Obama Signs the Hate Crime Bill into Law!

[KittenKoder]

The difference between the two murder charges:

1. Murder.

2. Accidental death.

While intent is the issue, hate crimes are not based on intent, they are based on opinions.

 

[paperview]

Keep in mind, they still have to be tried successfully in a court of law.

Traditionally, Hate Crimes have been very hard to prove.

The conviction rate for this crime is very low, IIRC.

Thus is why it's illogical to have the laws. As I said, we see witch-hunts because of them (they are in essence the same thing really) while most are not even caught in the first place. Many times the police will often slack on even investigating crimes once they are called "hate crime", at least in my area.

To the best of my knowledge, no crime is simply a "hate crime." An actual crime of arson, murder, assault, etc...is charged, and this is added if officials deem it so.

If the police are slacking on the initial crime, then that is wrong.

And again, part of what this does is bring more resources in to local LEO's who may or may not think it necessary to go after the gang that may, for example, think of it as weekly sport to go "fag rolling" as MM referred to earlier.
There are people who do spend time specifically looking for gays to target and assault, doesn't matter who, just that they are gay or look gay, and assault them viciously.

A lot of times, Billy Bob Officer and crew do not even see the assault as a crime - even without the hate crime charges. They grew up thinking gay rolling was acceptable, and allow the violence to continue, because they too dislike gays & lesbians. This has been going on for a long time. Officers letting creeps like that get away with it.

Some of this may be addressed by this bill, which will help bring criminals like that to justice.

As I said, I have mixed feelings about the law, but I do understand why it may be necessary, whether I agree or not.

 

[KittenKoder]

Keep in mind, they still have to be tried successfully in a court of law.

Traditionally, Hate Crimes have been very hard to prove.

The conviction rate for this crime is very low, IIRC.

Thus is why it's illogical to have the laws. As I said, we see witch-hunts because of them (they are in essence the same thing really) while most are not even caught in the first place. Many times the police will often slack on even investigating crimes once they are called "hate crime", at least in my area.

To the best of my knowledge, no crime is simply a "hate crime." An actual crime of arson, murder, assault, etc...is charged, and this is added if officials deem it so.

If the police are slacking on the initial crime, then that is wrong.

And again, part of what this does is bring more resources in to local LEO's who may or may not think it necessary to go after the gang that may, for example, think of it as weekly sport to go "fag rolling" as MM referred to earlier.
There are people who do spend time specifically looking for gays to target and assault, doesn't matter who, just that they are gay or look gay, and assault them viciously.

A lot of times, Billy Bob Officer and crew do not even see the assault as a crime - even without the hate crime charges. They grew up thinking gay rolling was acceptable, and allow the violence to continue, because they too dislike gays & lesbians. This has been going on for a long time. Officers letting creeps like that get away with it.

Some of this may be addressed by this bill, which will help bring criminals like that to justice.

As I said, I have mixed feelings about the law, but I do understand why it may be necessary, whether I agree or not.

You know what I meant. Thus the quotes.

 

[paperview]

thus is why it's illogical to have the laws. As i said, we see witch-hunts because of them (they are in essence the same thing really) while most are not even caught in the first place. Many times the police will often slack on even investigating crimes once they are called "hate crime", at least in my area.

to the best of my knowledge, no crime is simply a "hate crime." an actual crime of arson, murder, assault, etc...is charged, and this is added if officials deem it so.

If the police are slacking on the initial crime, then that is wrong.

And again, part of what this does is bring more resources in to local leo's who may or may not think it necessary to go after the gang that may, for example, think of it as weekly sport to go "fag rolling" as mm referred to earlier.
There are people who do spend time specifically looking for gays to target and assault, doesn't matter who, just that they are gay or look gay, and assault them viciously.

A lot of times, billy bob officer and crew do not even see the assault as a crime - even without the hate crime charges. They grew up thinking gay rolling was acceptable, and allow the violence to continue, because they too dislike gays & lesbians. This has been going on for a long time. Officers letting creeps like that get away with it.

Some of this may be addressed by this bill, which will help bring criminals like that to justice.

As i said, i have mixed feelings about the law, but i do understand why it may be necessary, whether i agree or not.

you know what i meant. thus the quotes.

k.


:/

 

[Emma]

Pretty much....Doesn't get much worse than murder.

So killing is killing, eh?

Justifiable homicide, involuntary manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter, 1st degree homicide.

Any charge that takes into account the intent of the person who kills another should be removed from the statutes. Because killing is killing.

 

[Oddball]

Pretty much....Doesn't get much worse than murder.

So killing is killing, eh?

Justifiable homicide, involuntary manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter, 1st degree homicide.

Any charge that takes into account the intent of the person who kills another should be removed from the statutes. Because killing is killing.

All relatively easily parsed, and none are aggravating factors piled on after the fact.

FWIW, I don't buy into the "temporary insanity" defense, either.

 

[KittenKoder]

to the best of my knowledge, no crime is simply a "hate crime." an actual crime of arson, murder, assault, etc...is charged, and this is added if officials deem it so.

If the police are slacking on the initial crime, then that is wrong.

And again, part of what this does is bring more resources in to local leo's who may or may not think it necessary to go after the gang that may, for example, think of it as weekly sport to go "fag rolling" as mm referred to earlier.
There are people who do spend time specifically looking for gays to target and assault, doesn't matter who, just that they are gay or look gay, and assault them viciously.

A lot of times, billy bob officer and crew do not even see the assault as a crime - even without the hate crime charges. They grew up thinking gay rolling was acceptable, and allow the violence to continue, because they too dislike gays & lesbians. This has been going on for a long time. Officers letting creeps like that get away with it.

