Hate crimes against "the homeless"

[MikeK]

it's not about hating an individual. it's about one's prejudices, whether racial hatred or hatred of gays or the like is the precipitating factor in the crime. it's not about robbing someone of a different color. it's about victimizing someone BECAUSE of whatever protected class they're a part of. it's really no different from measuring intent in any other act... but if a group of people beat some guy BECAUSE he's gay, (e.g. matthew shepard) then those people deserve an extra punishment...

it's a deterrence issue.

i understand all of that jillian....

i aslo understand how it is being used as a deterrence..... so why not deter it ALL and just maxi it all up to enhanced levels??? Shouldn't that deter the non hate crimes?

because there were places in this country where people routinely victimized people because of what they were born. it's a message sent that society won't tolerate that type of hate.

But how do you prove the motive for assaulting or killing someone was ethnic bias?

E.g., suppose you are a prosecutor in the deep South and I am a White man who has assaulted a Black man. You say I did it because I "hate" Black people. I say I did it because I don't like the way the complainant walks, or talks, or dresses, or whatever, and his race had nothing to do with it. Without some specific form of evidence, how do you establish my true thoughts in relation to the assault?

Unless these "hate crime" laws are an intended precursor to assigning specially protected status to an entire ethnic category, how can they possibly be used?

 

[George Costanza]

There is a difference.

Case one: John hits Jack while drunk, because he believes that Jack is sleeping with his wife. Jack falls back and splits his head open.

Case two: Mark hates blacks, and sets out one night with the intention of assaulting a black person. He finds Bill, and shoves him. Bill falls down, hits his head on the curb, and splits his head open.

One of the above cases is worse than the other.

Case three: Mary invites Craig back home with the intention of sleeping with him. Halfway through, she changes her mind, but Craig continues, even though Mary is struggling against him.

Case four: Lucy is walking home from a bar one night, when she is attacked by Martin, who has been waiting in the bushes for a lone woman to pass by.

Again, one of those cases is worse than the other.

There is a difference.

Case one: John hits Jack while drunk, because he believes that Jack is sleeping with his wife. Jack falls back and splits his head open.

Standard assault. Not a hate crime - because not motivated by hatred of a class of people.

Case two: Mark hates blacks, and sets out one night with the intention of assaulting a black person. He finds Bill, and shoves him. Bill falls down, hits his head on the curb, and splits his head open.

Hate crime. Motivated in whole or in part by hatred of a class of people, in this case, a racial class.

One of the above cases is worse than the other.

Yes. The second case is worse than the first, not because of the result, which is the same, but rather because of the REASON for the attack in the first place.

Case three: Mary invites Craig back home with the intention of sleeping with him. Halfway through, she changes her mind, but Craig continues, even though Mary is struggling against him.

Standard assault. Not a hate crime - because not motivated by hatred of a class of people. (Although a pretty good argument could be made that this is a hate crime because Mary falls into the class of females known as a prick teaser. However, prick teasers are not a protected class in any hate crime legislation anywhere in this country. Probably just as well . . . . )

Case four: Lucy is walking home from a bar one night, when she is attacked by Martin, who has been waiting in the bushes for a lone woman to pass by.

Standard assault. Not a hate crime - because not motivated by hatred of a class of people.

Again, one of those cases is worse than the other.

Nope. Both of these cases are "standard" rapes because neither one is motivated by hatred of a class of people.

 

[Si modo]

A question for you, George:

Two white kids are murdered while on a date by a black guy and were randomly chosen as victims by that black guy, except for the fact that they were white.

Is that a hate crime under the current hate crime legislation?

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Bill adds homeless to list of hate crimes

"Albuquerque, will introduce a bill next month to add homeless people to the state Hate Crimes Act. The proposed law means those who attack homeless people would be subject to harsher sentences if caught and convicted. "This sends a message to the general public - people need to have dignity," O'Neill said in an interview. "If we're going to talk about hate crimes, let's talk about the homeless."


....

And here everyone was thinking there already was a law against assault............

 

[Katzndogz]

White people can be attacked at any time, in any place, without it being a hate crime. There are dozens of instances of blacks attacking whites, but never a mention of hate crime being charged. It's become sport, for fun, it was a celebration at the Wisconsin State Fair.

 

[George Costanza]

A question for you, George:

Two white kids are murdered while on a date by a black guy and were randomly chosen as victims by that black guy, except for the fact that they were white.

Is that a hate crime under the current hate crime legislation?

Not clear what you are positing here because of the last phrase, "except for the fact that they were white."

