Hate Crimes in NY Up 14%

[Liberty]

hate crimes are a myth. a crime is a crime, no matter the motivation.

Typical liberal idiocy.

So in your world someone who beats up a guy because the guy molested that someone's child is no different in any way whatsoever from someone who beats up a guy because he's a Jew.

brilliant.

If it is the same beating, pretty much. A beating is a beating, a crime is a crime, motivation is not a big deal. Why? Because you can't control people's motives...even with laws. This is not 1984, like you government tit suckers want, no matter how hard you try to make it so. Not yet, anyway.

 

[manifold]

FINALLY!! A person who is HONEST about their reason for being opposed to hate crime legislation. I salute you, sir!

Hell yes! If we hate those black bastards or those fags, we should be able to beat the shit out of them for what they are and, damn it, we shouldn't have to be punished one iota more for it than if we did it for some reason other than pure bigotry.

Life is good, isn't it?

that aint what he said
and you know that, at least you should if you could actually be honest

That is precisely what he said. And please do not accuse me of being dishonest.

You're either completely ignorant of the meaning of the word "precisely" or you are a dishonest fuckstain.

My money is on the latter.

 

[George Costanza]

Let's see - according to DiveCon, I am an "asshole" and now, here you come with "dishonest fuckstain."

You folks are really credits to the conservative side of the picture.

 

[manifold]

GC,

You've demonstrated an unwillingness to even consider the possibility that somebody might oppose hate crime legislation for reasons that do not include bigotry. I guess you're enititled to your narrow-minded views, and have the right to express such pig headed ignorance loudly and proudly, but yes, IMO it makes you look like a fuckstain. Especially when you have to lie about what others post in the process.

Just sayin.

Happy New Year,
manifold

 

[DiveCon]

GC,

You've demonstrated an unwillingness to even consider the possibility that somebody might oppose hate crime legislation for reasons that do not include bigotry. I guess you're enititled to your narrow-minded views, and have the right to express such pig headed ignorance loudly and proudly, but yes, IMO it makes you look like a fuckstain. Especially when you have to lie about what others post in the process.

Just sayin.

Happy New Year,
manifold

ROFL you are now a conservative

George declared it

 

[DiveCon]

Let's see - according to DiveCon, I am an "asshole" and now, here you come with "dishonest fuckstain."

You folks are really credits to the conservative side of the picture.

and yes, you are showing that you are an asshole, smurfman, try being honest and maybe you wont have that

 

[chanel]

hate crimes are a myth. a crime is a crime, no matter the motivation.

Typical liberal idiocy.

So in your world someone who beats up a guy because the guy molested that someone's child is no different in any way whatsoever from someone who beats up a guy because he's a Jew.

brilliant.

If it is the same beating, pretty much. A beating is a beating, a crime is a crime, motivation is not a big deal. Why? Because you can't control people's motives...even with laws. This is not 1984, like you government tit suckers want, no matter how hard you try to make it so. Not yet, anyway.

Believe it or not, I'm with George on this one. I agree with hate crime legislation WHEN APPLIED APPROPRIATELY. We are often led to believe that any crime that involves a minority is labeled a hate crime, but I think the low numbers show that's simply not true.

But with that said, someone earlier mentioned "criminalizing hatred". That's the slippery slope that many conservatives and libertarians oppose. You are right. That's 1984 shit and very very dangerous.

Maybe they should just find a new term. How about instead of "hate crime" we call it "enhanced penalties for unprovoked, senseless violence"? Who could be against that?

 

[Ravi]

So in your world someone who beats up a guy because the guy molested that someone's child is no different in any way whatsoever from someone who beats up a guy because he's a Jew.

brilliant.

If it is the same beating, pretty much. A beating is a beating, a crime is a crime, motivation is not a big deal. Why? Because you can't control people's motives...even with laws. This is not 1984, like you government tit suckers want, no matter how hard you try to make it so. Not yet, anyway.

Believe it or not, I'm with George on this one. I agree with hate crime legislation WHEN APPLIED APPROPRIATELY. We are often led to believe that any crime that involves a minority is labeled a hate crime, but I think the low numbers show that's simply not true.

But with that said, someone earlier mentioned "criminalizing hatred". That's the slippery slope that many conservatives and libertarians oppose. You are right. That's 1984 shit and very very dangerous.

