05/22/2008
Boston Man Targeted in Anti-Gay Assault Outside South End Bar
A 22-year-old student at Northeastern University was assaulted outside of Fritz bar in Boston's South End. Daniel D’Orsi was robbed and attacked while the perpetrator yelled anti-gay slurs, resulting injuries that required facial surgery, yet because the attacker's description matches that of a man who tried to mug a woman a week earlier, the Boston police are not investigating the incident as a hate crime:
Bay Windows reports: "Boston Police are currently investigating the incident as a straightforward assault and robbery rather than as a hate crime. D’Orsi said the incident occurred at about 1:30 a.m. while walking home from the Eagle bar in the South End. ... 'He came up behind me and grabbed (my wallet) out of my back pocket, and I turned around, and that’s when he called me an f-ing faggot, all the derogatory things you could think of,' said D’Orsi. He said when the attacker grabbed his wallet he knocked D’Orsi to the ground, and D’Orsi smashed the side of his head on the pavement when he fell. He said he blacked out at that point, but based on his injuries he believes the attacker kicked him in the face while he was lying on the ground. The attacker made off with about $140 in cash along with credit and debit cards. Rob Warner, a bouncer at Fritz, did not witness the assault, but he said he came outside just as the assailant was running up Chandler Street. He said staff from the bar called the police and an ambulance. 'He was pretty badly beaten, actually, had blood running down his mouth and ears,' said Warner."
According to the paper, "A detective from D-4 involved in the case, who declined to give his name to Bay Windows, said police do not believe the mugging was a gay-bashing because the description of the assailant provided by Warner matches that of a man who attempted to mug a woman a block away on Lawrence Street about a week before D’Orsi’s assault."
Northeastern student alleges gay bashing [bay windows]
Posted 10:44 AM EST by Andy in Boston, Crime, Gay Slurs, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
I swear, I'm fed up to the back teeth hearing stories that end this way (or worse). I want to hear a story about a victim who turns the tables and beats the living shit out of the attacker. My heart goes out to this guy though. I hope something really bad happens to his attacker, something that makes him have to rely on the kindness of others.
Posted by: Michael W. | May 22, 2008 11:23:50 AM
I wish and pray for Daniel's recovery, and I hope there are no permanent physical scars (the mental scars are difficult to get rid of).
The poster, 24PLAY, and I had a heated discussion during the trial for Michael Sandy's killers. We debated the issue of whether a violent attack & robbery is a hate crime if anti-gay or racial slurs are used by the attacker, or simply a robbery turned violent. I respected 24PLAY's take on the issue, but I still say that if anti-gay or racial slurs are used, then the attack automatically goes from being a violent robbery to a hate crime.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | May 22, 2008 11:39:45 AM
This was a mugging, he got pushed over and robbed, hateful though that is, it's not a hate crime. Just like someone calling you a motherfucker doesn't mean he actually believes you guilty of incest. I feel bad for the guy, he's very young, but let's face it, pre or post surgery, he doesn't look too bad.
Posted by: Nonplussed | May 22, 2008 12:23:34 PM
May he recover quickly
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 22, 2008 12:36:15 PM
Be careful @ the dirty bird Boston boys...first Dan gets murdered after leaving there, now this.
Posted by: me | May 22, 2008 12:39:12 PM
Enough with the "hate crime" designation! Crime is crime, full stop, and as gays we have to stop seeking special status while pursuing equality at the same time. If I get beaten up by my boyfriend versus by a virulent homophobe, I'm still getting beaten up and both should get punished for exactly the same amount of time.
Posted by: Michael | May 22, 2008 12:39:59 PM
Would it be tacky for me to point out at this time that Daniel D'Orsi is HOT!?
But seriously, the fact that this is not being treated as a hate crime is ridiculous.
Posted by: peterparker | May 22, 2008 12:45:07 PM
Michael, michael, michael. Prosecutors distinguish between homicide, manslaughter, aggravated assault, etc. INTENT is very much the issue as it isn't the mugging, but the fact that the perpetrators committed the crime not to steal but to inflict harm based on the motivation of the individual's [implied] sexuality/race/gender. Motivation is essential, especially in instances of hate crimes.
As I used to live in the South End in the late '90's, I shocked to read more and more about hate crimes towards homosexuals in that area. I can't imagine how much it must have changed. I recall days when Tremont St and Columbus Ave were the pulse of the gay community. Now, it must be full of straight families and strollers, with the occasional gay baiter waiting in the alley's of Chandler St. Sad.
