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

um, they all involve black people which allows a racist shitbag like you to crawl out from whatever maggot infested shithole you hang out in and spew some racist bile without actually having the stones to admit it?

hmmm, yeah, i think that's it, you cowardly shitbag :thup:

:lol:

Pointing out the similarities is racist bile. Yes, I get it. So they will continue. These women did not commit a hate crime because they are lesbians attacking a gay man. Being lesbians had nothing whatsoever to do with their assault. They committed this crime because they perceived they had a right to commit this crime.


c'mon, you can do it! say it. you believe it, so say it, you coward.

they're black and they feel entitled to commit crimes!!!!!!!!!!

Well, that's true. They are black and they feel entitled to commit crimes. They commit crimes not because they are black, but because they feel they have an entitlement and permission to do so. Being black is just the class of persons that have been given this entitlement. There is nothing endemic or genetic about black people that leads to a propensity to commit these kinds of crimes. They believe they have a special permission to commit these kinds of crimes. The black mayor of Philadelphia understands this perfectly, I don't know why you don't.

Is this crime a hate crime? These are black lesbians. Do they feel that merely because they are lesbians they are superior to gays and therefore entitled to beat one up? Does being a lesbian all by itself confer any kind of right to call some poor guy names and bash his head in? Highly unlikely. Why would a woman feel that she has such a superior right to a chair that it entitles her to come back and shoot a nine month old baby? It's not the skin color, it's the entitlement.

For someone who is so anti-racist, this should be easy to understand. This was the very basis of every jim crow law that entitled white people to not only beat up black people but beat up "white trash" too. Just as blacks today beat up other blacks that aren't as entitled. This proves beyond all doubt that I'm correct. Give white people the entitlement and they will be brutal. Give black people an entitlement and they will be brutal. Give this entitlement to mexicans, Chinese, Iranians, we already see it in Afghanistan, or ANYONE any group at all and we end up with the same brutality. So much for racism.

Perhaps we should scrap "hate" crime altogether and rename it "entitlement" crime.
 
No, it is still not clear.

I still do not know whether you believe the same penalty should apply to vandalism whether it is done as an immature prank or whether it is done to terrorize a family because of their color.

Your language here very much sounds as if you do not believe the reason behind the intentional breaking of the window should be taken into consideration:

If the result of the vandalism is the same- why does it matter?
Why are people convicted of terrorism?

I mean, seriously, what is the difference between terrorism and hate crime?

Because they blow people up?

People are not charged with terrorism, they are charged with criminal acts.
 
Why are people convicted of terrorism?

I mean, seriously, what is the difference between terrorism and hate crime?

Excellent point Ravi. More reason why we don't need 'hate' crime laws. Just charge them with terrorism. That would be far less intellectually offensive, if at all.
Except someone has less rights if they are charged with being a terrorist.

Again, they are not charged with terrorism, they are held as terrorists, which is an administrative decision. That classification allows the government to ignore many things that would normally apply in criminal cases. If being a terrorist was actually a crime, and they were charged with it, they would still be in the criminal justice system and have access to a lawyer and a judge.
 
Hate crime legislation is nothing but a bullshit way for government liberals to get even more power under the guise that they're protecting people.
 
Excellent point Ravi. More reason why we don't need 'hate' crime laws. Just charge them with terrorism. That would be far less intellectually offensive, if at all.
Except someone has less rights if they are charged with being a terrorist.

But the bar is a lot higher than merely letting loose a couple of racial slurs while in the heat of the moment.

No, the bar is much lower because the PRESIDENT can deem someone a terrorist and lock them up forever without trial. If you are charged with a hate crime, you still get a free and "fair" trial.
 
Except someone has less rights if they are charged with being a terrorist.

But the bar is a lot higher than merely letting loose a couple of racial slurs while in the heat of the moment.

No, the bar is much lower because the PRESIDENT can deem someone a terrorist and lock them up forever without trial. If you are charged with a hate crime, you still get a free and "fair" trial.

I have seen this claim made pretty frequently.

But it is not what the legislation actually says.
 
Except someone has less rights if they are charged with being a terrorist.

But the bar is a lot higher than merely letting loose a couple of racial slurs while in the heat of the moment.

No, the bar is much lower because the PRESIDENT can deem someone a terrorist and lock them up forever without trial. If you are charged with a hate crime, you still get a free and "fair" trial.

Let me know when you finally decide where to place the goal posts and maybe I'll resume this discussion. :thup:
 
But the bar is a lot higher than merely letting loose a couple of racial slurs while in the heat of the moment.

No, the bar is much lower because the PRESIDENT can deem someone a terrorist and lock them up forever without trial. If you are charged with a hate crime, you still get a free and "fair" trial.

Let me know when you finally decide where to place the goal posts and maybe I'll resume this discussion. :thup:

Okie dokie! My question was what's the difference between hate crime and terrorism and I think the question has been answered. Terrorism charges are considered guilty until proven innocent and hate crime charges are considered innocent until proven guilty.
 
No, the bar is much lower because the PRESIDENT can deem someone a terrorist and lock them up forever without trial. If you are charged with a hate crime, you still get a free and "fair" trial.

Let me know when you finally decide where to place the goal posts and maybe I'll resume this discussion. :thup:

Okie dokie! My question was what's the difference between hate crime and terrorism and I think the question has been answered. Terrorism charges are considered guilty until proven innocent and hate crime charges are considered innocent until proven guilty.

You persist in conflating acts of terrorism with "crime."
 
No, the bar is much lower because the PRESIDENT can deem someone a terrorist and lock them up forever without trial. If you are charged with a hate crime, you still get a free and "fair" trial.

Let me know when you finally decide where to place the goal posts and maybe I'll resume this discussion. :thup:

Okie dokie! My question was what's the difference between hate crime and terrorism and I think the question has been answered. Terrorism charges are considered guilty until proven innocent and hate crime charges are considered innocent until proven guilty.

I interpreted your question quite a bit differently. No biggie, it happens.
 
Let me know when you finally decide where to place the goal posts and maybe I'll resume this discussion. :thup:

Okie dokie! My question was what's the difference between hate crime and terrorism and I think the question has been answered. Terrorism charges are considered guilty until proven innocent and hate crime charges are considered innocent until proven guilty.

You persist in conflating acts of terrorism with "crime."
I'll have to read this again tomorrow because I'm exhausted and maybe missing your point....but I thought acts of terrorism were considered crimes.
 

Forum List

Back
Top