If the black guy's murdering of the two white kids was motivated in whole or in part by the fact that the victims were white, then it is a hate crime.

On the other hand, if the black guy just committed a random murder and did not know the racial status of the victims, then it would not be a hate crime. Example: Black guy, looking for people to murder, stalks down a local lover's lane. He spots a car with two (white) people in it. Without knowing their race, he tosses a gallon of gasoline over the car and sets fire to it. Not a hate crime.

 

[George Costanza]

White people can be attacked at any time, in any place, without it being a hate crime. There are dozens of instances of blacks attacking whites, but never a mention of hate crime being charged. It's become sport, for fun, it was a celebration at the Wisconsin State Fair.

Absolutely wrong - and this illustrates the common fallacy entertained by hate crime opponents.

Hate crimes are racially neutral. If any member of any race commits a crime against any member of any other race, which crime is motivated in whole or in part by hatred of the race of the victim, it is a hate crime. Hate crime legislation does not prohibit the commission of hate crimes by any single race or social class. It applies to ALL races or social classes against all OTHER races or social classes.

Hate crimes are more commonly committed by whites against blacks, which is why you are under the apparent impression that it never works the other way around. In point of fact, it does, although the instances are fewer than cases where whites attack blacks for racial reasons.

 

[George Costanza]

Bill adds homeless to list of hate crimes

"Albuquerque, will introduce a bill next month to add homeless people to the state Hate Crimes Act. The proposed law means those who attack homeless people would be subject to harsher sentences if caught and convicted. "This sends a message to the general public - people need to have dignity," O'Neill said in an interview. "If we're going to talk about hate crimes, let's talk about the homeless."


....

And here everyone was thinking there already was a law against assault............

 

[Uncensored2008]

(sigh) No, sweet thing, not all "assault is assault" in the context of hate crime legislation.

The guy coming out of a diner gets clocked on the head with a lead pipe, laying on the ground bleeding thinks "thank god the attacker didn't think badly of me."


Leftists, not real bright....

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yes, hate crimes provide for enhanced punishment based on how the defendant felt about the victim.

So much for "equal protection under the law."

Leftism, the polar opposite of liberty....

 

[Uncensored2008]

Dead serious. Hate crime legislation increases punishment for racially motivated crimes on the theory that increasing the punishment will decrease the commission of hate crimes. Take away the hate crime legislation, and you take away the deterrent to commit the hate crime. More hate crimes will then be committed.

You can type that without drooling?



The utter fucking stupidity of it seems like it would leave you a drooling baboon.

I say again: How can you be against hate crime legislation, knowing that if it is abolished, hate crimes will increase, and not be in favor of the commission of hate crimes?

Crime is crime. "Hate crime" is simply a means of harsher penalties for crime against favored groups.

 

[George Costanza]

Yes, hate crimes provide for enhanced punishment based on how the defendant felt about the victim.

So much for "equal protection under the law."

Leftism, the polar opposite of liberty....

Hate crimes provide for enhanced punishment based on how the defendant felt about the victim as evidenced by the commission of a crime against that victim, motivated by those feelings.

I find it ironic that you equate hate crime legislation with "the opposite of liberty." To me, a bunch of louts attacking a person merely because he is black or gay is the opposite of liberty. Laws enacted to prevent such activity SUPPORT liberty - they do not detract from it. One would almost think that your idea of liberty would be the freedom to COMMIT hate crimes.

Drool on THAT, asshole.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Hate crimes provide for enhanced punishment based on how the defendant felt about the victim

Based on how the perpetrator felt about FAVORED victims.

The law designates some people - based on group identity, to be more valuable, more equal, than others. Crimes against these favored people are treated more seriously so that society understands that these groups are favored under the law.

as evidenced by the commission of a crime against that victim, motivated by those feelings.

Application of law based on the group identity of the victim.

Example, during a murder, the killer mutters "stupid ******." AHA, it's a hate crime... Well, if the victim is of a favored group - it is. If the victim is black, it's a hate crime. If the victim is white, it isn't - simply because the law favors blacks to whites. Blacks have greater protection under the law.

I find it ironic that you equate hate crime legislation with "the opposite of liberty." To me, a bunch of louts attacking a person merely because he is black or gay is the opposite of liberty.

To me, a bunch of louts attacking a person is a crime, regardless of how politically favored the victim is based on group identity.

Laws enacted to prevent such activity SUPPORT liberty - they do not detract from it.

Ah, the "freedom through slavery" argument. Got it.

