NC Homophobe Assaults Gay Bar Owner But Will Not Be Charged With Hate Crime
Maybe someone can explain this one to me: A guy walks into a gay bar, begins using derogatory language toward some of the patrons and the owner of the bar–because the owner also happens to be gay–physically assaults the owner several times, is arrested, and then is released on a measly $3,000 bond.
WTF?!
Sunday morning in Charlotte, North Carolina, Lucas Dylan Wilhelmson walked into The Bar at 316. He was allegedly upset that the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of same-sex marriage on Friday. He was intoxicated and looking to pick a fight.
For More Of This Story, Go to LiberalAmerica.org
Copyright 2015 Liberaland
By: Andrew Bradford
Andrew Bradford is an author, academic, and political activist who lives in Atlanta. He is a Senior Writer for Liberal America and also has his own blog at deepleftfield.info
41 responses to NC Homophobe Assaults Gay Bar Owner But Will Not Be Charged With Hate Crime
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
illinoisboy1977 June 29th, 2015 at 13:28
I’m going to take a guess at how it happened.
Cop: “We’ve got this guy, who assaulted a f*ggot at a f*g bar. He did it because the guy is queer, which I totally understand. We have to charge him with something, because too many people saw it happen.”
Prosecutor: “Well, lets charge him with standard Simple Assault and Communicating Threats. That ought to keep the queers quiet. Let me know, as soon as he makes bail. I want to buy the man a drink and congratulate him on a job well done!”
tracey marie June 29th, 2015 at 13:48
What an inbred ass, Drunk, stupid and phobic. He hit all the redneck steriotypes.
whatthe46 June 29th, 2015 at 13:50
they should have beat the living shit outta his stupid ass! this was a hate crime. and i fear that law enforcement won’t be charging anyone for hate crimes when it’s obvious because of this ruling.
illinoisboy1977 June 29th, 2015 at 13:54
While I may lean to the right, in many of my political views, I CANNOT understand how two men, or two women, loving each other and getting married, is harmful to me or has any effect on my life. Go, get married and be happy! Enjoy your life!
Bunya June 29th, 2015 at 15:24
I don’t think gay marriage is really a problem with the GOP, but they need something to run on, and promising to start more wars and repealing ACA just isn’t working out for them.
whatthe46 June 29th, 2015 at 13:56
they should have beat the $hit outta his ass. and by not charging him with, which was as clear as day, a hate crime, suggest they are being extremely bias.
Budda June 29th, 2015 at 13:57
And giving him a make-over afterwards.
Dwendt44 June 29th, 2015 at 14:40
I’d bet the farm that THEY would have been charged with a much more serious offense. Endangerment or what ever.
whatthe46 June 29th, 2015 at 16:16
and there are a lot of gay lawyers that would have picked up the case pro-bono. and michael moore would have paid their bail.
Roctuna June 29th, 2015 at 18:18
Inbred ass? Isn’t that what kept Rush out of the army?
whatthe46 June 30th, 2015 at 01:23
lol
whatthe46 June 29th, 2015 at 13:57
i fear you just might be right.
illinoisboy1977 June 29th, 2015 at 15:51
Just some good ol’ boys…
Glen June 29th, 2015 at 14:49
I really don’t care if he’s not charged with a hate crime. In my view, “hate crimes” are a stupid concept. This guy committed assault. That’s already a crime. We don’t need a special crime for what is in a person’s head when they commit another crime. Whether this homophobe assaulted the bar owner because the bar owner is gay, because the bar owner owed him money, or because the bar owner called him a name, it’s assault.
Of course, there’s more to this than simple assault. But it shouldn’t be about what’s in his head, it should be about what he did. He attempted to instigate a fight, that should be a crime if it isn’t already. And he threatened the bar owner’s life. I’m pretty confident that’s a crime.
Of course, the clearly-minimised charges are an affront. As I said, this guy should be charged with multiple crimes. “Hate crime” shouldn’t be one of them, though.
arc99 June 29th, 2015 at 15:19
hate crimes are not a “stupid concept”. hate crimes are based on one of the foundations of the American legal system, e.g. state of mind.
When you kill someone, it is your state of mind which is a prominent factor in determining what you are indicted for.
First degree murder and voluntary manslaughter both result in the death of the victim. The punishment of the culprit depends significantly on what the culprit was thinking at the time.
I will never understand why people pretend that the concept of hate crimes is something new to American jurisprudence. State of mind has always been considered in trials for serious crimes and it is completely dishonest to pretend otherwise.
