U.S. NEWS: Man sets fire to UK Muslim's dress on NYC's Fifth Avenue

**Search** · 09-13-2016

(In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

Source

A British woman's traditional Muslim clothing was set on fire on Fifth Avenue, New York police have said.

The woman, who had been staying in a Manhattan hotel, was returning from sightseeing when she felt a warm spot on her arm, an officer told the BBC.

She turned and saw her arm on fire and a man with a cigarette lighter. She was able to pat out the fire with her hands and did not suffer any injury.

The attack is being investigated as a possible hate crime.

A police source confirmed to the BBC the woman is Scottish but would not confirm local reports she is a dentist from Glasgow.

The woman was left with a hole the size of a 25-cent coin (about the size of a 2p-coin) on her sleeve, police said.

They have footage of a man they suspect of the crime and are appealing for witnesses.

When news emerged of the attack, the Council on American-Islamic Relations called upon the mayor to add resources to the city's hate crime investigation unit.
"We are clearly seeing a spike in attacks on individual Muslims and Islamic institutions in New York and around the country, which should be of concern to all Americans," said CAIR-NY Executive Director Afaf Nasher.

"It is time for the mayor and the NYPD to put forward the necessary resources to investigate and prevent these attacks on the Muslim community."

**cooterhein** · 09-14-2016

Originally Posted by jabeady

The designation of a hate crime doesn't usually come into play until the sentencing phase. I *think* in most states the hate crime designation functions to double the sentence to be imposed.

I looked up a couple of things just now. First, the hate crime designation according to New York state law.
http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article485.htm
From the Sentencing section.

"2. When a person is convicted of a hate crime pursuant to this article and the specified offense is a misdemeanor or a class C, D or E felony,
the hate crime shall be deemed to be one category higher than the
specified offense the defendant committed, or one category higher than
the offense level applicable to the defendant`s conviction for an
attempt or conspiracy to commit a specified offense, whichever is
applicable."
So it does depend on the exact category, but in this instance it looks like it could more than double the sentencing. As best I can tell, this is a Class D felony (within the specified set of categories) and the outcome will most likely look like this.
http://www.assaultandbattery.org/new-york/

"2^nd Degree Assault

Slightly more serious than a 3^rd degree assault charge, this offense is considered a Class D violent felony and generally carries a potential 7 year prison sentence. In addition, it carries the label of “convicted felon” for life."

Okay, so under strictly normal circumstances this would probably carry a 7 year sentence and a lifetime as a convicted felon. But if this is successfully tried as a hate crime, this would get bumped up from 2nd Degree Assault sentencing to 1st Degree Assault sentencing. So that would look like this.

"1^st Degree Assault
The most serious of general assault charges, 1^st degree assault is considered a Class B violent felony and typically carries up to 25 years in prison."

So that's 25 years instead of 7, although it may be worth mentioning that in both cases 7 is the maximum and 25 is the maximum. I'm not sure how likely it is for the maximum sentence to be the outcome, but there is potential for this to result in a tripling of jail time.

And of course it's worth asking, what if the offense was in the first degree to begin with? What would happen then, if it was a hate crime? That's covered a bit in the first source, notice that we switch categories from 2nd degree to 1st degree. We're going from a Class D felony at the 2nd degree to a Class B felony at the 1st degree. So according to that first link, we're looking at some sort of sliding scale on minimum sentencing but it doesn't mention anything about increasing the maximum, from what I can tell anyway. But hey, it's New York, this may be just a bit different in other states.

I suppose the good news is that this should be charged as a felony with significant jail time no matter which way it goes. I would be curious to see exactly what the burden of proof is when questioning if it's a hate crime, though. It was blatantly obvious that the woman was a Muslim, sort of like how it's blatantly obvious that a black person is black and a woman is a woman (some of the other hate crime categories). It was also a really odd attack that specifically targeted her clothing. These sorts of things can be suggestive of a certain type of targeting without necessarily having slam-dunk evidence such as anti-Muslim epithets that were shouted so everyone could hear. It's possible to make that argument, but I don't know how likely it is to work. This could be a rather interesting piece of legal precedent. They have to find the guy in order for this to happen though, so I guess we take it one thing at a time.

**M.I.A.** · 09-14-2016

Originally Posted by jabeady

Tell me how you know this. How do you know he didn't just intend to scare or harass her? How do you know?

...a person makes an argument that is logical and objective.

it makes sense.

it poses moral and ethical questions.

and it's like taking a layer of an onion..

you my friend.. are still an onion.

if only one good post was followed by another.

the hell is wrong with you?

DD

the law and the application of law are two differing things..

probably..

or do only the innocent get defended by lawyers?

**jabeady** · 09-14-2016

Sigh.

