Want To See A REAL Hate Crime?

[Immanuel]

Hate crimes are worse that plain assault crimes, because of the motivation of the perp. Simple as that. I see a racially motivated attack as more culpable than a non-racially motivated attack. Apparently you do not.

We would seem to be at a basic disagreement that precludes further discussion.

Why?

Why is it worse if I hate a person and beat him to death because he is gay or because he killed my cat?

You are accusing me, and those who agree with me, of not seeing that hate crimes are worse because the motivation is hate. I can hate a person for reasons that have nothing to do with gender, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic group, or skin color. Justify yourself and explain why one type of hate is worse than another.

1. because society should send a message that that type of hatred is unacceptable.

2. because but for the hatred of a group of people, the act wouldn't have happened.

personally, i think people who oppose hate crime legislation oppose anything that benefits what the court calls 'suspect classes' of people.

I definitely oppose the courts playing favoritism.

If five guys beat up two friends, one who is gay and the other who is straight, why should those five guys get more time for beating up the gay man than for beating up the straight guy.

I agree with you that sending a message is a good idea, but I do not think that the straight man deserves less satisfaction OR CONCERN BY THE COURTS than the victim who was gay. That just does not make sense to me.

Immie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Wrong analysis. Hate crime legislation does not single out one class of citizens for punishment. Anyone (white, black or green) can commit a hate crime. If we had a hate crime statute that said: "Any white person who attacks any person of a minority race for racially motivated reasons is guilty of . . . " then there would be an equal protection argument. But that is not the way hate crime statutes are written.

No, they are written based on the perceived thoughts and emotions of the people committing the crimes. How do you justify that under the Constitution again?

QW - my main man! Where ya been on this thread? OK, let's get at it . . .

You refer to the "perceived thoughts and emotions" of the people committing the crimes, as if people get convicted of hate crimes without any real evidence thereof. Not so. Prosecutors are not stupid. They will not even file on a hate crime unless they have substantial evidence to establish the motivation of the defendant. In this case, the attackers were screaming, "Fag! Fucking faggot!" as they knocked the victim to the ground and kicked him in the head. There is nothing necessary to "perceive" here - the attackers made it perfectly clear what their motivation was. The prosecutor will have a field day with this case, if it ever gets to trial. No problem establishing this as a hate crime. None.

How do I justify hate crime legislation under the Constitution? Why is that even an issue? Are you referring to so-called "thought crimes"? Hate crimes are not thought crimes. They are thought motivated action crimes. There is a difference. It would be unconsitutional to convict someone for merely thinking he would like to attack a gay person. (I guess it would be unconstitutional - not sure where the Constitution talks about anything like that, but what the hell; I will assume it does for sake of argument.)

However, when our "thought crime" guy decides to put his thoughts into action, it is an entirely different matter. And, once again, no one ever gets convicted of (or even prosecuted for) a hate crime unless, as in this case, there is ample evidence of his intent.

You do recognize that different degrees of murder are punished differently, right? And what is it that differentiates the varying degrees of murder? Nothing more than the thought process of the perp. Funny - I haven't heard anyone arguing that punishing first degree murder more harshly than second degree murderer is "punishing the perceived thoughts and emotions" of the murderer.

Fight the ones you can win, QW - this one isn't it.

Prosecutors never file frivolous charges? You really expect me to believe that George? What about the Duke rape case? those charges were frivolous, and that jerk would have been happy to tack on hate crime charges if he could have. Hate crimes laws will just make abuses like that easier to file, and harder to defend.

If it is unconstitutional yo convict a person for thinking about something, it is equally unconstitutional to convict them for crimes based on what we think they were thinking. Anger makes people say stupid things all the time. Haven't you aver been angry and uttered the word bitch? If you got in an argument, called a woman a bitch, and she tripped over a crack, bounced off of your chest, and broke her arm, would that be a hate crime? You are basin your desire to convict these jerks on nothing more than your interpretation of their words.

Different types of murder are prosecuted differently to give prosecutors more chances to convict people who are essentially innocent and put them in jail. Why else make traffic accidents that result in death prosecutable, even if there is no negligence on the part of the defendant?

