if this guy really beat up the pedophile rapist, what should his punishment be?

[George Costanza]

Shame on you Geoerge. You know as well as I do that I can supply plenty of examples of "liberals" thinking the same way, just about different groups.

Many conservatives love to express their views on the proper punishment for sex offenders. "Sending them out into the general prison population," is near the top of the list, i.e., let the other prisoners kill them. Ripping genitals off, hanging, throwing off cliffs, burning alive - the suggestions are endless.

What is really being said, of course, is that, when it comes to sex offenders, we throw Due Process (and Cruel and Unusal Punishment) out the window. In other words, due process is only for some people - not sex offenders.

I have never heard any liberal say something like that. I have heard dozens of conservatives say exactly that - and worse. So I think we clearly DO have an example here of conservatives looking the other way on Due Process when it comes to punishing sex offenders.

Liberals are more than willing to use the law to carve out protected classes for some people based on historical injustices. How is that any less a violation of due process and equal protection than being willing to look the other way when certain criminals are attacked?

You know that you and I have a basic disagreement about hate crime legislation that, so long as it exists, there is no point in our discussing the issue. I do not agree that hate crime legislation violates due process or equal protection, and I have stated why on numerous occasions.

Cite me another example, other than hate crime legislation, where you feel liberals pick and choose when it comes to due process of law. You said you could come up with many examples. How about one?

 

[George Costanza]

Are you trying to claim this would not be covered by a law that says something like OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN? The only reason this beating happened was because the priest is a member of a persecuted minority, pedophiles. Hate crimes could easily cover it without any stretch whatsoever, which is only one reason I oppose them.

Ah, but they DON'T - and that's the entire point.

Father Time is absolutely correct in his criticism of your argument on this issue.

How do they not? If it is a crime to attack someone based on their sexual orientation, like being homosexual, how is not a crime to attack them because they are, or are perceived to be, pedophiles? Do the laws specifically exempt pedophiles from protection, or do you just assume they do?

I think that makes your criticism of my argument even shakier than Times, because you, being a lawyer, should know better. If they did attempt to carve out a specific exemption for pedophiles they would be unconstitutional, which is why they do apply to them. Even if you, personally, do not like it. You support these laws, you have to deal with the consequences, intended or not.

Pedophelia is hardly the type of sexual preference that is contemplated by hate crime legislation.

And listen - when I argue with you (or with anyone), I try to do so as civilly as possible, without patronizing or insulting remarks. I would appreciate the same consideration from you.

 

[ConHog]

That is the dumbest argument against hate crimes I have EVER seen.

This is clearly an act of revenge. He did not attack him because he was a pedo he attacked him because the priest molested him as a kid.

If you think revenge beatings are covered by hate crimes, you really don't know much about them.

Are you trying to claim this would not be covered by a law that says something like OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN? The only reason this beating happened was because the priest is a member of a persecuted minority, pedophiles.

Wrong. This was quite clearly revenge, and thus not a hate crime.

How do you know that the bulk of hate crimes aren't motivated by revenge? In fact they are. Ex: Guy gets his grabbed by a fag somewhere and now he hates fags and randomly beats them up in revenge. Don't think it happens?? WHo decides what's revenge and what isn't?

 

[Article 15]

I know, but this is the single best argument against hate crimes I can think of. I am positive even the most ardent proponent of hate crime legislation would not want this to be a hate crime, but this is exactly the type of crime covered by those laws.

That is the dumbest argument against hate crimes I have EVER seen.

This is clearly an act of revenge. He did not attack him because he was a pedo he attacked him because the priest molested him as a kid.

If you think revenge beatings are covered by hate crimes, you really don't know much about them.

Are you trying to claim this would not be covered by a law that says something like OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN? The only reason this beating happened was because the priest is a member of a persecuted minority, pedophiles. Hate crimes could easily cover it without any stretch whatsoever, which is only one reason I oppose them.

This is the dumbest post I have read all day.

 

[George Costanza]

That is the dumbest argument against hate crimes I have EVER seen.

This is clearly an act of revenge. He did not attack him because he was a pedo he attacked him because the priest molested him as a kid.

If you think revenge beatings are covered by hate crimes, you really don't know much about them.

Are you trying to claim this would not be covered by a law that says something like OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN? The only reason this beating happened was because the priest is a member of a persecuted minority, pedophiles. Hate crimes could easily cover it without any stretch whatsoever, which is only one reason I oppose them.

This is the dumbest post I have read all day.

You must have posted this before reading Post No. 43.

