all just move on because there is nothing to see here.
But this is what Karley told KOINLocal6 news about what her attackers said to her,
“In their words it’s like, ‘this white girl this,’ ‘this white girl that.” “..thinks she can talk to us this way,’ and I was like, why does my race have to be put into it, this isn’t like, I don’t get it, I was not raised like that to put race into anything.”
See her comment at :44 here.
Hate with a capital “H” has nothing to do with this situation. We should not hate Tri-Met for providing the venue, we should not hate the police for their delayed response or the suspects for their crimes. And then we should clearly understand Oregon’s Intimidation laws say nothing about proving hate as any element of Intimidation in the First or Second Degree . In fact the challenge goes out to anyone to find that word as an element of the clearly “perception” based motivation as establishing intent of either statute:
ORS 166.155 Intimidation in the second degree. ( 1) A person commits the crime of intimidation in the second degree if the person
(b) Intentionally subjects another to offensive physical contact because of person’s perception of the other’s race,color,religion,sexual orientation or national origin; a Class A Misdemeanor.
or
ORS 166.165 Intimidation in the first degree. (1) Two or more persons to acting together commit the crime of intimidation in the first degree, if the persons:
(b) Intentionally because of the actors’ perception of the others’ race,color,religion,sexual orientation or national origin place another in fear of imminent serious physical injury; a Class C Felony.
No hate, no evil focus on race alone but instead a law that since 1981 State of Oregon clearly finds that intimidating behavior based on any number of the actor(s) perception unacceptable and unlawful. The law does not require that a victim suffer serious or for that matter any physical injury nor does it forgive the suspects for having other intent that clouds their judgment. All the statute requires is that the police believe that there is probable cause to think that the suspect/s caused Karley Backland to be subjected to offensive physical contact or create the fear of imminent serious physical injury. Getting physically pummeled and spat upon by three suspects one of whom clearly notes the color of your skin while she is beating a victim seems to clearly qualify somehow, don’t you think?
Now you choose, either all three suspects qualify to be charged with Intimidation in the First Degree or the one suspect who verbalizes “white girl” during the attack needs to face the music for second degree intimidation or a combination of the two.
If you don’t trust police to make that distinction then let’s ask a Grand Jury. Let’s present the police reports and show the associated video to a jury of citizens the District Attorney often relies on to decide whether the elements of a crime exist in a given situation to charge the crime. Then we can all be as assured as our system allows that the intent of the law is judged not by irrelevant rhetoric around hate and an amateurish analysis but by the judgment of citizens who will want the intent of law followed.
I can’t figure out what the real purpose of Rose’s piece was on Friday. Was it meant to defend the suspects’ behavior as non intimidating or defend Tri-Met or take a shot a talk radio wearing their “hoods” of anonymity? “Hoods.” Interesting metaphor, Rose.
What we do know is that he just plain forgot to mention the police were a full two weeks late in investigating. According to the family, the responding Transit officer tried to talk the 14 year old into not filing charges. They say he even told the teen she “didn’t look too good” in the video he’d seen. I wonder whose video he saw. Tri Met’s says its four cameras malfunctioned at the time of the beat down. Police say they didn’t make headway in the case until they saw the tape nearby on YouTube. Wonder what tape the officer saw that day.
Rose didn’t mention that tidbit, either.
Don’t underestimate the impact this incident has had on the public’s perception of their safety. Worse? That the police and some in the media think the decision to prosecute should be left in the hands of a 14 year old traumatized victim and not the rule of law.
Bernie Giusto is the retired Multnomah County Sheriff, former Gresham Police Chief, former Gresham City Councilman, former Oregon State Trooper and former Tri Met Board Member.
Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com
This rose colored view of the purpose of why Oregon’s intimidation (not hate) laws exist is not only light-between-the-ears it is dangerous. This view pretends that somehow by using language like, “spit drunk”,”a hundred insults” and “thugs” to either distract or intentionally disregard the specific language and intent of the law that we should all just move on because there is nothing to see here.
