05/23/2007
Missoula, Montana Assault Victim: Attack Was Hate Crime
Stevenpaul Richey, a 51-year-old Missoula, Montana man who was assaulted by two 20-year-old men in his apartment on May 8, says the attack was homophobic, reports the Missoulian.
Michael Daniel Lemay and Christopher Lance Newrider are being held at the Missoula County Jail on $100,000 bond. According to the paper, "they're accused of binding Richey's hands and ankles together with rope, then punching and kicking the man, shattering bones in his face, breaking two ribs and puncturing a lung."
"Richey said he met his alleged attackers downtown at the Iron Horse in the late-night hours of May 7. Around 1 a.m. the trio left the bar, bought some beer at a store and headed to Richey's nearby apartment for more drinks and to play music. 'I just thought they were all-right guys who were looking to hang out and have a drink,' Richey said. But once inside Richey's apartment, one of the men stated that he “didn't like faggots,” Richey said, while the other hit him suddenly from behind...
...'They attacked me before I ever saw it coming,' he said. 'Then they left me for dead. They just looked at me like a faggot.' Richey said the men took his cell phone and a small amount of cash from his home, but left other valuable items, like musical instruments and electronic equipment. One of the alleged assailants, Newrider, had recently escaped from a prerelease center and had a warrant out for his arrest. And while Richey suspects the men saw in him an easy target and a way to get some quick cash, he's convinced they attacked him because of his sexual orientation. 'They knew I was gay,' he said. 'It's just not something I hide. But they didn't let on to their homophobia until after we'd gotten back to my place.'"
Hospital staff says Richey would have died had a friend not discovered the victim. Said Richey: "They spent the first two days just trying to keep me alive. My head was so swollen I couldn't get my glasses on."
Montana's hate crime statute does not include crimes related to sexual orientation. Just one more reason we need a federal hate crimes law now.
Assault victim says attack was anti-gay [the missoulian]
Sphere: Related ContentPosted 5:15 PM EST by Andy in Crime, Montana, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
And a federal hate crimes law would have stopped the attack how?
Posted by: John | May 23, 2007 5:54:46 PM
what kind of asinine question is that?
Posted by: rick | May 23, 2007 5:58:22 PM
Laws don't stop crimes John--why would you think they do?
Posted by: Daniel | May 23, 2007 6:13:10 PM
This perfectly illustrates anti-gay attacks that I've been trying to get through to people. They attacked him because he was gay and then took some stuff as an afterthought. The main motivation of the crime was hate. Thank you Steven for telling the story as it happened and not buckling to pressure from (some) straight people to make it seem like it was a anti-gay attack. I hope you fully recover and get the justice you deserve.
Posted by: Jack! | May 23, 2007 7:20:50 PM
Andy --
With all due respect -- hate crimes laws attempt to legislate thought -- not acts. We as gay men and lesbians as well as first amendment loving Americans should realize that and that hate crimes legisation sets back our call for "equal" rights.
Montana has attempted murder laws -- and these guys should do time under that law. Judges have the ability to take other things into account during sentencing.
I think you are spot on most of the time -- but we've let groups like HRC tell us this is our issue.
The first amendent gives people the right to hate -- and the right for people to speak up against hate. You cannot however expect to legislate thought without paying serious consequences later.
Best,
Oliver
Posted by: Oliver Kamm | May 23, 2007 10:22:58 PM
Hate crimes laws legislate against acts, not thought. You're still free to be a bigoted asshole. Lynch someone for being gay or black or Jewish or whatever though and you run afoul of hate crime laws. It's the act that's illegal, not "thought".
Posted by: sunspot | May 23, 2007 10:54:52 PM
Just so happens this happened in my college town: I call Missoula home. In fact, I plan to show up at the I-Ho with Miss Montana for two-fer-one well drinks tomorrow night.
Missoula is light-years away from the rest of Montana in terms of tolerance, I sometimes think I'm living in a parallel universe. But there are still bigots and caitiff hicks around. There are bars I avoid...
Oliver, you sound like a frat-brother pre-law student I might rub elbows with at the I-Ho. How didactic and myopic to say that hate-crime laws legislate thought. That's a party line people in Montana use when they're afraid of people like me. The reason we need new hate-crimes legislation is because it forces us out of the margins we've been living in, beaten in, spat in, cursed in. It won't legislate thought; hopefully it will change it.
Posted by: justincredible | May 24, 2007 2:43:56 AM
Oliver,
Christians have been protected by a hate crimes law since 1969. The existing hate-crimes laws haven't done anything to "police thought", force people to hire those they don't want to hire, or cause anyone to censor themselves. Why does adding gays to the long list of protected minorities suddenly mean these already-existing laws are going to create censorship? That's a leap of logic akin to creationism...
The laws are a tool for prosecuting criminals with harsher sentences when they commit a crime that is intended to harm or frighten an entire community of people. There is no censorship involved. Why should some minority groups have access to this legal tool but not gays?
