June 13, 2010 in News, City

Woman finds swastika on door

Police not calling it a hate crime

Nina Culver The Spokesman-Review

A resident in the 600 block of South Helena with four bi-racial children awoke to find a black swastika spray painted on her front door Sunday. Police are investigating the incident, but are not calling it a hate crime. “We’re going to go ahead and call it malicious harassment,” said police officer Tim Moses.

In addition to the swastika on her door, the woman’s car windows were also spray painted. “She’s upset about it,” he said.

Moses said he believes it may be a teenager who committed the crime. “I’m sure some kid will run off his mouth and we’ll catch him,” he said.

11 comments on this story so far. Add yours!

misjustice on June 13 at 6:38 p.m.
Because it may be a kid it might not be considered a hate crime? Wow. That’s reasoning! A hate crime is a hate crime no matter who commits it!!
spokanada on June 13 at 9:12 p.m.
What a shame? This kid was probably raised by an ignorant parent(s).
bdr on June 13 at 10:01 p.m.
These people nowadays are so goofed up. they use the swastika for everything from racial hate to political signs for Obama.
hey YO-YOs The swastika was designed for the 3rd Reich.
not Obama or Affro American hate crimes. uneducated goofballs.
crikey on June 14 at 12:40 a.m.
Todays swastika was symbolic to Native Americans long before the 3rd reich, uneducated goofball……
spokanecougar on June 14 at 1:17 a.m.
How is this not a hate crime? Just because it was some punk kid? Come on Spokane Police, stop being a total joke, no wonder nobody in this city respects you.
ZagChuck on June 14 at 1:35 a.m.
@ Spokanecougar et al,
They are being charged in accordance with the law, which is what we expect the police to do. Next time, before complaining about the police, perhaps you could do a little research. This would allow you to comment on the subject intelligently, based on logic, fact, and reason (the thing we base our laws on) rather than emotion.
RCW 9A.36.080 Malicious harassment — Definition and criminal penalty.
(1) A person is guilty of malicious harassment if he or she maliciously and intentionally commits one of the following acts because of his or her perception of the victim’s race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or mental, physical, or sensory handicap:
(a) Causes physical injury to the victim or another person;
(b) Causes physical damage to or destruction of the property of the victim or another person; or
(c) Threatens a specific person or group of persons and places that person, or members of the specific group of persons, in reasonable fear of harm to person or property.
(2) In any prosecution for malicious harassment, unless evidence exists which explains to the trier of fact’s satisfaction that the person did not intend to threaten the victim or victims, the trier of fact may infer that the person intended to threaten a specific victim or group of victims because of the person’s perception of the victim’s or victims’ race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or mental, physical, or sensory handicap if the person commits one of the following acts:
(a) Burns a cross on property of a victim who is or whom the actor perceives to be of African American heritage; or
(b) Defaces property of a victim who is or whom the actor perceives to be of Jewish heritage by defacing the property with a swastika.
(3) It is not a defense that the accused was mistaken that the victim was a member of a certain race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, or sexual orientation, or had a mental, physical, or sensory handicap.
(4) Evidence of expressions or associations of the accused may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial unless the evidence specifically relates to the crime charged. Nothing in this chapter shall affect the rules of evidence governing impeachment of a witness.
(5) Every person who commits another crime during the commission of a crime under this section may be punished and prosecuted for the other crime separately.
(6) “Sexual orientation” for the purposes of this section means heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.
(7) Malicious harassment is a class C felony.
(8) The penalties provided in this section for malicious harassment do not preclude the victims from seeking any other remedies otherwise available under law.
(9) Nothing in this section confers or expands any civil rights or protections to any group or class identified under this section, beyond those rights or protections that exist under the federal or state Constitution or the civil laws of the state of Washington.
ZagChuck on June 14 at 1:58 a.m.
@ Nina Cluver,
Perhaps you could’ve explained this better yourself, rather than making an unwarranted and baseless claim, especially if you’re on the “police beat.”
“Police are investigating the incident, but are not calling it a hate crime. “We’re going to go ahead and call it malicious harassment,” said police officer Tim Moses.”
Just because it’s not called “Hate Crime” doesn’t mean it’s not charged properly. By adding your opinion, (“but not calling it a hate crime”) rather than the facts, you have succeeded in enraging a portion of the public. Did you even ask if it was a “hate Crime” or did you just assume that information based on the officers quote?
Perhaps next time, you can report the facts, and leave out the opinion and conjecture, at least until you do the appropriate research. A quick Google of “Hate Crime, RCW, WA” would’ve shown you the facts.
Some of us would just like journalist to report the facts, rather than try and make the news something it isn’t.
spokanecougar on June 14 at 10:41 a.m.
Shocking a conservative (and probably a tea bagger) like ZagChuck is defending this as not a hate crime. I think the point you are missing is people think this should be a hate crime, no matter what crappy law you try to prove otherwise. As a openly gay male if someone painted FAG all over my house and car I would expect and fight the police tooth and nail to classify that a hate crime.
ZagChuck on June 15 at 12:17 p.m.
@ Spokanecougar,
Do you want the police to just start making up laws when they feel like it? Or would you rather have them limited to a strict set of rules set forth by groups with oversight?
In this case, it is NOT the fault of the police for not charging “Hate Crime,” because THE LAW DOES NOT EXIST. It’s just that simple. This has nothing to do with political leanings; it has do to with facts.
The facts are as follows:
1. I expect our law enforcement professionals to uphold the laws of the State of Washington, and defend the Constitution of the State of Washington and the United States. I hope you do too.
2. In Washington State there is no written crime called “Hate Crime.”
Period.
3. In Washington State, the crime of Malicious Harassment is what many call “Hate Crime.” Google it up, (as I said before if you bothered to read before spouting off unintelligently again)
It would also be the appropriate charge for gay bashing, to cite your specific example, READ THE LAW! It was written for the specific purpose of hate crime legislation. I t has provisions for both this situation and the one you cited. (in your un-informed, kneejerk response.)
4. A police officer can’t just make up the law; they have to follow what is written. (Thank goodness.)
5. “Malicious Harassment” is the actual hate crime legislation in the State of Washington, (Again, if you’d bothered to read what was posted, before spouting off, you’d know this.)
Conclusion Malicious Harassment, as define by RCW 9A.36.080 this is the appropriate charge. (Again the entire law posted earlier is quite clear, have you read it yet?)
.
Once again, laws are important, and words have meanings. Our current form of justice and our current legal system is based on Logic, Reasoning, and Fact. It is not based on emotion.
In the future, please do a little research before whining and complaining and accusing people of injustices. Especially when it is a subject you clearly do not understand.
Again, it’s not about politics on this, it’s about the law. Quit trying to portray the police as bad guys in this matter, when they’ve done everything correctly, and by the book.
ZagChuck on June 15 at 12:19 p.m.
@ Nina Culver,
Why no correction? Are you okay with outrage based on your opinion? Even when you opinion ammounts to a lie?
tardwhisperer on June 16 at 9:09 p.m.
thank you ZagChuck for clarifying……it’s just the paper doing what it does best…critisizing without the proper information. At least they are consistent….