Lawyer: Lesbians’ assault on gay man can’t be hate crime

[del]

Lawyers can yap and press charges and they can try all sorts of cases which articles will be written about... The grounds for prosecution either exist or the charges shouldn't stick.

Only criminals are potentially harmed by prosecutorial discretion to protect the community against more heinous crimes...

we've got this thing called presumption of innocence, perhaps you've heard of it?

this is the same line of thinking that says if one has nothing to hide, then increased govt surveillance without a warrant shouldn't bother one.

do you agree with that?

I disagree that is the same line of thinking... If someone is not already convicted of a crime they do not stand to face any hate crime charges...

i suggest you rethink this; the three women have been convicted of nothing at this point, they were just arraigned

 

[freedombecki]

In this case there appears to be no hate crime but that doesn't mean in other cases there mustn't be... I never understood the objection to enhanced prosecutorial discretion in the case of more heinous crimes.

ALL crimes are hate crimes.

A starving desperate man breaks into a grocery store after hours... In a subsequent struggle with a security guard, the thief grabs the guard's gun and turns it on him resulting in the guard's death, as well as the successful theft of goods worth of thousands of dollars. The door, window and counter are damaged and need replacement...


An antisemitic man breaks into a grocery store after hours because the owner is a Jew who just moved into the neighborhood and he wants to steal his goods to wreck his business and send a message he doesn't belong there. In a subsequent struggle with the owner, the thief grabs the owner's gun and turns it on him resulting in the owner's death, as well as the successful theft of goods worth thousands of dollars. The door, window and counter are sprayed with swastikas and need replacement...



Both crimes result in 1 dead man, stolen goods, and property damage. One crime is particularly more heinous which warrants more severe legal consequences... Hate crime laws give prosecutors the ability to protect against any extended harm to the community.

You can clean up and replace stuff, but you cannot replace the life of a human being.

Who is deader? The Security Guard or the Owner? Let's say the security guard has 7 children at home. Who is going to be their father from then on?

Or let's say the Owner sends enough charity money every year to a country where malaria is rampant, but the medicine his money furnishes saves two thousand lives a year.

Both of them are gone, leaving life in shards around them.

That's the important thing.

Let's say the criminal knows he's not supposed to carry a gun for "protection" into a place to steal, which he also knows he's not supposed to do. Is he less liable because he doesn't know the Security Guard has 7 children? Is he less liable because he doesn't know the owner participates in humanitarian life-saving charity?

Murder is murder. Take that criminal off the street for the duration. He doesn't have the thinking capacity to commit to a work-for-pay living. Why should anybody be deprived of their life because a criminal doesn't do what he is supposed to do?

 

[Valerie]

we've got this thing called presumption of innocence, perhaps you've heard of it?

this is the same line of thinking that says if one has nothing to hide, then increased govt surveillance without a warrant shouldn't bother one.

do you agree with that?

I disagree that is the same line of thinking... If someone is not already convicted of a crime they do not stand to face any hate crime charges...

i suggest you rethink this; the three women have been convicted of nothing at this point, they were just arraigned

That's basically what I am saying... Lawyers will yap and articles will be written.

SO really no harm done by hate crime legislation despite the ruckus...

 

[del]

I disagree that is the same line of thinking... If someone is not already convicted of a crime they do not stand to face any hate crime charges...

i suggest you rethink this; the three women have been convicted of nothing at this point, they were just arraigned

That's basically what I am saying... Lawyers will yap and articles will be written.

SO really no harm done by hate crime legislation despite the ruckus...

i disagree

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

I disagree that is the same line of thinking... If someone is not already convicted of a crime they do not stand to face any hate crime charges...

i suggest you rethink this; the three women have been convicted of nothing at this point, they were just arraigned

That's basically what I am saying... Lawyers will yap and articles will be written.

SO really no harm done by hate crime legislation despite the ruckus...

The "harm" is that the system is essentially saying that some people deserve "more" justice when crimes are committed against them.

Unless you're really arguing that for instance that as many people who commit black on white crime will be charged with hate crimes as people who commit white on black crime will be. Percentage wise I mean.