Glen June 30th, 2015 at 00:28
Being Australian, I don’t give a crap what “American jurisprudence” rules are. And there’s a difference between “their state of mind” and “what they’re thinking”. I understand that the law needs to distinguish, for instance, between crimes of passion and calculated crimes. Motivations should only ever be mitigating factors, not reasons to punish extra harshly.
First degree murder is something you’re charged with because you PLANNED to murder them. It’s something you do with a clear mind, and thus you’re given the full punishment for murder. Voluntary manslaughter happens when you intended to kill the person at the time, but it was a momentary thought and action, caused by passion. There was no planning, and there’s no clear-headedness. As such, the punishment is downgraded, because society recognises the difference between intention and planning. It’s not ‘what the person was thinking at the time’ at all.
This guy didn’t plan on assaulting the bar owner, didn’t plan on threatening his life. It was an action fuelled by drinking and passion. If the reasoning of “state of mind” comes into play at all, it should be to downgrade the punishment, not make it worse on the basis of his thinking.
And by the way, is there a case of assault that isn’t driven by hate of some sort? Why should hatred against gays in general be any different from hatred against the bar owner specifically?
“Hate crimes” are just an excuse to increase the punishment against someone. They’ve already committed a crime.
Let me use a more extreme version of this. You have two murderers. One kills his victim by burning while crucified because the person is gay. The other kills his victim by burning while crucified because the murderer enjoys burning people to death. Which would you say is the bigger crime? If you’re a rational person, you’re going to say the second one. And yet, there’s no special category of crime for people who just enjoy killing other people, so it’s the ‘hate crime’ that would get the worse total punishment.
The person’s state of mind should only ever be a mitigating factor. “Hate crimes” are a stupid concept – they are no different from any other equivalent act. Note that if the intent was to strike fear into the hearts of those they hate, or to “send a message”, like the Charleston shooting, then it’s not a “hate crime”, it’s terrorism.
Fundamentally, the problem is that “hate crimes” are linked to anti-discrimination law… that has “protected classes”. But that means that a “hate crime” committed against something that isn’t “protected” isn’t considered a hate crime. If someone has an extreme hatred of dentists, and starts killing them, they’re just charged with the murders. But because it’s a hatred of gays, it’s now a hate crime (except, it seems, in North Carolina, because sexual orientation isn’t a protected class there). Why don’t dentists deserve to be protected just as much as gays? In the end, anti-discrimination laws should exist, and should protect people… but special “crimes” that get applied for those already committing crimes is stupid. Anti-discrimination laws are to protect people from being discriminated against in ways that would otherwise be legal (you can refuse to serve a customer, but you can’t refuse to serve them because they’re black).
whatthe46 June 30th, 2015 at 02:05
i don’t have a problem with Australians, but i have a problem with you. it’s called, allergic to ignorance.
jasperjava June 30th, 2015 at 09:35
“Being Australian, I don’t give a crap what “American jurisprudence” rules are. ”
And yet you write long rambling posts about how “stupid” hate crimes laws are, and make all kinds of offensive comments about those who support them and those that the laws are meant to protect.
Maybe you do care about it after all. Obviously not enough to do some research about it, however.
whatthe46 June 30th, 2015 at 09:41
so true.
Glen June 30th, 2015 at 10:29
What I’ve ranted against is pointless and counter-productive laws. And show me a single “offensive comment about those who support them and those that the laws are meant to protect”. Note that “the laws are stupid” doesn’t count as an attack on those who defend them, any more than saying “the bible is filled with violence” is an attack on christians.
I’ve been called all sorts of names, just in here, for DARING to say that hate crime legislation is a bad idea, and justifying it with a heap of solid arguments. I’ve been called a hateful bigot, a racist, ignorant, “as disgusting as cow dung”, and many other things. Admittedly, by a single individual, but the point is, there’s only one person who has filled their posts with “offensive comments”, and it’s not me.
I said I don’t care about American jurisprudence. I do care about the law itself, though. There’s a big difference between the two. What I was saying with the line was that I’m not concerned with the way your courts operate, as long as they operate reasonably well, and fairly. The law, on the other hand, is a different matter. Blatantly vengeful, ineffective laws that seek to use the might of the law (rather than considered arguments) to sway minds are, to me, rather atrocious. You can’t legislate away bigotry. It just can’t be done that way. And when you start punishing people for their opinions, they start to believe that they’re being persecuted for their opinion, and develop a martyr mindset.
It’s worth noting that I’m not alone in my opinion on this. Michael Bronski, a well-regarded Harvard professor, describes hate crime legislation as “feel-good laws”, and that they “actually misdirect us from looking at much deeper issues”.