 

[Article 15]

Are you trying to claim this would not be covered by a law that says something like OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN? The only reason this beating happened was because the priest is a member of a persecuted minority, pedophiles. Hate crimes could easily cover it without any stretch whatsoever, which is only one reason I oppose them.

This is the dumbest post I have read all day.

You must have posted this before reading Post No. 43.

lol ...

Good point. Trying to argue someone is taking out revenge on someone who never wronged them in the first place is pretty freakin' retarded.

 

[Solace]

He should be given a medal.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Wrong. This was quite clearly revenge, and thus not a hate crime.

Suppose I find out that my father was killed by a member of the KKK and plan a revenge killing on someone else who just happens to be white, is that a hate crime?

Use the law, as it is written, to prove I am wrong.

Existing law provides that no person, whether or not acting under
color of law, shall by force or threat of force, willfully injure,
intimidate, interfere with, oppress, or threaten any other person in
the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to
him or her by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the
Constitution or laws of the United States because of the other person'
s race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability,
gender, or sexual orientation, or because he or she perceives that
the other person has one or more of those characteristics. Existing
law also provides that no person, whether or not acting under color
of law, shall knowingly deface, damage, or destroy the real or
personal property of any other person for the purpose of intimidating
or interfering with the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or
privilege secured to the other person by the Constitution or laws of
this state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States,
because of the other person's race, color, religion, ancestry,
national origin, disability, gender, or sexual orientation, or
because he or she perceives that the other person has one or more of
those characteristics. Existing law requires that any person who
violates these provisions be punished by imprisonment in a county
jail not to exceed one year, or by a fine not to exceed $5,000, or by
both that fine and imprisonment.

SB 1234 Senate Bill - CHAPTERED

Like it or not, this crime is a hate crime in California, where it was committed. The law does not make an exception for revenge, or anything else.

No it's not a fucking hate crime because you are not attacking someone because of their sexual orientation you are attacking someone for what they did.

Are you trying to not get it or are you really this thick?

The guy attacked him because he molested him. That means that he knew the priest is a pedophile, and that the attack was motivated by that knowledge. Again, use the law to prove me wrong, I posted it to make it easy. Where does it say that if the motivation is revenge it is not a hate crime? Where does it say that pedophiles are not covered?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ah, but they DON'T - and that's the entire point.

Father Time is absolutely correct in his criticism of your argument on this issue.

How do they not? If it is a crime to attack someone based on their sexual orientation, like being homosexual, how is not a crime to attack them because they are, or are perceived to be, pedophiles? Do the laws specifically exempt pedophiles from protection, or do you just assume they do?

I think that makes your criticism of my argument even shakier than Times, because you, being a lawyer, should know better. If they did attempt to carve out a specific exemption for pedophiles they would be unconstitutional, which is why they do apply to them. Even if you, personally, do not like it. You support these laws, you have to deal with the consequences, intended or not.

Pedophelia is hardly the type of sexual preference that is contemplated by hate crime legislation.

And listen - when I argue with you (or with anyone), I try to do so as civilly as possible, without patronizing or insulting remarks. I would appreciate the same consideration from you.

Where is it exempted? If I could prove that the prosecutor deliberately picks who he prosecutes for these case wouldn't I be able to argue that he is discriminating? That would either make the law, or the way it is being applied, at least questionable.

I was being civil George. Please point out where I attacked you, or insulted you. Pointing out that your argument is shaky because you are making assumptions that something is never going to happen is not being rude.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That is the dumbest argument against hate crimes I have EVER seen.

This is clearly an act of revenge. He did not attack him because he was a pedo he attacked him because the priest molested him as a kid.

If you think revenge beatings are covered by hate crimes, you really don't know much about them.

Are you trying to claim this would not be covered by a law that says something like OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN? The only reason this beating happened was because the priest is a member of a persecuted minority, pedophiles. Hate crimes could easily cover it without any stretch whatsoever, which is only one reason I oppose them.

This is the dumbest post I have read all day.

I didn't write the law.

 

[necritan]

So due process is only for some people?

Correct....


Some people are sooooo damn guilty they deserve to die now.

 

[Father Time]

Suppose I find out that my father was killed by a member of the KKK and plan a revenge killing on someone else who just happens to be white, is that a hate crime?

Use the law, as it is written, to prove I am wrong.

SB 1234 Senate Bill - CHAPTERED

Like it or not, this crime is a hate crime in California, where it was committed. The law does not make an exception for revenge, or anything else.

No it's not a fucking hate crime because you are not attacking someone because of their sexual orientation you are attacking someone for what they did.