A person sets someone else's clothing on fire with a cigarette lighter, in the middle of a crowd. Is the intention to harass or to murder?

To *declare* that the intention is to murder, you have to not only *have knowledge* of what the attacker is thinking, you also have to *assume* that the attacker is counting on the people in the crowd to ignore what is happening.

The poster making the declaration has demonstrated no knowledge of the attacker's thinking. The poster making the declaration has only made an accusation of attempted murder, and offered no evidence of intent. If this were to go to trial on this basis, it would certainly result in an acquittal. The attacker would go free, immune to further prosecution for this act.

However, if it is treated as an aggravated assault, the attacker's intention isn't so important, conviction is reasonably likely and, as a hate crime, punishment is significantly increased.

Which would be the smarter charge to make, aggravated assault or attempted murder?

Now, any talk about the law versus how it's enforced in this case has to include the *fact* that it is eligible to be treated as a hate crime, and probably will be if the attacker can be apprehended. The designation as a hate crime would be a tacit demonstration that American society regards physically attacking someone because of their gender and/or religion, regardless of intent, is particularly reprehensible. This would seem to be to American society's credit, and I don't understand why it should deserve criticism.

BTW, just as an aside, I once heard someone complain about hate crimes. Why, the person asked, should a crime be considered more serious because of who the victim was? It seemed to him to be just more damned political correctness. I responded by asking him what he wanted to do and who did he want to do it to? He never answered.

PS: If a person accuses another person of something, without providing evidence, then the accuser could very well be sued for libel or slander. As in science, in American law claims and accusations must be substantiated by evidence.

**Serinity** · 09-14-2016

Oh yeah, some kid goes out with an AK-47 out in the street and kills 24 people..

We don't know the intention of the kid, it may have been an accident. Or perhaps he misfired. and wanted to test the gun.........

"To "declare" this as an intent to kill, you have to not only *have knowledge* of what the attacker is thinking, you also have to *assume* that the attacker is counting on the people in the crowd to ignore what is happening. "

There is something called logical deduction ya know. One may rape 200 girls, but say "I just wanted to save them......" will the court be like "oh ok, just go to jail for 2 months, and be free".

If I kill 2000 people and say "I just wanted to test the gun, my intentions was not to kill people." will the court give any bugs about my intentions?

Fact is, he could have burned The Muslim woman, and who cares what his intentions were, if people let him be, he'd prob burn the Muslim Woman. we see at what COULD have happened rather than "BUT did he INTEND IT?"

With liars come holes.

so if the guy lies, one can technically find out by psychologically manipulating the guy. :

**M.I.A.** · 09-14-2016

Originally Posted by jabeady

Sigh.

A person sets someone else's clothing on fire with a cigarette lighter, in the middle of a crowd. Is the intention to harass or to murder?

To *declare* that the intention is to murder, you have to not only *have knowledge* of what the attacker is thinking, you also have to *assume* that the attacker is counting on the people in the crowd to ignore what is happening.

The poster making the declaration has demonstrated no knowledge of the attacker's thinking. The poster making the declaration has only made an accusation of attempted murder, and offered no evidence of intent. If this were to go to trial on this basis, it would certainly result in an acquittal. The attacker would go free, immune to further prosecution for this act.

However, if it is treated as an aggravated assault, the attacker's intention isn't so important, conviction is reasonably likely and, as a hate crime, punishment is significantly increased.

Which would be the smarter charge to make, aggravated assault or attempted murder?

Now, any talk about the law versus how it's enforced in this case has to include the *fact* that it is eligible to be treated as a hate crime, and probably will be if the attacker can be apprehended. The designation as a hate crime would be a tacit demonstration that American society regards physically attacking someone because of their gender and/or religion, regardless of intent, is particularly reprehensible. This would seem to be to American society's credit, and I don't understand why it should deserve criticism.

BTW, just as an aside, I once heard someone complain about hate crimes. Why, the person asked, should a crime be considered more serious because of who the victim was? It seemed to him to be just more damned political correctness. I responded by asking him what he wanted to do and who did he want to do it to? He never answered.

PS: If a person accuses another person of something, without providing evidence, then the accuser could very well be sued for libel or slander. As in science, in American law claims and accusations must be substantiated by evidence.

...I didn't read your post.. just the first few lines.

if a person sets fire to your house..

how do you define the maximum punishment?

it's probably if there were people in it at the time.

probably :/

it's not a murder investigation.

but if the person ended up on life support..

it would be some equivalent of attempted murder.

..but should the punishment reflect the crime or the outcome of the crime?

depends on what deterrent the law wants to be..

who serves life for multiple shoplifting?