One would almost think that your idea of liberty would be the freedom to COMMIT hate crimes.

I was thinking more like;

{All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.}

Drool on THAT, asshole.

 

[gallantwarrior]

A question for you, George:

Two white kids are murdered while on a date by a black guy and were randomly chosen as victims by that black guy, except for the fact that they were white.

Is that a hate crime under the current hate crime legislation?

Not clear what you are positing here because of the last phrase, "except for the fact that they were white."

If the black guy's murdering of the two white kids was motivated in whole or in part by the fact that the victims were white, then it is a hate crime.

On the other hand, if the black guy just committed a random murder and did not know the racial status of the victims, then it would not be a hate crime. Example: Black guy, looking for people to murder, stalks down a local lover's lane. He spots a car with two (white) people in it. Without knowing their race, he tosses a gallon of gasoline over the car and sets fire to it. Not a hate crime.

How do you prove what the murderer's motivation was?

 

[tjvh]

Bill adds homeless to list of hate crimes

"Albuquerque, will introduce a bill next month to add homeless people to the state Hate Crimes Act. The proposed law means those who attack homeless people would be subject to harsher sentences if caught and convicted. "This sends a message to the general public - people need to have dignity," O'Neill said in an interview. "If we're going to talk about hate crimes, let's talk about the homeless."


....

Do you see something wrong with this or right with this? We occasionally read about suburban kids doing terrible things to the homeless on a lark, I am inclined to agree that stiffer penalties are deserved in cases like that.

How about we just treat crime victims the same with regards to Justice... If the same crime is committed against me, as is a homeless person.... Why should a homeless person, or person with a different skin color be better protected under the Law than me? I should be afforded the same level of justice as everybody else.

 

[George Costanza]

A question for you, George:

Two white kids are murdered while on a date by a black guy and were randomly chosen as victims by that black guy, except for the fact that they were white.

Is that a hate crime under the current hate crime legislation?

Not clear what you are positing here because of the last phrase, "except for the fact that they were white."

If the black guy's murdering of the two white kids was motivated in whole or in part by the fact that the victims were white, then it is a hate crime.

On the other hand, if the black guy just committed a random murder and did not know the racial status of the victims, then it would not be a hate crime. Example: Black guy, looking for people to murder, stalks down a local lover's lane. He spots a car with two (white) people in it. Without knowing their race, he tosses a gallon of gasoline over the car and sets fire to it. Not a hate crime.

How do you prove what the murderer's motivation was?

Usually by statements they make during the commission of the crime. If someone is beating up a gay person and calling him a "God damn faggot" or some such, it's a pretty clear indication a hate crime is in progress. I have represented a number of defendants charged with hate crimea on precisely those facts.

Also, the surrounding circumstances are important. If a black person is being beaten up by some guy and the guy's girl friend is cowering nearby having just been attacked by the black guy, it's pretty clear what is happening and it probably isn't a hate crime. On the other hand, if a group of skinheads are jumping on a gay guy who is just leaving a gay pride center, chances are it probably is a hate crime.

 

[George Costanza]

Why should a homeless person, or person with a different skin color be better protected under the Law than me? I should be afforded the same level of justice as everybody else.

Because, historically, persons with a different skin color (and members of the other protected classes in hate crime statutes) have been victimized by the majority much more so than the other way around.

 

[del]

Why should a homeless person, or person with a different skin color be better protected under the Law than me? I should be afforded the same level of justice as everybody else.

Because, historically, persons with a different skin color (and members of the other protected classes in hate crime statutes) have been victimized by the majority much more so than the other way around.

so equal protection is not equal enough?

srsly?

 

[tjvh]

Why should a homeless person, or person with a different skin color be better protected under the Law than me? I should be afforded the same level of justice as everybody else.

Because, historically, persons with a different skin color (and members of the other protected classes in hate crime statutes) have been victimized by the majority much more so than the other way around.

So you are OK with the divisive nature of hate crime legislation? I should not be afforded the same protections under the Law because long before I was alive a white guy acted horrifically against a black guy... One word for you George... Absurd.

 

[Dreamy]

Why should a homeless person, or person with a different skin color be better protected under the Law than me? I should be afforded the same level of justice as everybody else.

Because, historically, persons with a different skin color (and members of the other protected classes in hate crime statutes) have been victimized by the majority much more so than the other way around.

What data backs this claim up? And details if you will. How are they victimized by the majority?

Why should anyone be considered “more worthy” of greater legal protection?

“the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions…” Thomas Jefferson

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”
​

The government is not able to read a person's mind.