Maybe they should just find a new term. How about instead of "hate crime" we call it "enhanced penalties for unprovoked, senseless violence"? Who could be against that?

I don't disagree with you, really. However, a hate crime must be provable to get a conviction. So criminalizing hate is a strawman.

 

[Valerie]

If it is the same beating, pretty much. A beating is a beating, a crime is a crime, motivation is not a big deal. Why? Because you can't control people's motives...even with laws. This is not 1984, like you government tit suckers want, no matter how hard you try to make it so. Not yet, anyway.

Believe it or not, I'm with George on this one. I agree with hate crime legislation WHEN APPLIED APPROPRIATELY. We are often led to believe that any crime that involves a minority is labeled a hate crime, but I think the low numbers show that's simply not true.

But with that said, someone earlier mentioned "criminalizing hatred". That's the slippery slope that many conservatives and libertarians oppose. You are right. That's 1984 shit and very very dangerous.

Maybe they should just find a new term. How about instead of "hate crime" we call it "enhanced penalties for unprovoked, senseless violence"? Who could be against that?

I don't disagree with you, really. However, a hate crime must be provable to get a conviction. So criminalizing hate is a strawman.

Yes and people could simply quit pretending it means something that it really doesn't.

 

[DiveCon]

If it is the same beating, pretty much. A beating is a beating, a crime is a crime, motivation is not a big deal. Why? Because you can't control people's motives...even with laws. This is not 1984, like you government tit suckers want, no matter how hard you try to make it so. Not yet, anyway.

Believe it or not, I'm with George on this one. I agree with hate crime legislation WHEN APPLIED APPROPRIATELY. We are often led to believe that any crime that involves a minority is labeled a hate crime, but I think the low numbers show that's simply not true.

But with that said, someone earlier mentioned "criminalizing hatred". That's the slippery slope that many conservatives and libertarians oppose. You are right. That's 1984 shit and very very dangerous.

Maybe they should just find a new term. How about instead of "hate crime" we call it "enhanced penalties for unprovoked, senseless violence"? Who could be against that?

I don't disagree with you, really. However, a hate crime must be provable to get a conviction. So criminalizing hate is a strawman.

and what proof would you say should be required to know what and why the perp committed the crime of hate?

 

[Ravi]

Believe it or not, I'm with George on this one. I agree with hate crime legislation WHEN APPLIED APPROPRIATELY. We are often led to believe that any crime that involves a minority is labeled a hate crime, but I think the low numbers show that's simply not true.

But with that said, someone earlier mentioned "criminalizing hatred". That's the slippery slope that many conservatives and libertarians oppose. You are right. That's 1984 shit and very very dangerous.

Maybe they should just find a new term. How about instead of "hate crime" we call it "enhanced penalties for unprovoked, senseless violence"? Who could be against that?

I don't disagree with you, really. However, a hate crime must be provable to get a conviction. So criminalizing hate is a strawman.

Yes and people could simply quit pretending it means something that it really doesn't.

Like that will ever happen.

 

[Ravi]

Believe it or not, I'm with George on this one. I agree with hate crime legislation WHEN APPLIED APPROPRIATELY. We are often led to believe that any crime that involves a minority is labeled a hate crime, but I think the low numbers show that's simply not true.

But with that said, someone earlier mentioned "criminalizing hatred". That's the slippery slope that many conservatives and libertarians oppose. You are right. That's 1984 shit and very very dangerous.

Maybe they should just find a new term. How about instead of "hate crime" we call it "enhanced penalties for unprovoked, senseless violence"? Who could be against that?

I don't disagree with you, really. However, a hate crime must be provable to get a conviction. So criminalizing hate is a strawman.

and what proof would you say should be required to know what and why the perp committed the crime of hate?

The same type of evidence needed to prove a murder was premeditated. Concrete evidence.

For instance, a note or email saying, I'm going to hang your ass you filthy Christian scum bag because I hate Christians...or something to that effect.

 

[DiveCon]

I don't disagree with you, really. However, a hate crime must be provable to get a conviction. So criminalizing hate is a strawman.

and what proof would you say should be required to know what and why the perp committed the crime of hate?

The same type of evidence needed to prove a murder was premeditated. Concrete evidence.

For instance, a note or email saying, I'm going to hang your ass you filthy Christian scum bag because I hate Christians...or something to that effect.

so short of the perp actually admitting it, you have no proof?