Are you trying to not get it or are you really this thick?

The guy attacked him because he molested him. That means that he knew the priest is a pedophile, and that the attack was motivated by that knowledge.

So now you want to play psychic? Ok prove it then.

Again, use the law to prove me wrong, I posted it to make it easy.

Prove yourself right,that's how the law works.

Where does it say that if the motivation is revenge it is not a hate crime?

It says the motivation has to be sexual orientation etc. The motivation was clearly revenge and not sexual orientation. You honestly think that if the priest never molested him he still would've beaten him up?

 

[Father Time]

So due process is only for some people?

Correct....


Some people are sooooo damn guilty they deserve to die now.

Right because as long as we're absolutely sure they're guilty we can't possibly be wrong. We don't need trials. </sarcasm>

 

[MikeK]

3 our fathers and 5 hail marys should cover it

 

[Article 15]

It says the motivation has to be sexual orientation etc. The motivation was clearly revenge and not sexual orientation. You honestly think that if the priest never molested him he still would've beaten him up?

Aaaaaaaaaaand that's why his argument is retarded. IMO, he's being obtuse.

 

[Father Time]

It says the motivation has to be sexual orientation etc. The motivation was clearly revenge and not sexual orientation. You honestly think that if the priest never molested him he still would've beaten him up?

Aaaaaaaaaaand that's why his argument is retarded. IMO, he's being obtuse.

That's my guess.

 

[Father Time]

"because of the other person'
s race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability,
gender, or sexual orientation, or because he or she perceives that
the other person has one or more of those characteristics"

He was doing it because of his actions. Hey that's not in there, so you lose.

 

[George Costanza]

Personally I think he deserves a medal:

Alleged abuse victim arrested in priest's beating - Yahoo! News

man allegedly molested three decades ago by a Jesuit priest was arrested Friday on charges that he tracked down the retired cleric in his retirement home and severely beat him.

Lindner was removed from ministry and placed at the Los Gatos retirement home in 2001.

the rapist gets to fuck a bunch of kids and then live to die peacefully in a retirement home, priesthood must be nice for pedos

If he did this, it was obviously a hate crime, because he was attacked because of his sexual orientation. If somebody who supposedly beats up a gay man because of his sexual orientation deserves extra punishment, then the guy who did this deserves the same punishment. Another reason to oppose hate crime legislation.

You are setting up pedophiles as entitled to protection under hate crime legislation on the theory that, since pedophelia is a "sexual orientation," anyone who attacks them because they are a pedophile, has committed a hate crime against them. Here is why this argument does not hold water:

There are various classes or groups of people afforded protection under hate crime legislation. Although the classes or groups may vary from state to state, they are, generally based upon age, gender, racial or ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability and religion. With the exception of religion, you will notice that all of the remaining classes involve membership therein by circumstance, not by choice. You are what you are, age-wise, racially, ethnically, gender-wise, sexual orientation-wise and disability-wise. None of these groups involve membership by choice.

Pedophiles are pedophiles because they like to mess with children. Something like this is a matter of choice, not circumstance. Hate crime legislation is designed to protect people who are in one of the protected classes by circumstance, not by choice.

Additionally, practicing pedophilia is a crime. Being a member of any of the listed, protected classes in the hate crime statutes is not a crime. A statute that protected criminals (pedophiles) would be against public policy, because it would encourage people to become pedophiles.

 

[Father Time]

Pedophiles are pedophiles because they like to mess with children.

Nope pedophile is anyone who is sexually attracted to kids. The sexual attraction may not be a choice, but molesting kids is definitely a choice.

 

[ConHog]

No it's not a fucking hate crime because you are not attacking someone because of their sexual orientation you are attacking someone for what they did.

Are you trying to not get it or are you really this thick?

The guy attacked him because he molested him. That means that he knew the priest is a pedophile, and that the attack was motivated by that knowledge.

So now you want to play psychic? Ok prove it then.

Again, use the law to prove me wrong, I posted it to make it easy.

Prove yourself right,that's how the law works.

Where does it say that if the motivation is revenge it is not a hate crime?

It says the motivation has to be sexual orientation etc. The motivation was clearly revenge and not sexual orientation. You honestly think that if the priest never molested him he still would've beaten him up?

Incorrect. IF my wife the ADA chooses to prosecute someone for a hate crime the juries duty is to decide innocent or guilty, not right or wrong. IOW the jury doesn't , well they are not supposed to, determine if the law is right or wrong.

PS - My wife the ADA also opines that although this WOULD fall under the guise of a hate crime, she would never prosecute it as such.