Keep in mind, my issue with hate crime legislation doesn’t apply to hate speech, nor does it extend to attempts to strike fear (which is terrorism). Hate speech is speech with the intent of generating hatred, and is a way to spread bigotry. That’s something that we can deal with through legislation. And someone vandalising a church in order to scare the members of the church is committing terrorism.
Talkin_Truth June 29th, 2015 at 20:04
>> In my view, “hate crimes” are a stupid concept.
Hate crimes are a kind of terrorism which, in my view, needs a different kind of penalty.
Glen June 30th, 2015 at 00:29
If it’s terrorism, then charge them with terrorism. Like the Charleston shooting. This guy was drunk and frustrated, and lashed out. This case isn’t terrorism, it’s stupidity.
whatthe46 June 30th, 2015 at 01:21
what the fk was he frustrated about? what reason did he have to lash out? it’s terrorism and it’s a hate crime. live with your kind of love for racism and bigotry and don’t try and justify it. because it only makes you look like we all know what you are and stand for. own it! or shut the FU!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Glen June 30th, 2015 at 01:39
You are being as childish and intolerant as he (the homophobe in the article) is.
He was frustrated because the supreme court had caused something he believed in to be overturned. How do you feel about their recent decision regarding the “controversial” lethal injection drug? Their recent decision regarding the EPA? How about when they’ve ruled on gun laws? Can you honestly say you’ve never been frustrated when the supreme court voted against something you favoured, or for something you were against?
It doesn’t require bigotry to be against full legalisation of marriage (which is what I’m now calling it – “same sex marriage” implies that it’s different from other marriage, and it’s not). He was bigoted in his actions, but it is entirely possible to be against the full legalisation without being bigoted. The us-vs-them attitude that YOU are displaying is bigotry, just as much as the “christians-vs-gays” attitude that are displayed by the bigots you hate so much is.
And don’t fucking try to suggest that, because I think “hate crimes” are stupid, that therefore I must support bigotry. You are absolutely, 100%, unbelievably out of line for such a disgusting and putrid assertion. I believe that you can’t legislate away bigotry – you need to erase it through education, awareness, and positive efforts. That this is a war that will be won with having the right arguments and the right attitude, not by trying to force others to follow your beliefs. I believe in laws being based on what a person does, that thought crimes shouldn’t exist. I believe in the right for people to think what they want.
If you can’t comprehend the idea of someone being against “hate crime” legislation without being in support of hatred, then I pity you.
whatthe46 June 30th, 2015 at 01:53
i’m not going to even read more than the first sentence. why? because you are as stupid as cow dung. as bat guano. as beetle dung. as horse manure. as human $HIT! your hate filled ignorance is disgusting.
Glen June 30th, 2015 at 02:00
I see… so in other words, you’re calling ME ignorant for… YOU not reading MY post? Think about that. You really are full of irony.
whatthe46 June 30th, 2015 at 02:04
“He was frustrated because the supreme court had caused something he believed in to be overturned.” he BEAT on a man because he disagrees with their lifestyle and SCOTUS! that’s your defense? we are not talking about EPA we’re talking about an ignorant hateful pos that harmed another human being because of his on bias and hate. HATE! what part of that don’t you or rather, will you refuse to consume? all of it?
Glen June 30th, 2015 at 02:19
I don’t defend him at all. The only thing I said was that this wasn’t a pre-meditated crime, it was a crime of passion. He got drunk, his bigoted opinion lost its normal filter (most bigots have a filter to keep them from showing their bigotry openly, in order to hide their bigotry – such people only display their bigotry when drunk), he saw a gay bar, and went in looking for a fight. When he didn’t get what he wanted, he assaulted the bar owner. As I said, he was frustrated. I certainly think that his frustration was misguided, that he *shouldn’t* have had a problem with the SCOTUS ruling. But he clearly did. Do you deny it?
You say this particular crime was because of “HATE”. How is that different from, say, the thug that beats up a member of a rival gang? Or the man that beats his wife? It’s ALL hate. Why should we specifically punish it because the hatred was aimed at one particular segment of society and not another? We should punish the actions, not the thoughts. You can’t change a person’s mind through legislation, and you can’t change it by punishing them specifically for their opinion – it only makes their opinion stronger.