Posted by: Cory | May 22, 2008 12:49:50 PM
MICHAEL...if you get beaten up by your boyfriend, it is likely because the two of you had an argument and the violence doesn't really affect the wider community (and, no, I'm NOT saying it is okay to hit your boyfriend or anyone else for that matter)...if, however, you get jumped on the street by a stranger who beats you up while calling you 'faggot' or 'queer' or 'homo', then the entire gay community in your surrounding area gets terrorized because they know there is a chance they might be the next victim of someone out there who hates gay people so much he will resort to attacking them simply because they are gay...violence is never okay, but violence against a person simply because of who they are terrorizes the entire population of people who fit into that group...THAT is why inclusion of GLBT people in hate crimes legislation is important...and it has NOTHING to do with equality.
Posted by: peterparker | May 22, 2008 1:02:23 PM
Just for once I'd like to see a movie like The Brave One where some frat boy yells "Faggot!' or "Dyke!" and the hero shoots them in the face.
Posted by: Strepsi | May 22, 2008 1:11:51 PM
So maybe you Democrats could explain to us again how you can stomach supporting a party that dropped the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes bill, gutted and dropped ENDA and refuses to repeal Clintons bigoted DOMA and DADT. Are you going to try to tell us that they did it for some reason other than to prevent the Republicans using them as wedge issues?
The hate crimes statistics are out from the NCAVP and they show another sharp increase in election related violence and harassment. Is that increase only because of christian and Republican bigotry or is it due in part to the fact that the Democrats stabbed us in the back by publically repudiating our agenda.
http://www.ncavp.org/
Posted by: Bill Perdue, RainbowRED | May 22, 2008 1:12:35 PM
I'm sorry, 24PLAY,
I think our disagreement had more to do with whether murder was a correct charge in the Sandy case.
Even if robbery is the primary motivation in this Boston case, the attacker wanted to commit extreme violence against his victim. The hateful slur, "you fucking faggot!" tells us that "hate" towards gay people was a factor along with robbery.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | May 22, 2008 1:15:45 PM
Yeah, Daniel is way hot
Posted by: TOOBOOT | May 22, 2008 1:21:52 PM
I think the designation "hate crime" should be dropped in favor of something like "bias terrorism." People understand that an act of terrorism has victims beyond the people directly harmed. "Hate crime" sounds a little like "thought crime," so people have latched on to the idea that hate crime legislation exists to punish the intent of the offender. Instead, it exists because crimes which are based on bias are attacks on an entire class of people. I think we need to move into the terror-obsessed 21st century and move to a more accurate term.
BILL PERDUE:
It is hard to be a Democrat, especially since it seems that the true platform of the Democrats is simply to be slightly less evil than the Republicans. I remained an independent until after the 2000 election and the disastrous policies of the current president. At that point, "slightly less evil" seemed to be much less likely to result in the destruction of this country.
The Democrats are a shit choice, a shit party full of bigots, opportunists, and whiners. But, if you care about the country at all, how can you not be a Democrat in 2008?
Posted by: Landon Bryce | May 22, 2008 1:51:33 PM
Michael get your head out of Sully's ass.
Posted by: David Ehrenstein | May 22, 2008 1:53:41 PM
LANDON, your idea for changing the designation of "hate crime" to "bias terrorism" is absolutely BRILLIANT! Did you come up with that yourself? "Bias terrorism" really does better describe what the issue is and why it deserves hightened punishment.
The poorly named "hate crime" designation is really about adding greater penalties to fight terrorism and not about the assault itself or who the specific individual was that the assault was perpetrated against.
We should encourage the powers that be to consider changing the misnomer to a more accurate and descriptive name like "bias terrorism".
Kudos!
Posted by: Zeke | May 22, 2008 3:09:24 PM
Zeke & Landon:
I respect what both of you are saying. But, you know, I felt that a "special" penalty for committing violence against someone just because you hate the group/race/nationality they belong to is justified--just in regards to the damage done to one particular victim. But, yes, "bias terrorism" may make the public understand better the purpose/spirit behind such laws.
Maybe I've never really understood the purpose behind hate crime laws.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | May 22, 2008 3:38:31 PM
DERRICK, the "special" penalty would be the same it's just the name that LANDON has proposed needs changing for the sake of clarification of what the special penalty is attributed to. Most people who disagree with hate crimes laws (and some who agree with them) do so, as can clearly be seen above, because they don't really understand what they are. I believe simply changing the name to be more accurate and descriptive, as LANDON suggested, could help clarify what the law is, what it covers, why it's necessary and why the enhancement of punishment is appropriate.
