Ecuadorean immigrant, Marcelo Lucero

Long Island teen Jeffrey Conroy was convicted of man-slaughter as a racially motivated hate crime Monday. After 4 days of deliberations, Conroy was also found guilty of assault on 3 other hispanics. Marcelo Lucero, age 37 was killed by a gang of 6 whites and 1 hispanic. The defense rested on they didn’t intend to kill him. The trial has been fraught with irregularities. This trial has also been watched carefully by immigrants’ rights groups.

He was acquitted of the most serious of the 20 charges against him which was second-degree murder as a hate crime. Had he been convicted he could have received life in prison as a sentence. Conroy, 19, now faces a minimum of eight years and a maximum of 25 years in prison. He is to be sentenced on May 26.

Lucero died of stab wounds to his chest. I expect no one is satisfied with this verdict. 8 years doesn’t seem like a lot of time for stabbing someone in the chest until they are dead.

Jeff Conroy
Jeff Conroy

37 Thoughts to “Long Island Immigrant Slayer Convicted of Hate Crime Man-Slaughter”

  1. marinm

    I don’t agree with crimes being labeled as ‘hate crimes’ as hate is usually a component of manslaughter or murder anyways.

    That it may be directed at a race or gender to me speaks to a component of intent and motive rather than a ‘seperate charge’.

    Reading about the wound made [by Conroy] I can see why the jury went with manslaughter rather than murder.

  2. It could be or it couldn’t be. Jumping someone because of their race is definitely different than randomly jumping someone to steal their lunch money.

  3. Elena

    I guess if you don’t INTEND to beat someone to death, its not so bad? Was this the group of young men that were “beaner” jumping?

  4. marinm

    Just the idea is non-logical to me.

    Instead of penalizing the action (murder, robbery, assault, rape, whatever) we’re saying that certain selected people within society have to have a ‘special protection’ and further criminalize the activity. It’s to me almost a reverse subsidy – if you commit a crime against this person you get an extra punishment but if you do it to this person the punishment isn’t as bad.

    Hate crime laws are racist on the face. That I am to be treated differently for being hispanic because someone might target me for being hispanic devalues the victimization of someone that is white or black or asian or jewish or female or whatever. Instead of treating us equally as victims we’re saying that some victims are more important or more special or more deserving of legal protections than others.

    That leaves a foul taste in my mouth. Justice should be blind and not take into account the color of my skin in such a context.

    If you want me as a hispanic to feel like race doesn’t matter? Treat me like you would anyone else. Don’t give me special things, don’t treat me different (above or below).. Don’t force me to walk behind you but let me walk alongside you (not you MH, just in general) as an equal.

    I hate hate crimes. 🙂

    1. Gotcha, Marin. and you make some good points there.

      Looking at it another way, do you think some crimes are more heinous because they target someone because of hate?

  5. marinm

    Elena, yes to beaner jumping.

    Yes, that’s the point of manslaughter. Not intending death but it resulting anyways.

  6. Some people are more vulnerable than others and are statistically more likely to be victimized. The reason they are protected by hate crime laws is that it’s too easy for the court to ignore discrimination and gloss over the aspect that prejudice is a motive for some people to kill. Without examining that motive, too many criminals would be exonerated due to lack of motive.

    So it makes sense to me that they need to be protected. Yes, we all do, but our country has a history of allowing systemic discrimination to go on, which is unfortunate. If we did not have such a history (i.e. segregation), we would not have to worry so much about hate crimes IMO.

  7. Rick Bentley

    I see the arguement for manslaughter. The defendent initiated the fight, then the deceased fought back, and when being attacked the defendent then used the knife. However, I don’t think that a sentence as light as 8 years is at all appropriate in this case.

    I do not see any sense in hate crime laws.

    However, the fact that this guy/kid had a swastika tattoo and had been repeatedly beating Latinos for being Latino can and should figure in motive. Personally I wouldn’t let the kid who stalked innocent men and then killed one off so lightly. I do suspect prejudice on the jury’s part for that to make sense to them.

  8. Rick Bentley

    “our country has a history of allowing systemic discrimination”

    Which hate crime laws are an example of and a continuation of.

  9. Elena

    Posting As Pinko :Some people are more vulnerable than others and are statistically more likely to be victimized. The reason they are protected by hate crime laws is that it’s too easy for the court to ignore discrimination and gloss over the aspect that prejudice is a motive for some people to kill. Without examining that motive, too many criminals would be exonerated due to lack of motive.
    So it makes sense to me that they need to be protected. Yes, we all do, but our country has a history of allowing systemic discrimination to go on, which is unfortunate. If we did not have such a history (i.e. segregation), we would not have to worry so much about hate crimes IMO.

    Great point Pinko, motive DOES absolutely factor into sentencing.