If I only debated when I had a slam dunk I would never learn George.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hate crimes are worse that plain assault crimes, because of the motivation of the perp. Simple as that. I see a racially motivated attack as more culpable than a non-racially motivated attack. Apparently you do not.

We would seem to be at a basic disagreement that precludes further discussion.

Why?

Why is it worse if I hate a person and beat him to death because he is gay or because he killed my cat?

You are accusing me, and those who agree with me, of not seeing that hate crimes are worse because the motivation is hate. I can hate a person for reasons that have nothing to do with gender, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic group, or skin color. Justify yourself and explain why one type of hate is worse than another.

1. because society should send a message that that type of hatred is unacceptable.

2. because but for the hatred of a group of people, the act wouldn't have happened.

personally, i think people who oppose hate crime legislation oppose anything that benefits what the court calls 'suspect classes' of people.

1. Society also wants to send the message that certain types of speech are unacceptable. Using racial epithets is something that should be actively discouraged, should we show our commitment to this by criminalizing it?

2. You cannot prove that. Even if you can, how is that worse than the fact that, barring my hatred of my neighbor for killing my cat, I would not have used a baseball bat and broking his legs?

 

[Intense]

Hate crimes are worse that plain assault crimes, because of the motivation of the perp. Simple as that. I see a racially motivated attack as more culpable than a non-racially motivated attack. Apparently you do not.

We would seem to be at a basic disagreement that precludes further discussion.

Why?

Why is it worse if I hate a person and beat him to death because he is gay or because he killed my cat?

You are accusing me, and those who agree with me, of not seeing that hate crimes are worse because the motivation is hate. I can hate a person for reasons that have nothing to do with gender, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic group, or skin color. Justify yourself and explain why one type of hate is worse than another.

1. because society should send a message that that type of hatred is unacceptable.

2. because but for the hatred of a group of people, the act wouldn't have happened.

personally, i think people who oppose hate crime legislation oppose anything that benefits what the court calls 'suspect classes' of people.

Why is one kind of hate more unacceptable than another? Isn't the degree of hate just as if not more relevant? If someone Tortures a victim for example, to me, that and mass murder, are at the top of my list of worse offenses, that , and child victims. I'm usually against the Death Penalty, except for two exceptions, Mass Murders and those who torture and kill, and those that freely request a Death Sentence, without changing their mind. The Rest, for the nasty stuff, life without parole. Hate crime doesn't even come close to that, unless the action is already covered in the worst of the worst group. You are also branding people for life, for a minor crime, you are sealing their fate. Churches and Temples, Cemetery's being vandalized, as bad as that is, it shouldn't scar a person for life.

 

[eots]

all crimes with victims are hate crimes

 

[George Costanza]

If it is unconstitutional to convict a person for thinking about something, it is equally unconstitutional to convict them for crimes based on what we think they were thinking.

I won't ask you to quote me that portion of The Constitution that says it is unconstitutional to prosecute for a thought crime. But I will tell you that we don't do it in America.

In this particular case, what do YOU think the attackers were thinking as they attacked the gay guy? Let's see - the are yelling, "Fag" and "Fuck you, faggot" as they beat him to the ground and then kick him in the head. How on earth can you talk about what "we think" they are thinking? Come on, QM - turn around a couple of times and take another look at that one. Here, there is no doubt what the cretins are thinking. They are EXPRESSING IT OUT LOUD as they ENGAGE IN ACTION TOTALLY CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THEY ARE SAYING. Give me a freaking BREAK and kindly do not insult my (or anyone else's) intelligence with that one again.

When thoughts are accompanied by criminal action, we are no longer dealing with a "thought crime."

Anger makes people say stupid things all the time. Haven't you aver been angry and uttered the word bitch? If you got in an argument, called a woman a bitch, and she tripped over a crack, bounced off of your chest, and broke her arm, would that be a hate crime?

Of course not - because you took no (you should pardon the expression) affirmative action to cause her to break her arm. Now, if you called her a bitch AS you were breaking her arm for her, that would be a hate crime. See the difference? I know you do.