When my son was quite young he was very confused about why some people who murdered got different sentences than others. He said, "Isn't killing killing?; doesn’t “Thou shalt not kill mean though shalt not kill?" Telling a child that a person gets a different punishment for murdering someone in the first degree than he/she does murdering them in the third degree makes absolutely NO sense to them. In fact, if anything, they might assume, as my son did, that a third degree murder charge must be three times worse than a first degree murder charge. With a little bit of education the reason why one was worse than the other became obvious to my son and he understood what the "degrees" of murder were, how they differed and why they called for different degrees of punishment. It wasn't about who the victim was or who the murderer was (at least not in a perfect world) it was about degree and intent. I think that with "hate crimes" we have the same level of misunderstanding about what they are and why they are punished more severely. In addition to changing the name of the enhancement I believe we have a lot of education to do to help people better understand what they really are and how they are, or should be, applied.
As for your feeling that any assault in which a racial or homophobic slur is uttered should be designated as a hate crime regardless of the intent of the attacker, I must respectfully but STRONGLY disagree. In so doing the State would completely invalidate the purpose and credibility of the designation. Additionally, such a wide application would achieve EXACTLY the kind of "special" status for crimes against certain people that misinformed people incorrectly claim exist when the law is properly and NARROWLY applied. The designation should ONLY be applied when a victim is targeted and assaulted specifically because of his race, religion, real or perceived orientation etc. In the example of this story it seems more likely that the assailant attacked and ROBBED a woman and a gay man because he wanted their money and he perceived (rightly or wrongly) that a woman and a gay man would be "easy", "weak" targets, making his robbery easier. Does that mean he's an asshole? Yes! Does it mean that he made assumptions based on characteristics? Probably. Does it mean that his intent was to strike terror into the female and gay community? Very doubtful. At least I don't think so. I think his intent was to rob who he thought would be the easiest mark. Don't all robbers choose their targets based on two main criteria: 1) who they think will most likely have money or valuables; 2) who they think will be the easiest, weakest and most accessible target. This man probably thought that women and gay men were the most likely to fit those two criteria and so he targeted them, but ROBBERY and not HATRED seems to have been his motivation and purpose for the assaults. This is why I can understand, without further evidence, why it may not be classified as a hate crime. Yes he may have yelled gay slurs during the attack just as he may have yelled "b*tch" during the attack on the woman or a racial slur during an attack on a black man but that doesn't mean that the purpose of the attack was homophobia, sexism or racism or that the intent of the attack was to send a message to entire minority communities.
Sometimes when and when not to apply the designation is very tricky but, for the most part, I believe the justice system is doing a pretty good job of navigating the process.
I believe the case of Michael Sandy is one of those VERY tricky and confusing cases because, even though he was targeted because he was gay, and black, it's not clear that they intended to hurt him and it's certainly not clear that they intended to hurt him BECAUSE of his color or sexual orientation. They just saw him as an easy mark to rob. I don't mean that to sound callous or unsympathetic, BELIEVE ME, I'm not. I shed many tears over Michael's horrible death. I'm just saying that the facts of the case put the authorities in a very tricky situation as they tried to determine INTENT.
Sorry for the long comment.
Posted by: Zeke | May 22, 2008 5:53:31 PM
Landon Bryce - if you care about the country and the GLBT communities you have to begin with the fact that the Democrats are in lockstep with the Republicans. That will end up destroying the Democrats, especially if they win.
The Republicans are going to get clobbered in November. Obama has it made unless the Bradley effect runs deeper that we think or he vacillates like a spastic tuning fork like Kerry did. Obama has the best chance to win because he’s an unknown: he hasn’t had time to accumulate an arms length rap sheet like McCain and Clinton. He’ll probably win big and then his situation will suddenly change.
There’ll be no more excuses.
The Democrats and Obama have no plans to end the war by immediately and totally withdraw from the Middle East and cut the purse string so zionist apartheid and ethnic cleansing. The genocide in Iraq and the ethnic cleansing in Palestine will go on and on.
We’ve already been told that the best we can expect is another stripped down, gutted version of ENDA. Barney Quisling says so and I believe him.
There are no plans to repeal NAFTA, DOMA, DADT or the severly anti-constitutional Paytriot Act. And worst of all there’s not much likelihood that the economy will stop spiraling into a deep nose dive until it crashes and burns.
The election of Obama and the Democrats (or McCain and the Republicans) will leave us up the creek without a paddle. We going to have to roll up our sleeves and rebuild the LGBT, antiwar, union and other movements to fight the incoming administration and repair the damage caused by those who voted it in.