**jabeady** · 09-14-2016

Originally Posted by Serinity

Oh yeah, some kid goes out with an AK-47 out in the street and kills 24 people..

We don't know the intention of the kid, it may have been an accident. Or perhaps he misfired. and wanted to test the gun.........

"To "declare" this as an intent to kill, you have to not only *have knowledge* of what the attacker is thinking, you also have to *assume* that the attacker is counting on the people in the crowd to ignore what is happening. "

There is something called logical deduction ya know. One may rape 200 girls, but say "I just wanted to save them......" will the court be like "oh ok, just go to jail for 2 months, and be free".

If I kill 2000 people and say "I just wanted to test the gun, my intentions was not to kill people."

Fact is, he could have burned The Muslim woman, and who cares what his intentions were, if people let him be, he'd prob burn the Muslim Woman. we see at what COULD have happened rather than "BUT did he INTEND IT?"

I'm missing something. How are the two cases equivalent? There would seem to be a difference between an AK47 and a cigarette lighter.

**Serinity** · 09-14-2016

Originally Posted by jabeady

I'm missing something. How are the two cases equivalent? There would seem to be a difference between an AK47 and a cigarette lighter.

unless the guy was mentally ill, I can not see it other than it being intentional for the guy to burn.. Remember, one can use a fork for murder.......

**jabeady** · 09-14-2016

Originally Posted by Serinity

unless the guy was mentally ill, I can not see it other than it being intentional for the guy to burn.. Remember, one can use a fork for murder.......

You don't need any weapon at all to commit murder. But my argument is that murder is a serious charge to make, and it requires serious evidence. Doesn't Islam teach that "Thou shalt not bear false witness," to borrow a phrase?

**Serinity** · 09-14-2016

Originally Posted by jabeady

You don't need any weapon at all to commit murder. But my argument is that murder is a serious charge to make, and it requires serious evidence. Doesn't Islam teach that "Thou shalt not bear false witness," to borrow a phrase?

what do you mean by "borrow a phrase".

Indeed we shall hold onto Justice, even if it be against our own selves, etc.

we don't know whether it was intentional or not, but doesn't excuse him from what he did.

**jabeady** · 09-14-2016

"To borrow a phrase" means to use someone else's words as your own. In this case, I was
"borrowing" the 6th(?) Commandment.

And no, it doesn't excuse him. I have neither the desire nor intention of excusing him. However, he can *and should* only be punished for what he actually did, and not for what others *think* he was doing.

**Futuwwa** · 09-15-2016

Somehow I suspect the guy with the lighter didn't really think things through. His actual chances of either causing significant damage, or getting away with it, were rather small. I suspect it was just a random bigot who happened to be suitably annoyed in the moment without really thinking it through.

**jabeady** · 09-15-2016

I agree. The thread took the situation to a ridiculous extreme.

In other news, an arrest has been made in the arson of the Orlando Islamic center/mosque, whatever.

**m.riz** · 09-15-2016

Hate crime

**M.I.A.** · 09-15-2016

I'd like to talk about terrorism and in particular ISIS for a moment..

it's semi relevant.

it seems to me that isis have it fundamentally wrong in approach..

all they have done is let loose anarchy to those open to it.

let's take the example of smoking..

isis have beheaded people for the crime.

it has been fundamentally labeled haram.

...weather it is or not is another matter.. but let's take it as example.

if you look towards the west.. smoking is becoming increasingly not tolerated.

it has become illegal to smoke in places of work, public buildings..as well as other places.

it has become heavily taxed by the government..

the cynic would say it's a money making scheme.

the scientist would say it's to pay for subsequent health care.

what would the Muslim say?

there is still freedom to choose the wrong action.. but it is heavily penalised..

it is by modern equivalent the western jizya..

and it is irrespective of any claimed allegiance.

you could say that in the secularist society it has very little to do with faith or God..

and yet it becomes more of an intolerant action.

it is ironic that the faithless implement rule better than those that would turn you away from them or worse.

it's just a concept, feel free to disregard or scrutinise.

**Scimitar** · 09-16-2016

Originally Posted by jabeady

5b6fbf7e33ba5c040e5fcdbc5be84114 1 - U.S. NEWS: Man sets fire to UK Muslim's dress on NYC's Fifth Avenue

epic... my guess it Titan didn't have the strength to pull it out himself

the irony

Scimi

**Scimitar** · 09-16-2016

Originally Posted by Futuwwa

Somehow I suspect the guy with the lighter didn't really think things through. His actual chances of either causing significant damage, or getting away with it, were rather small. I suspect it was just a random bigot who happened to be suitably annoyed in the moment without really thinking it through.

Grown men with the IQ of 6 year olds should not be allowed near combustible substances, period.

Scimi