  10. marinm

    @Moon-howler

    No, I don’t. Murder is murder. That someone murdered someone because they were white, black, or brown doesn’t amplify the murder – to me.

    The only rationale I can see for providing an amplification to the criminal code would be those that are handicapped, children or the elderly. Because of age or physical/mental handicap they are unable to provide a defense (either physically or use of a weapon) so they may be attacked with greater confidence than a person who can effectively defend himself.

    Rick, you answered the question much better than I could’ve. Hats off.

  11. I think it is worse to go into a gay bar and deliberately chose someone to jump than it is to just walk down the street and single out someone randomly. And I don’t care what the qualifier is: race, gender, sexual orientation, religion.

    On the other hand, I don’t see why this guy got convicted of only one crime when he routinely goes out ‘beaner jumping.’

  12. marinm

    I think that it’s worse that someone who is gay can lay claim to being more of a victim than I for a crime perpetuated on either of us.

    I think that in terms of a crime – the law already has a remedy (assault, rape, murder, et al.) and that once the person is found having violated that law at sentencing the motivation and totality of the crime should be taken into account when setting the sentence.

    I don’t agree with hate crimes and I think our general assembly here in Virginia believes the same.

  13. I am not convinced that hate crime laws saying one victim is more a victim than another, as Marin put it. I think the laws are saying that crime motivated by prejudice will not be tolerated in this country.

  14. Emma

    Would you classify rape as a hate crime then, Pinko, since the vast majority of rapes are against women? I definitely think motive should play a big part in sentencing, but I don’t think motive should be teased out and tried separately as a crime, which is essentially what a hate-crime classification does.

  15. Last I heard it was ok to do whatever you wanted to do to gays in Virginia. As a life-long Virginian, that doesn’t make me too proud.

    The General Assembly has some members in it who probably would enjoy throwing rocks at gays if their buddies were around to cheer them on. Just the impression I have gotten from the rhetoric.

    Fortunately, NY doesn’t agree. Maybe if Lucero had lived in Prince William County Jeff would have gotten a commendation. Sorry, just the mood I am in from listening to Faux News.

  16. Visitor

    No, you can’t “do whatever you wanted to gays in Virginia”. Gays have exactly the same legal protections as everyone else in Virginia. Hitting somebody who is gay gets you the same punishment as hitting somebody who isn’t gay.

    It’s called equality, something that gay groups claim to be fighting for. (But their definition of equality tends to include special rights for gays, like the hospital visitation rights Obama just gave them.)

  17. Good for Obama. I approve.

    And no, they don’t have equal rights with everyone else. That is just pure bull. They don’t have the right to civil unions and they don’t have job protection at state colleges and university.

    Walk a mile …..

  18. Second-Alamo

    Sorry, but nature’s design and gay unions are at opposite ends of the spectrum. It’s like jamming the wrong pieces of a puzzle together. Eventually you’ll fill the gaps, but the picture just doesn’t make sense.

  19. Starryflights

    Mr. Conroy will now have plenty of opportunities to pick fights with Hipanics and other minorities where he’s going, if that’s what gets him off. He’s going to be a target.

  20. SA, spare us the graphics. I don’t think ‘nature’s design’ has anything to do with rights. What might not be something you or I would prefer has not one thing to do with the fact that gays don’t have equal rights.

    Many people might ‘do’ things I find pretty repulsive. It has nothing to do with rights.

    Starry makes a very solid point. Mr. Conroy is going to the right place to hone in on his skills.

  21. Visitor

    You seem to have a very creative definition of equality. Equality does not mean “everything the gay activists want, they get.” Here’s how equality really works:

    Are civil unions legal for gays in Virginia: No.
    Are civil unions legal for non-gays in Virginia: No.

    Can a gay person be fired for their sexual orientation? Yes.
    Can a non-gay person be fired for their sexual orientation? Yes.

    Notice how the answers to each question are the same, or should I say equal. That’s equality. If you want to claim that gays don’t have the same rights as everyone else, name one law that is different for gays. (I mean, besides where Obama started giving special privileges to gay domestic partners but not straight ones.)

  22. Starryflights

    Visitor :If you want to claim that gays don’t have the same rights as everyone else, name one law that is different for gays. (I mean, besides where Obama started giving special privileges to gay domestic partners but not straight ones.)

    Obama has not given special privileges to gay domestic partners but not straight ones. You lie!

  23. Second-Alamo

    Good question. Does the new visiting rule or whatever now allow anyone to visit anyone while in the hospital regardless of family affiliation? So no more next of kin type of rule? I’ll have to ask my daughter if anything has changed at her hospital.

  24. Visitor, non-gays have marriage. Give me a break. You would have howled bloody murder if I had suggested gay marriage.

    Let me get this straight..can a straight person be fired for their sexual orientation? NOOOO that is totally absurd.

    Can someone be fired for inappropriate sexual behavior? YESSS., as it should be.