You are basing your desire to convict these jerks on nothing more than your interpretation of their words.

How would YOU interpret their words, considering that, while they were uttering them, they were kicking the "fag" in the head? Once again, QW - give me a break.

Different types of murder are prosecuted differently to give prosecutors more chances to convict people who are essentially innocent and put them in jail. Why else make traffic accidents that result in death prosecutable, even if there is no negligence on the part of the defendant?

No - different types of murder are prosecuted differently because the law provides for different punishments as the degree of murder gets more culpable. It's the same thing with hate crime legislation. Racially motivated assaults are legally (and morally) much more culpable than "regular" assaults that are not racially motivated. That is why they are punished in a harsher fashion.

And, as an aside - if there is a death in an automobile accident, in order for there to be a prosecution of the other driver, there has to be SOME degree of negligence. Vehicular manslaughter is the only crime we have where a person can be prosecuted and put in jail or prison for an act he/she commits with no criminal intent whatsoever. Your wife could be going to the store and end up in jail and perhaps in prison for a number of years for being in an auto accident where the other person dies. But there still has to be some degree of negligence, or there will be no prosecution.

If I only debated when I had a slam dunk I would never learn George.

I know. That's why I enjoy debating with you here.

 

[Foxfyre]

and what makes this more serious than if they did it to a Hetero person?

Some folks would like us to institute 'thought crimes.'

What makes it more serious is the MOTIVATION for the crime. This is a crime that would never have been commited but for the sexual orientation/ethnic origin of the victim. Had a straight, white guy been standing there, nothing would have happened.

Crimes such as these are more serious than "plain" assaults, because of the motivation for the attack. You may disagree - but the legislature feels hate crimes should be punished more severely, which is why hate crime legislation has been enacted.

Why George? Why is the motivation for this crime any worse than motivation of parents who beat or shake their kids to death, or the illegal who beat his landlady within an inch of her life, tied up her little dog, threw it in the bathtub, doused it with gasoline and set it on fire? The mugger who isn't satisfied just purse snatching but beats his victim bloody? The union thugs who beat up the guy who crosses the picket line just trying to go to work? The guy who kidnaps, repeatedly rapes, and then tortures his victim to death?

All crimes that intentionally demean, hurt, or denigate other people are hate crimes. When you're being beaten within an inch of your life, do you really care WHY you're being beaten? Does it make the injuries any worse?

The law should be equally severe with all people who do hateful things. To single out one group or another group as being less deserving of such assault and battery than any other group simply makes no sense at all to a conservative who thinks all viscious crime should be severely punished without exception.

 

[George Costanza]

Some folks would like us to institute 'thought crimes.'

What makes it more serious is the MOTIVATION for the crime. This is a crime that would never have been commited but for the sexual orientation/ethnic origin of the victim. Had a straight, white guy been standing there, nothing would have happened.

Crimes such as these are more serious than "plain" assaults, because of the motivation for the attack. You may disagree - but the legislature feels hate crimes should be punished more severely, which is why hate crime legislation has been enacted.

Why George? Why is the motivation for this crime any worse than motivation of parents who beat or shake their kids to death, or the illegal who beat his landlady within an inch of her life, tied up her little dog, threw it in the bathtub, doused it with gasoline and set it on fire? The mugger who isn't satisfied just purse snatching but beats his victim bloody? The union thugs who beat up the guy who crosses the picket line just trying to go to work? The guy who kidnaps, repeatedly rapes, and then tortures his victim to death?

All crimes that intentionally demean, hurt, or denigate other people are hate crimes. When you're being beaten within an inch of your life, do you really care WHY you're being beaten? Does it make the injuries any worse?

The law should be equally severe with all people who do hateful things. To single out one group or another group as being less deserving of such assault and battery than any other group simply makes no sense at all to a conservative who thinks all viscious crime should be severely punished without exception.

Do you think that someone who kidnaps a child, rapes and tortures the child for several days and then slits the child's throat, should receive the same punishment as a man who kills another man in a bar fight?