You have to defeat it using words and positive actions, not laws and punishments. It’s the only way to defeat bigotry. This guy committed crimes. He should be punished for those crimes. He is also a bigot. We should make an attempt to deal with that bigotry, to overcome it. We should not conflate the two parts – we cannot use punishment to overcome bigotry.
whatthe46 June 30th, 2015 at 09:49
“The only thing I said was that this wasn’t a pre-meditated crime, it was a crime of passion.” a straight man does not go into a gay bar for drinks. he’s pissed because of a ruling that gave gays and lesbians equal rights and went in there to cause harm. and that’s exactly what he did. that’s pre-meditation. i suggest you do some research before making anymore comments. a crime of passion would be coming home to find your wife in bed with another man and you beat either of them or even shoot them. or coming upon someone harming your child and you beat the living crap out of them or even kill them.
Glen June 30th, 2015 at 10:10
I don’t think you understand pre-meditation. He didn’t go in there intending to assault the bar owner and threaten his life. He went in there looking for a fight. It was made pretty clear that that was his intent, that was his behaviour. What’s more, pre-meditation involves planning. If he went, in an alcohol-fuelled rage, “I’m going to go to a gay bar and start a fight”, then drive to the nearest gay bar and try to start a fight, that’s not pre-meditation.
A crime of passion is where a person is blinded by their emotions (“crime of passion” doesn’t just cover stuff involving love). That’s what was going on here – he was blinded by his emotions. That’s pretty blatant. Add the emotions (yes, he was pissed because of the SCOTUS ruling – that would be “emotion) to the alcohol, and you get an angry and belligerent drunk going to a place that, in his alcohol-addled mind, would allow him to express his anger. Not unlike a guy discovering his wife has been cheating on him, going to a bar to have a drink, and then in a drunken rage, driving to the house of the guy she was cheating on him with and attacking him. It’s not pre-meditated. He didn’t plan out how he was going to attack the guy.
And for the record, straight guys DO go to gay bars, occasionally. Sometimes because of a friend. Sometimes just for the experience (or even curiosity). Does a gay guy go to a straight bar for drinks?
You might want to examine your own biases.
whatthe46 June 30th, 2015 at 10:25
quite honestly, i don’t think you understand anything.
Glen June 30th, 2015 at 10:30
Once again, the irony…
whatthe46 June 30th, 2015 at 01:18
“Of course, there’s more to this than simple assault. But it shouldn’t be about what’s in his head, it should be about what he did.” what was in his head was MORE than a simple assault you simpleton. what was in his head was about HATE. he didn’t go into a bar and was upset because someone hit on his girfriend or bumped into him, and he was so drunk he couldn’t control himself, he went INTO a gay bar for the sole purpose of harming someone out of HATE! what part of that doesn’t comprehend? all of it i suppose. i guess you’re going to say, roof didn’t murder 9 innocent black people in there own house of worship out of hate, even though he expressed his hatred for them without any reason right? but, you would be the first hypocrite to shout out, a minority hit a white person and shouted out “fk you cracker” while kicking his a$$, and suggest it was a hate crime. you are a racist. you are a bigot. you are a disgusting parasite.
Glen June 30th, 2015 at 01:59
Go the fuck away. You do not know me, you have NO idea what you’re talking about, and your assertions are absolutely putrid. Roof murdered 9 innocent people (their skin colour is irrelevant). And he should go to jail for murder. His intent was to terrorise, and he planned it well in advance. He should go to jail for terrorism. That it was motivated by hatred of blacks, rather than hatred of anything else, is entirely irrelevant. Do you think someone would go into a church and kill 9 innocent people for any reason other than hate, except perhaps for the ‘thrill’ (which is even more putrid than doing it for hate)?
You clearly aren’t capable of rational thought. If you were, you’d realise that it is entirely possible for people to be 100% against something, and 100% in support of the right of others to do it anyway. It’s like that famous Voltaire saying (that was actually said by Beatrice Evelyn Hall, when talking about Voltaire), “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Kind of like the christians out there (and they do exist) that are against marriage between same-sex partners, but also for the full legalisation of marriage to allow them to do it. Because they might believe “gay marriage” is wrong, but they still understand the fact that they shouldn’t be trying to force their (in my view, wrongheaded) beliefs on those who do not agree with them.
Now, if you can’t be civil, if you can’t actually argue the points without resorting to calling me a “bigot”, “simpleton”, “racist”, “disgusting parasite”, “hypocrite”, etc, then again, get the fuck away from me. I have no interest in debating issues with people who don’t comprehend basic civility, who think that the right way to argue is to throw ad hominem after ad hominem, to mock arguments instead of countering them, to build strawmen and then draw conclusions from the strawmen.