Any person with just a basic amount of common sense and honesty will admit that isn't the case.

 

[Valerie]

i suggest you rethink this; the three women have been convicted of nothing at this point, they were just arraigned

That's basically what I am saying... Lawyers will yap and articles will be written.

SO really no harm done by hate crime legislation despite the ruckus...

i disagree

I don't understand why. Can you give an example of the supposed harm done...?

 

[del]

That's basically what I am saying... Lawyers will yap and articles will be written.

SO really no harm done by hate crime legislation despite the ruckus...

i disagree

I don't understand why. Can you give an example of the supposed harm done...?

the whole idea that a person can be convicted for what they think is unamerican, period.

 

[Valerie]

i suggest you rethink this; the three women have been convicted of nothing at this point, they were just arraigned

That's basically what I am saying... Lawyers will yap and articles will be written.

SO really no harm done by hate crime legislation despite the ruckus...

The "harm" is that the system is essentially saying that some people deserve "more" justice when crimes are committed against them.

Unless you're really arguing that for instance that as many people who commit black on white crime will be charged with hate crimes as people who commit white on black crime will be. Percentage wise I mean.

Any person with just a basic amount of common sense and honesty will admit that isn't the case.

Not at all...

Can you please post an example of someone who was charge with a hate crime who was not also charged with some other crime...? One example where the charge of a hate crime was not initiated as a prosecutorial enhancement of other criminal charges?

 

[manifold]

Lawyers can yap and press charges and they can try all sorts of cases which articles will be written about... The grounds for prosecution either exist or the charges shouldn't stick.

Only criminals are potentially harmed by prosecutorial discretion to protect the community against more heinous crimes...

we've got this thing called presumption of innocence, perhaps you've heard of it?

this is the same line of thinking that says if one has nothing to hide, then increased govt surveillance without a warrant shouldn't bother one.

do you agree with that?

I disagree that is the same line of thinking... If someone is not already convicted of a crime they do not stand to face any hate crime charges...

You need to educate yourself about how hate crime prosecution works.

 

[Zander]

Scenario one:
A red car is struck by a blue car causing serious damage to both the cars. The two drivers get out and start yelling at each other. A fist fight ensues. The man in the blue car calls the other guy a "fucking faggot" and proceeds to beat the shit out of him. The man in the red car gets his seriously beaten and ends up in the hospital. The man in the blue car is arrested and charged with assault and battery.

Scenario two:
A red car is struck by a blue car causing serious damage to both the cars. The two drivers get out and start yelling at each other. A fist fight ensues. The man in the blue car calls the other guy a "fucking faggot" and proceeds to beat the shit out of him. The man in the red car,who just happens to be gay, gets his seriously beaten and ends up in the hospital. The man in the blue car is arrested and charged with a "Hate crime".

Why should the punishment be worse for scenario 2?

Hate crimes laws are bullshit.

 

[Valerie]

we've got this thing called presumption of innocence, perhaps you've heard of it?

this is the same line of thinking that says if one has nothing to hide, then increased govt surveillance without a warrant shouldn't bother one.

do you agree with that?

I disagree that is the same line of thinking... If someone is not already convicted of a crime they do not stand to face any hate crime charges...

You need to educate yourself about how hate crime prosecution works.

Why don't you educate me. ONE example would be nice...

Can you please post an example of someone who was charge with a hate crime who was not also charged with some other crime...? One example where the charge of a hate crime was not initiated as a prosecutorial enhancement of other criminal charges?

 

[Amelia]

Scenario one:
A red car is struck by a blue car causing serious damage to both the cars. The two drivers get out and start yelling at each other. A fist fight ensues. The man in the blue car calls the other guy a "fucking faggot" and proceeds to beat the shit out of him. The man in the red car gets his seriously beaten and ends up in the hospital. The man in the blue car is arrested and charged with assault and battery.

Scenario two:
A red car is struck by a blue car causing serious damage to both the cars. The two drivers get out and start yelling at each other. A fist fight ensues. The man in the blue car calls the other guy a "fucking faggot" and proceeds to beat the shit out of him. The man in the red car,who just happens to be gay, gets his seriously beaten and ends up in the hospital. The man in the blue car is arrested and charged with a "Hate crime".