As I am sure you are aware, the law treats these two crimes differently, and indeed does punish the child murderer much more severely than the guy in the bar fight. The bar fight guy would probably be convicted of manslaughter - perhaps even involuntary manslaughter, while the child murderer would be prosecuted for capital murder and would receive the death penalty.

In both cases, the victims are "just as dead," as you cons like to point out. Why afford the dead child any more "justice" than the dead guy in the bar fight?

As we know, that is exactly what the law does.

If you were in charge, how would you change the law? Would you keep it the same, or would you provide the same punishment whenever there is a crime committed that results in the death of another person, regardless of the way in which the crime was committed or the intent or motivation of the defendant?

I trust you see the point here.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Is this a hate crime:

A Connecticut truck driver caught stealing beer was given two choices: quit or be fired.
But Omar Thornton, who complained about being racially harassed at work, had another plan. He pulled out a gun and opened fire on co-workers, killing eight and then fatally shooting himself - pausing mid-rampage to call his mother and say goodbye.
"He said, 'I just shot the five racists who were out to get me. I took care of them, Mom,'" said Joanne Hannah, the mother of Thornton's ex-girlfriend.


Read more: Truck driver Omar Thornton kills 8 in Connecticut, rants about racism to mom before taking own life

Does it matter that all the dead were white? Or did he have to shout 'cracker' to be a hate crime?

"I would say that, in this case, that is pretty evident, wouldn't you?"

Sure is. That's a hate crime. What's your point?

BTW - I would suggest reading some example of hate crime statutes (they are all basically the same) before engaging in debate about their wording.

My point is that he was not charged with a 'hate crime.'

Could it be that his race protected him from the charge?

(because he was dead...but at no time was it suggested that it was a hate crime...)

 

[George Costanza]

Is this a hate crime:

A Connecticut truck driver caught stealing beer was given two choices: quit or be fired.
But Omar Thornton, who complained about being racially harassed at work, had another plan. He pulled out a gun and opened fire on co-workers, killing eight and then fatally shooting himself - pausing mid-rampage to call his mother and say goodbye.
"He said, 'I just shot the five racists who were out to get me. I took care of them, Mom,'" said Joanne Hannah, the mother of Thornton's ex-girlfriend.


Read more: Truck driver Omar Thornton kills 8 in Connecticut, rants about racism to mom before taking own life

Does it matter that all the dead were white? Or did he have to shout 'cracker' to be a hate crime?

"I would say that, in this case, that is pretty evident, wouldn't you?"

Sure is. That's a hate crime. What's your point?

BTW - I would suggest reading some example of hate crime statutes (they are all basically the same) before engaging in debate about their wording.

My point is that he was not charged with a 'hate crime.'

Could it be that his race protected him from the charge?

(because he was dead...but at no time was it suggested that it was a hate crime...)

He was most likely protected from hate crime prosecution because he ended up DEAD. Kind of difficult to prosecute a dead person. And it doesn't matter whether it was "suggested" that he committed a hate crime or not. On the facts you provided here, he did, because a hate crime is defined as any crime committed in whole or in part against any other person because of the victim's actual or perceived membership in a certain type of social group, usually defined race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, AGE, gender, or POLITICAL AFFILIATION. (So WATCH IT!)

Here, the dead guy shot the other people because of their race. NOW, I think it would be extremely unlikely that any prosecutor would prosecute for a hate crime had the shooter lived, for several reasons. Probably the main one is that, if the prosecutor decided to file at all, it would be for some form of homicide, probably first degree murder. In fact, in California, it would be a capital case (multiple murders). Little point in tacking on a few extra years in prison for a hate crime in a case such as that unless there was a tactical reason to do so.

More importantly, though, whenever a prosecutor makes the decision to file or not to file, the primary question in his/her mind is always: "How will this all play out in front of a jury?" - because that is the ultimate test. Here, Omar killed his co-workers because they had been racially harassing him. Prosecutors don't like jerks as victims. Juries sometimes side with the defendant.

Hate crime statutes are race neutral. They do not specify any particular race as perps nor do they specify any particular race as victims. They just say that if any PERSON commits a racially motivated crime against ANY OTHER PERSON, a hate crime has been committed.