Your idea about hate crime vs. bias terrorism is good. I think that the death penalty should only be used in cases of violence based on bigotry and for genocide. I don't think there’s much difference between the two except in scale and that permitting one to go unpunished or with a slap on the wrist leads to the other. The crimes of the Nazis are a perfect example.
Posted by: Bill Perdue, RainbowRED | May 22, 2008 6:32:16 PM
Zeke,
thanks for your very thoughtful response and explanation. I still have a problem understanding the purpose behind "hate crime" laws and how they should be applied. I still believe that they should apply to the criminal due to the hatred he feels for his victim and what that victim represents (Jews, gays, blacks, whites, women, Latinos, etc.).
I do understand the problem that occurs when the public believes that only "certain victims" receive special consideration, and that "hate crime" laws can never apply to crimes against white heterosexual males. For some folks, that does create a problem, and accusations of unfairness & special treatment. But then, the usual targets of special hatred get special violent attention from violent haters. The violence committed by the haters is unfairly aimed at certain types of people--the haters are not fair in how they hand out violence.
Zeke, it makes me wonder whether Matthew Shepard's murder may not have fit certain definitions of "hate crime". Why must we prove that his killers were making a terroristic threat against Gays in America. Why can't we give them an "extreme sentence" for perpetrating "extreme violence" against a young man they hated just because of who/what he was. Their hate for this young man and "his kind" was the major factor in their desire to commit "extra" violence (torture) against Matthew--whether they were making a statement directed other gays or not.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | May 23, 2008 12:09:06 PM
BILL PERDUE:
You sound like Ralph Nader, claiming that there was no difference between Al Gore And George W. Bush. Think of the thousands of people Bush's policies have killed because people believed that argument. The difference between Republicans and Democrats is not as great as I would like, and the DNC needs to get rid of its high-ranking homophobes rather than covering up their bigotry. But, really, what do you think people SHOULD do? Not vote? Throw their votes away on third party candidates and give the White House to McCain? What?
Posted by: Landon Bryce | May 23, 2008 6:28:03 PM
Look at those eyes! Bless his heart. I want to take him home and nurse him back to health. I hope he recovers quickly and they find the thug who did it!
Posted by: Bob | May 23, 2008 8:30:41 PM
I believe that Matthew Shepard's murder most certainly would qualify as a hate crime/bias terrorism even though I don't believe Wyoming had hate crime designations then. I don't even think they have them now.
Posted by: Zeke | May 23, 2008 11:34:01 PM
Hey Bubba, That analysis would have earned an "A" in the criminal procedure and advocacy classes that I have taught. I will not insult you by suggesting that you are an attorney. (Cf. My grandmother would never admit that status about me but only referred vaguely to Rudy "working in Washington"!) You are, however, an extremely articulate and effective advocate.
The enhancement factors that are the historical juridical bases for a "hate crime" designation all go to intent (e.g., "scienter," "mal fides," "premeditation," "depraved heart," etc.) which have ere been part of criminal law. What trips up many people and is used by pundits to argue against hate crime designation as a "special law" is the name itself not the historical validity. It brings out the spectre of the "thought police and becomes intertwined with mistaken and inapplicable notions of First Amendment "free speech".
That the hate crime laws extant have been effective is largely due to prosecutorial discretion sharpened by effective defensive lawyering. We are fortunate in the US that justice is meted out in the majority of criminal prosecutions. That is not to say that result is achieved in every case or that there do not exist biased/bigoted prosecutors, law enforcement officials, and judges but that the majority of cases that are brought to trial are effectively prosecuted and defended.
Hate crime laws are simply another "arrow in the quiver" of prosecutorial tools, but they can be a very effective means of achieving justice.
Thanks once again for your eloquent and common sense articulation of a complex area of policy and law. Te respeto mucho, abogado Zeke.
Posted by: rudy | May 24, 2008 12:37:24 PM
The definition of a hate crime shouldn't be contingent upon linkages to other crimes or profiles of assailants, but rather whether or not the attack was motivated by the hate of persons based on their sexual/gender identity. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to put the pieces of this puzzle together. A robbery outside a gay bar, during which the hateful epitets of "f-ing faggot" were invoked should satisfy the threshold of this crime being viewed as a hate crime. Those who wish can write to Mayor Thomas M. Menino at 1 City Hall Square, Suite 500, Boston, MA 02201-2013 or visit www.cityofboston.gov/mayor. If there is enough outrage about the way the Boston Police have chosen to handle this crime perhaps things will change.
Posted by: Rob | May 25, 2008 5:57:31 PM