A woman was murdered because of her race. The perp admits that his actions were based upon the victim's race -- and even claims she was not an innocent victim because of her race. Sounds like it meets all the criteria to me. Or does it, because the perp is black and the victim is white?

A homeless black man told police on videotape that he was fighting a race war and killed a 56-year-old woman at a Westchester County mall last week because she was white.

The man, Phillip Grant, 43, appeared in shackles and a bulletproof vest in a White Plains courtroom for a felony hearing Tuesday. In the 45-minute videotape played during the hearing, Grant told police "all I knew was she had blond hair and blue eyes and she had to die."

He claimed Connie Russo Carriero "was not an innocent victim because she was white."

Carriero, a legal secretary and mother of two grown children, was stabbed to death while walking to her car at the Galleria Mall parking garage. She was buried Tuesday.

Grant, a convicted rapist, was charged with second-degree murder and weapon possession in the knife attack. If convicted, he could be sentenced to up to 25 years to life in prison.

Now down in New York City, a couple of white guys are facing hate crime charges for beating a couple of black guys who came into their neighborhood in search of a car to steal. But up in Westchester County, enhanced charges won't be filed against a black man who admits a clear racial motivation. What happened to equal protection of the law? Do hate crime laws apply only to crimes committed by whites against minorities, but not the other way around?

Posted by: Greg at 03:59 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 306 words, total size 2 kb.