Some of this may be addressed by this bill, which will help bring criminals like that to justice.

As i said, i have mixed feelings about the law, but i do understand why it may be necessary, whether i agree or not.

you know what i meant. thus the quotes.

k.


:/

It was a story that I caught the final reports on, there was an increase of assaults on gay people in our area when they passed a stricter law about such "hate crimes" ... but our police were not even trying to stop them or catch the people assaulting the gay men (oddly they didn't target lesbians). A few of the men they attacked weren't even really gay, just two male friends shopping in an area that is predominantly gay. Anyhow, the news focused on how they kept saying this was a hate crime, but the cops just didn't seem to want to get involved. Yet in another area they cracked down (not in the story, just witnessed it myself) on all crimes. It was a bit strange ... but now it's a distant memory to most people. I remember because it's a reason not to allow more of these laws to pass.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Special laws based on the way certain people have sex is just plain idiotic.

What's next?

Special laws to protect vegans based on the type of food they eat???

Do you think Muslims should be protected when they are targeted by hate crime? If a mosque is targeted for terrorism?

Hate crime is terrorism against individuals and groups and has it's goal to terrify anyone in the targeted group and to make them feel unwelcome in our country.

To me hate crimes and terrorism are two different things.

Let's say someone runs a STOP sign and hits my car. I get out of my car and am mad.

This person (who is black, or itialian, or gay, or asian, take your pick) gets loud and mouths off.

I call him a ( wop, or gook, or, ******, or fag, which ever slur fits)

We get into a physical fight amd the cops come and arrest me..

Now it's not just a simple assault and battery.

But it's a serious Federal hate crime. Because I used a racial or sexual orentiation slur while mad.

Was the incident terrorism? Was it really a hate crime??

No, it's not a hate crime.

Here's an example of a hate crime. Someone decides to rape and beat your daughter because you are a member of a mosque and the perpetrator who is a member of the KKK wants to send YOU and YOUR community a message you'll never forget.

Your daughter is raped and beaten to death to send a message to your community.

It's a crime like terrorism because an innocent person is targeted for being a member of a group--just as the people on the planes and the people in the World Trade Center were targeted for violence to send a message of fear to our nation.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

This allows more governmental resources to help what the local community may not have the ability or money to do.

Sooo... now it's a money issue? Boy, this thing is morphing by the moment.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Here's an example of a hate crime. Someone decides to rape and beat your daughter because you are a member of a mosque and the perpetrator who is a member of the KKK wants to send YOU and YOUR community a message you'll never forget.

Like... i'd forget it if not for the Klan member thing??? WTF????

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

If somebody raped and beat my daughter, quite frankly, his motivations would matter not to me.

 

[Sky Dancer]

If somebody raped and beat my daughter, quite frankly, his motivations would matter not to me.

No, but it may matter to the community to which you were specifically targeted--in my example; Muslims. The motivation matters in a hate crime just as terrorism is not just an ordinary crime of violence.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

No, but it may matter to the community to which you were specifically targeted--in my example; Muslims.

Why? Why does that mater?? So.. cause I'm your basic white guy from a white neighborhood... I'm supposed to just say ... "eh, oh well"? Some guy came here and raped and beat my dayghter... at least it didn't happen because I'm Muslim and he's in the Klan 'cause that would just be heinous? HUH?????

 

[Emma]

So killing is killing, eh?

Justifiable homicide, involuntary manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter, 1st degree homicide.

Any charge that takes into account the intent of the person who kills another should be removed from the statutes. Because killing is killing.

All relatively easily parsed, and none are aggravating factors piled on after the fact.

All take into account the intent of the person who kills another.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Everybody's the same.. or they're not. Let's pick one position.. not try to go with both.

 

[KittenKoder]

Justifiable homicide, involuntary manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter, 1st degree homicide.

Any charge that takes into account the intent of the person who kills another should be removed from the statutes. Because killing is killing.

All relatively easily parsed, and none are aggravating factors piled on after the fact.

All take into account the intent of the person who kills another.

But ... "hate crime" is not intent, it's opinion based, which is far from intent.

 

[Oddball]

Justifiable homicide, involuntary manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter, 1st degree homicide.

Any charge that takes into account the intent of the person who kills another should be removed from the statutes. Because killing is killing.

All relatively easily parsed, and none are aggravating factors piled on after the fact.

All take into account the intent of the person who kills another.

They determine whether malice was involved, not try to establish a threshold as a further aggravating factor after the fact.

 

[Emma]

All relatively easily parsed, and none are aggravating factors piled on after the fact.

All take into account the intent of the person who kills another.

But ... "hate crime" is not intent, it's opinion based, which is far from intent.

lol

Of course it's based upon intent.

 

[KittenKoder]

All take into account the intent of the person who kills another.

But ... "hate crime" is not intent, it's opinion based, which is far from intent.

lol

Of course it's based upon intent.

Really? So "thinking someone is inferior" is now "trying to prove someone is inferior"?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Of course we all agree there are factors such as.. did this person carefully plan this murder out, or, did it happen in the heat of the moment. Either way.. because I carefully planned it out BECAUSE he was gay makes it no worse... you still carefully planned out the killing of another human being. And I'm thinking... if someone carefully plans out the murder of another.. it's gonna be for some reason that ain't nice.. whether it be.. I owe him money, he's screwing my wife, he's got a lot of insurance, or he's gay. They're ALL very heinous reasons and we shouldn't get in the business of deteriming one is worse than another. The end result is the real problem... not the motivation.