    Perhaps the problem is that visitor doesn’t know the difference in orientation and behavior?

    I prediction is that this issue will be settled in the courts as a civil rights issue.

  25. Second-Alamo

    So how come if a kid is rammy at school he is labeled as having some mental disorder instead of just naturally being a kid, yet when two people of the same gender have sex (or whatever you want to call it) they just refer to it as a natural act and not a mental disorder? One sure seems a lot more NATURAL than the other, but now days I’m the one with the mental disorder for thinking that way. Brainwashing sometimes leaves a nasty ring!

    1. I am not even sure I understand the question, SA. Maybe it is I who has the mental disorder.

      By ‘rammy’ do you mean ‘horny?’

      I think it depends on what the kid does. Does he violate other people’s rights?

  26. SA, I think the proclamation or whatever it was just addressed gays. That is where there has been the most problem. I don’t know how one extends the same rights to straight people. I am not sure straight people have the same issues.

    A will doesn’t kick in unless you are dead, so gays can’t really set up a contingency plan with a domestic partner. Maybe that would be the area to address…register as domestic partners?

  27. Second-Alamo

    MH, where is your mind! No, by rammy I mean overactive as in won’t sit still, etc. Nothing to do with sex. I’m making honest statements about the world of gays, and was just hoping that someone would have the guts to agree, or am I the last holdout for supporting nature’s plan?

  28. @Emma
    Emma, very interesting point. I could easily argue that misogynists (women haters) who rape or commit crimes just against women are indeed committing hate crimes. But why don’t we see it that way, even though clearly women are still considered minorities and vulnerable?

    I think it has to do with how women are viewed in general and the way rape has historically been addressed or not addressed in this country. The power structure is such that men hold most of the cards, even now. What would happen to the power structure if women were suddenly protected from hate crimes?

    I’m not being anti-man here, BTW. Men who are raped are just as much victimized as women. And a woman who is a man hater and who commits crimes against weak men because they ARE men is committing hate crimes. But I think we should challenge the assumptions our system has created. Why are rapes hardly ever brought to court as hate crimes when clearly, many rapists are women haters?

    I’m going back to the definition of a hate crime for reference, and I’m turning to the all-too-convenient Wiki to do so:

    –Hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, class, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation.[1]

    “Hate crime” generally refers to criminal acts which are seen to have been motivated by hatred of one or more of the listed conditions. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters (hate mail).[2]–

    According to the definition, rape could qualify as a hate crime in many instances.

  29. Starryflights

    Second-Alamo, why are you so interested in what homosexuals do?

  30. Starry! grrrrrrr

    SA, I have never heard that expression. I don’t think that would be classified as a mental disorder. Maybe a learning disorder.

    Sorry…I will go sit in the corner. I was thinking of goats…..

  31. SA unless you are gay, I don’t think anyone can claim to know about “the world of gays.”

  32. Second-Alamo

    Well, I can see that Starry is being her pleasant self as usual. No, I’m not the least bit interested in their activities, but they’ve put society on a slippery perverted slope, and I don’t want to see children indoctrinated into their world without first understanding natures true intent.

    Back to the puzzle analogy again! (actually I thought that was rather understandable)

  33. Is Starry a male or female? Starry, M or F?

    SA, do you really think people chose to be gay? Why would someone deliberately choose to be gay? That doesn’t say much for hetero. Additionally, society is very harsh on gays. Why would someone choose that?

    I actually knew someone was gay when I was a kid, long before I had any concept of gay vs straight…I just knew that about someone. And he was.

  34. Visitor

    Starryflights :

    Visitor :If you want to claim that gays don’t have the same rights as everyone else, name one law that is different for gays. (I mean, besides where Obama started giving special privileges to gay domestic partners but not straight ones.)

    Obama has not given special privileges to gay domestic partners but not straight ones. You lie!

    I lie? Well, my source was this blog. It’s right up on the front page.

    Obama Mandated Visitation Rights in Hospitals to Partners of Gays
    http://www.moonhowlings.net/index.php/2010/04/15/obama-mandated-visitation-rights-in-hospitals-to-partners-of-gays/

    “Hopefully this right would be extended to any partnership, not just a partnership between gays. Straight people have unconventional relationships also. However, this is a good place to start.”

    I know you were oh so eager to use the clever Joe Wilson “You Lie!” line back at a republican, but you should at least try to not look like a complete fool when you do it. In fairness, the article I was talking about was five days old. I can see how it might be difficult to remember something that far back. Or is Moon Howler lying too?

  35. Visitor, I feel quite certain you don’t take this blog as the end all/be all in fact vs fiction. Consider anything here an opinion.

    President Obama maybe have extended the same rights to heterosexual domestic partners. I just don’t know. I have read nothing about that and I don’t know how that would work. The on-going problem has been with gay couples.

Comments are closed.