 

[George Costanza]

Believe it or not, I'm with George on this one. I agree with hate crime legislation WHEN APPLIED APPROPRIATELY. We are often led to believe that any crime that involves a minority is labeled a hate crime, but I think the low numbers show that's simply not true.

But with that said, someone earlier mentioned "criminalizing hatred". That's the slippery slope that many conservatives and libertarians oppose. You are right. That's 1984 shit and very very dangerous.

Maybe they should just find a new term. How about instead of "hate crime" we call it "enhanced penalties for unprovoked, senseless violence"? Who could be against that?

I don't disagree with you, really. However, a hate crime must be provable to get a conviction. So criminalizing hate is a strawman.

and what proof would you say should be required to know what and why the perp committed the crime of hate?

I can tell you what kind of evidence it takes to get a hate crime filing in my court. In every case, the perp is screaming racial or sexual orientation insults at the victim as he is beating him up. You know: "You filthy faggot! I hate you queers!" WHAP!! Or similar, racial taunts as he is putting his boot into the victim's face.

Not too hard to figure out where the perp is coming from with that kind of evidence.

DA's will not file a hate crime unless these utterances are present. The mere fact that the victim is a member of a minority group and he is being beat up, is not enough. It's simply a matter of the DA wanting to make sure he can win his case. Can't blame him for that.

 

[Ravi]

and what proof would you say should be required to know what and why the perp committed the crime of hate?

The same type of evidence needed to prove a murder was premeditated. Concrete evidence.

For instance, a note or email saying, I'm going to hang your ass you filthy Christian scum bag because I hate Christians...or something to that effect.

so short of the perp actually admitting it, you have no proof?

Not being a lawyer, I do not know the parameters of proof but from what I understand there must be concrete evidence.

For instance, in Wisconsin:

It says fines and jail time can be increased if a person is convicted of a crime in which he or she “intentionally selects” the person or property “in whole or in part because of the actor’s belief or perception regarding the race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry of that person or the owner or occupant of that property, whether or not the actor’s belief or perception was correct.”

Although the statute lists categories of victims, it is neutral in application. People are often surprised to learn that in the state’s most famous case, a black man named Todd Mitchell was convicted of aggravated battery with the hate crime enhancer for attacking a teenager in Kenosha in 1989. Racial slurs against the white victim preceded the attack.

Setting the record straight on hate crimes | Opinion | Wisconsin Gazette - Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) News

 

[elvis]

hate crimes come down to serving 10 years in prison for saying a word like faggot or ******.

 

[chanel]

Not the kind of hatred involved in a true, hate crime - which is the entire point of hate crime legislation.

Depends how you want to redefine hatred.

It's really all you need to know about conservatives - their constant objection to criminalizing hatred.

There's the strawman Ravi. Not my words...

Jillian noted that there are different penalties for many different groups. Here in NJ we have enhanced penalties for gang related crimes and crimes against children and the elderly. We have "drug free/weapon free" school zones. I believe most conservatives would like to see "enhanced penalties" across the board. However, that's simply not feasible. We just don't have enough jails.

 

[Ravi]

hate crimes come down to serving 10 years in prison for saying a word like faggot or ******.

While beating someone, perhaps. But not for simply saying it.

You can run around and yell those words all you want, Elvis, as long as it is not in the commission of a crime.

 

[elvis]

hate crimes come down to serving 10 years in prison for saying a word like faggot or ******.

While beating someone, perhaps. But not for simply saying it.

You can run around and yell those words all you want, Elvis, as long as it is not in the commission of a crime.

How long a jail term would one get for not using the words but still beating someone?

Subtract that from the "hate crime" sentence and there you have it.

 

[Ravi]

Depends how you want to redefine hatred.

It's really all you need to know about conservatives - their constant objection to criminalizing hatred.

There's the strawman Ravi. Not my words...

Jillian noted that there are different penalties for many different groups. Here in NJ we have enhanced penalties for gang related crimes and crimes against children and the elderly. We have "drug free/weapon free" school zones. I believe most conservatives would like to see "enhanced penalties" across the board. However, that's simply not feasible. We just don't have enough jails.

Ok, my bad, I missed that. I also object to criminalizing hatred...I must be a conservative.

I am for enhanced penalties for violent crimes and alternative penalties for victimless crimes.