Although very briefly reported in today's front page article, the hate crime charge filed against the four individuals who allegedly attacked two immigrants back in October is rather significant.
City police arrested four suspects Tuesday morning for an alleged bias attack on two Mexican men last month that a witness videotaped on his iPhone.
Police said the four suspects, three of them brothers from Bethel and the fourth, a Danbury resident who cleans the city police station, shouted racial slurs as they beat and robbed the victims in a Balmforth Avenue parking lot in the early morning hours of Oct. 10.
Here's a copy of the charges filed (via the CT judicial website). The hate crime charge is highlighted in blue.
Connecticut has a number of statutes on hate crimes that protect a range of people, enhance penalties for bias crimes, and allow an injured person to sue for money damages. The primary criminal statutes are the intimidation based on bigotry or bias crimes. These statutes provide three degrees of penalties. They address certain actions that intimidate or harass another person because of his actual or perceived race, religion, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression.
[...]
Second-Degree
A person commits the second degree crime if he acts maliciously and intends to intimidate or harass someone because of his actual or perceived race, religion, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression by:
1. making physical contact with the victim;
2. damaging, destroying, or defacing property; or
3. threatening to do either of these things and the victim has reasonable cause to believe he will carry out the threat.
This is a class D felony, punishable by one to five years in prison, a fine of up to $ 5,000, or both (CGS § 53a-181k).
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