Why should the punishment be worse for scenario 2?

Hate crimes laws are bullshit.

Judgment needs to be used, but intention matters. Someone who is trying to send a message that no one of a certain color or religion needs to even consider moving into a neighborhood should not be able to proceed with confidence that as long has he just keeps his crimes on misdemeanor level he can get away with a wrist slap.

 

[Valerie]

i disagree

I don't understand why. Can you give an example of the supposed harm done...?

the whole idea that a person can be convicted for what they think is unamerican, period.

hmm...unamerican??? The idea that someone can be, possibly, maybe, if only the criminal charges stick in the first place, charged henceforth with further charges due to circumstantial evidence...?

 

[del]

I don't understand why. Can you give an example of the supposed harm done...?

the whole idea that a person can be convicted for what they think is unamerican, period.

hmm...unamerican??? The idea that someone can be, possibly, maybe, if only the criminal charges stick in the first place, charged henceforth with further charges due to circumstantial evidence...?

yeah, unamerican.

did i stutter?

 

[Valerie]

Scenario one:
A red car is struck by a blue car causing serious damage to both the cars. The two drivers get out and start yelling at each other. A fist fight ensues. The man in the blue car calls the other guy a "fucking faggot" and proceeds to beat the shit out of him. The man in the red car gets his seriously beaten and ends up in the hospital. The man in the blue car is arrested and charged with assault and battery.

Scenario two:
A red car is struck by a blue car causing serious damage to both the cars. The two drivers get out and start yelling at each other. A fist fight ensues. The man in the blue car calls the other guy a "fucking faggot" and proceeds to beat the shit out of him. The man in the red car,who just happens to be gay, gets his seriously beaten and ends up in the hospital. The man in the blue car is arrested and charged with a "Hate crime".

Why should the punishment be worse for scenario 2?

Hate crimes laws are bullshit.

He can be CHARGED with a hate crime but he won't be CONVICTED of a hate crime.


People get charged with bullshit charges every day...........

 

[Valerie]

the whole idea that a person can be convicted for what they think is unamerican, period.

hmm...unamerican??? The idea that someone can be, possibly, maybe, if only the criminal charges stick in the first place, charged henceforth with further charges due to circumstantial evidence...?

yeah, unamerican.

did i stutter?

I dunno... Can you explain how it is unamerican...?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Lawyers can yap and press charges and they can try all sorts of cases which articles will be written about... The grounds for prosecution either exist or the charges shouldn't stick.

Only criminals are potentially harmed by prosecutorial discretion to protect the community against more heinous crimes...

we've got this thing called presumption of innocence, perhaps you've heard of it?

this is the same line of thinking that says if one has nothing to hide, then increased govt surveillance without a warrant shouldn't bother one.

do you agree with that?

I disagree that is the same line of thinking... If someone is not already convicted of a crime they do not stand to face any hate crime charges...

What crime were these women convicted of?

 

[del]

hmm...unamerican??? The idea that someone can be, possibly, maybe, if only the criminal charges stick in the first place, charged henceforth with further charges due to circumstantial evidence...?

yeah, unamerican.

did i stutter?

I dunno... Can you explain how it is unamerican...?

i have already

policing thought is unamerican

 

[Valerie]

we've got this thing called presumption of innocence, perhaps you've heard of it?

this is the same line of thinking that says if one has nothing to hide, then increased govt surveillance without a warrant shouldn't bother one.

do you agree with that?

I disagree that is the same line of thinking... If someone is not already convicted of a crime they do not stand to face any hate crime charges...

What crime were these women convicted of?

They aren't convicted of anything, therefore the fact that some lawyer is yapping in an article about possible hate crime charges in this particular case, is relatively meaningless to the overall value of hate crime laws... This case "goes to show" for nothing, IMO.

 

[Amelia]

yeah, unamerican.

did i stutter?

I dunno... Can you explain how it is unamerican...?

i have already

policing thought is unamerican

Taking intent into account in deciding the punishment for a crime is not unAmerican.