From a libertarian standpoint, I can see the argument that we should have no hate-crime laws at all, but the thing is, they already exist. So if you and the thousands of Fundamentalist Christians who happen to agree with your viewpoint dislike these laws so much, where is the huge campaign to have them removed from lawbooks altogether? Why is it only the adding of gays to the list that has them so upset?
You can make the same argument about gay marriage. The ideal is to have the word 'marriage' removed from all law books, allow gender-blind federal civil-unions for all citizens, and leave it up to each individual church as to whether or not they want to perform "marriages." But that utopia is not ever going to happen in the American political climate. Therefore Gay marriage must be legalized. It's a simple matter of equality.
Posted by: ranbon | May 24, 2007 8:12:42 AM
Could someone point me in the direction of where these laws originated. I'm confused on why we need this legislation. Should assaults, murders, robberies, etc be treated the same regardless of what the motivation is? To me it really seems like an avenue to just keep these types of people off the street longer and not to send any type of message.
Posted by: Matt | May 24, 2007 8:49:45 AM
Typo...i meant shouldn't and not should. sorry guys.
Posted by: Matt | May 24, 2007 8:50:51 AM
if neo nazi's bash a jew, should they just be charged with simple assault ? no, because when one jew is bashed, it is a threat and endangerment to all jewish people.
violent citizens need their thoughts legislated thru hate crime legislation and the threat of harsher consequences which address the entire gravity of the crime.
Posted by: A.J. | May 24, 2007 9:05:59 AM
AJ is exactly right. In the 1960's South, when a group of whites got together to lynch a black man, they weren't targeting just that man. They were targeting ALL black people with a very real threat. Add on to that scenario that, even when the perpetrators could be identified, the local and/or state authorities AND the juries would often let them go without so much as a slap on the wrist and the federal authorities had no jurisdiction to intervene. That's why hate crimes laws were originally instituted....to allow the federal authorities to seek redress on behalf of the victims when the local/state authorities couldn't or wouldn't. Fast forward to now. We are merely asking that sexual identity be added because of the numerous instances of people being attacked for being gay and the inaction taken on their behalf by the local/state authorities.
Posted by: dcmarty | May 24, 2007 9:31:08 AM
I actually have spent a lot of time in Missoula -- I lived in Thompson Falls from 1988-1990.
What I share with many people in Montana is a belief in freedom. I was openly gay there. People generally have a live and let live attitude. In fact in Thompson Falls in the late 80's there were two lesbian softball teams. That was in a town of 2000. It was in Montana I went from being a vegetarian who thought guns should be banned -- to seeing entire families live off of Deer they shot in the fall. I had a lot more respect for people who shot and killed their own meat than those who bought it in the grocery store. Yea -- Montana informed a lot of my world view.
You said:
"That's a party line people in Montana use when they're afraid of people like me. The reason we need new hate-crimes legislation is because it forces us out of the margins we've been living in, beaten in, spat in, cursed in. It won't legislate thought; hopefully it will change it."
See -- I am people like you -- a big fucking queer. And I was queer in Montana -- as were many people. We used to go tom Am-Vets. Is that still around?
Hate crimes legislation became a buzzword in gay political circles during the Matthew Shepard tragedy because with a Democratic president in office who sold us down the river on Don't Ask Don't Tell and DOMA.
HRC and other groups used Matthew Shepard's horrific death as a fundraising tool because the were afraid to take on real issues like marriage. This has been misguided from the beginning. This is not where we need to focus our fucking resources.
The way we change thought is by being out and living our lives day to day -- something I have done since I was 15 -- so almost 20 years now. Long before WIll and Grace or the internet or many other great things that raise our visibility.
There will always be bigots. This is a hearts and minds campaign. Mary Cheney makes her father look like the hypocrite he is. If everyone was out to their families and friends -- people would think twice about "beating up a fag" if they knew their brother/cousin/uncle was gay.
Posted by: Oliver Kamm | May 25, 2007 3:36:37 AM
Yes, many people in Montana do have a belief in freedom, but if you get that sense from living in Missoula, then you're only getting part of the picture. I was raised in Great Falls, spent my summers in Judith Basin County, and did not come out of the closet until college. There were no gay kids at my high school. It's simply something you don't do if you value your safety. Two weeks ago, I was at a bar downtown near the I-Ho, and a fight was diverted between me and some guy once a girl in my party said she was my girlfriend. Suddenly beating me up for being a faggot didn't matter. We should live our lives, yet I still contend it isn't always safe.
Missoula is known as a 'liberal' town, and your tale of acceptance is not congruent with the state as a whole. And the issue-- aside from personal testimonies regarding the Treasure State-- is that a man was beaten by other men who had hate in their hearts...
Posted by: justincredible | May 25, 2007 2:56:06 PM