If you had bothered to actually read, and understand, my posts, you’d realise that I’m calling for a much harsher punishment for this guy than what he’s received. But not because of “hate”. Because he assaulted a guy repeatedly and then threatened to kill him. THAT is what needs to be dealt with through the law. But then, you’ve proven multiple times, now, that you’re incapable of respecting anybody who doesn’t agree with you 100%.
labman57 June 29th, 2015 at 17:57
In the Bible Belt, blacks who commit assaults are thugs and Muslims are terrorists, whereas white Christians are simply “good ol’ boys”.
allison1050 June 29th, 2015 at 18:56
And you just know this patty considers himself a wonderful christian. $3000.00 bail…that says it all.
Talkin_Truth June 29th, 2015 at 20:05
He has that closeted, self-loathing gay, gay basher look to him.
jasperjava June 30th, 2015 at 09:15
“Roof murdered 9 innocent people (their skin colour is irrelevant).”
Their skin color is VERY relevant. It was the motive for the murder. Same as the sexual orientation of the assault victims in the article above.
Motive is a long-established factor is common law to evaluate intent, determine guilt, and adjudicate sentencing.
That’s why we need hate crimes legislation. As a society, it’s far more damaging if a crime is motivated by hate because it attacks the fabric of society itself. It needs to be punished more severely than crimes that are simply the result of seeking gain or the product of circumstance.
You seem to have a strange idea of what hate crimes legislation is, what it’s for, and what it’s all about. I suggest you educate yourself about it.
Glen June 30th, 2015 at 10:03
You’ve misunderstood. I’m not saying it wasn’t relevant to him. I’m saying it’s not relevant to me, and it shouldn’t be relevant to the law. What should matter is that he killed 9 innocent people. The fact that they were black should neither increase nor decrease his punishment in any way. And in the same way, what should be relevant to everyone is that the bar owner was assaulted, not whether he was gay or straight (and for that matter, we don’t technically know that he was gay – it’s entirely possible for a straight guy to own a gay bar).
“Motive” in law isn’t referring to what the person is thinking, it’s referring to the intended result. That is, if someone kills as a means to obtain someone else’s property, it’s different from if that person kills in self-defence. That’s what it’s talking about, when it comes to motive. Other than that, motive is used to establish guilt – motive, means, and opportunity. Neither of these meanings align with the one used in hate crime legislation. Motive is used in determining guilt, and it’s used in determining the presence or absence of extenuating circumstances. The motive itself shouldn’t be a crime, just the carrying out of that motive.
Let me ask it to you this way. Would you consider Roof’s attack to have been more justifiable if the target had been a church that doesn’t have a particularly high proportion of black members? If half the victims weren’t black? Would you honestly tell me that the crime wasn’t as bad, because it wasn’t racially motivated?
If you honestly believe that the crime is worse for being racially motivated, I want you to go and find a white mother, whose white daughter was killed by a white guy, and tell her that her daughter’s murder wasn’t as vile, wasn’t as despicable, wasn’t as disgusting and abhorrent as the murder of these people in Charleston, because it wasn’t racially motivated. Watch her reaction. Do you honestly think she’d consider you to be reasonable? Or would she tell you that you’re nuts, and scream at you to go away?
It’s the same with this story. Suppose it wasn’t a homophobe, and a gay bar. Suppose it was a fan and a bar populated by fans of , known as a hangout of such fans. This person, while drunk goes in there trying to pick a fight, and when nobody takes them up on it, they assault the bar owner repeatedly, and then threaten to kill the bar owner. Would you honestly tell that bar owner that it could be worse, he could have been a gay bar owner attacked by a homophobe? Is the hate any different, because it’s not a “protected class”?
And like I said, the problem with hate crime law is that it’s not about what the person wants to achieve, it’s about the person’s thoughts. The law already distinguishes between a person killing in passion, for monetary gain, for revenge, for fun, etc. If it involves hate of any sort, that already factors in. Hate crime legislation doesn’t achieve anything. There is no person out there who is going to go “Well, I was GOING to go and shoot up a church, but I’d be doing it because of hate, so I won’t, because I don’t want to serve extra time for a hate crime”. It also doesn’t serve to rehabilitate the person – they’re likely to get MORE hateful, more bigoted, as a result of being charged with a hate crime. And they’re already being punished for their actions… so it’s not for the purposes of punishment, either.
So what ACTUAL purpose does the legislation serve? If the only purpose is to make society feel like they’re doing something about it, then it’s actually counter-productive, because people need to actually do something about bigotry and hatred.
Laws shouldn’t be enacted just because they CAN be. They should be enacted for specific purposes, and should stand up to scrutiny, when people look to see if they’re working.
whatthe46 June 30th, 2015 at 09:34
you just wrote a whole lot of nothing. and you’re a complete waste of time.
Glen June 30th, 2015 at 10:03
Seriously, there’s just so much irony, here…