 

[jillian]

whats wrong with equal justice for the victims?
is a non-minority victim somehow of less value?

because the victims weren't treated equally. they were targed BECAUSE of the group they were identified with.

Can you prove that someone targeted because of what group they belong to suffers anymore from a crime than someone who was just randomly attacked?

that's a non-issue

 

[Foxfyre]

What makes it more serious is the MOTIVATION for the crime. This is a crime that would never have been commited but for the sexual orientation/ethnic origin of the victim. Had a straight, white guy been standing there, nothing would have happened.

Crimes such as these are more serious than "plain" assaults, because of the motivation for the attack. You may disagree - but the legislature feels hate crimes should be punished more severely, which is why hate crime legislation has been enacted.

Why George? Why is the motivation for this crime any worse than motivation of parents who beat or shake their kids to death, or the illegal who beat his landlady within an inch of her life, tied up her little dog, threw it in the bathtub, doused it with gasoline and set it on fire? The mugger who isn't satisfied just purse snatching but beats his victim bloody? The union thugs who beat up the guy who crosses the picket line just trying to go to work? The guy who kidnaps, repeatedly rapes, and then tortures his victim to death?

All crimes that intentionally demean, hurt, or denigate other people are hate crimes. When you're being beaten within an inch of your life, do you really care WHY you're being beaten? Does it make the injuries any worse?

The law should be equally severe with all people who do hateful things. To single out one group or another group as being less deserving of such assault and battery than any other group simply makes no sense at all to a conservative who thinks all viscious crime should be severely punished without exception.

Do you think that someone who kidnaps a child, rapes and tortures the child for several days and then slits the child's throat, should receive the same punishment as a man who kills another man in a bar fight?

As I am sure you are aware, the law treats these two crimes differently, and indeed does punish the child murderer much more severely than the guy in the bar fight. The bar fight guy would probably be convicted of manslaughter - perhaps even involuntary manslaughter, while the child murderer would be prosecuted for capital murder and would receive the death penalty.

In both cases, the victims are "just as dead," as you cons like to point out. Why afford the dead child any more "justice" than the dead guy in the bar fight?

As we know, that is exactly what the law does.

If you were in charge, how would you change the law? Would you keep it the same, or would you provide the same punishment whenever there is a crime committed that results in the death of another person, regardless of the way in which the crime was committed or the intent or motivation of the defendant?

I trust you see the point here.

Very few people who get in bar fights intend to kill or maim or inflict unbearable pain upon their opponent any more than the guy who drives drunk or is texting intends to kill anybody. That is a totally different scenario than the examples I used and you know it.

I wouldn't change the definitions in most states re involuntary manslaughter and the various degrees of homicide. And the designated penalties should be applied without prejudice across the board for each. As it has always been, the judge could take into account whatever extenuating circumstances existed in order to apply the minimum or maximum penalty or something in between.

My objection to so-caled 'hate crimes' is that it extends special consideration to this group or that group when there should be equal protection under the law for everybody regardless of their skin color, gender, sexual orientation, or what. I do extend special protection to the kids because of their powerlessness, but again such protection such be for ALL kids and not just some categories of kids.

 

[ConHog]

because the victims weren't treated equally. they were targed BECAUSE of the group they were identified with.

Can you prove that someone targeted because of what group they belong to suffers anymore from a crime than someone who was just randomly attacked?

that's a non-issue

oh, I very much beg to differ. It's very much an issue. The punishment is supposed to fit the crime. So if we say the punishment for attacking a gay is more than the punishment for attacking a straight then we are in effect saying that the crime of attacking a gay is worse than the crime of attacking a straight. In MY book both attacks are equal and deserve EQUAL punishment.

And if you don't think that prosecutors (many of them anyway) are just going to tack on a hate crime charge anytime the victim is gay or black, well you're just kidding yourself.

 

[Intense]

If Leniency was not handed out like candy, normal punishment would suffice.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I won't ask you to quote me that portion of The Constitution that says it is unconstitutional to prosecute for a thought crime. But I will tell you that we don't do it in America.

In this particular case, what do YOU think the attackers were thinking as they attacked the gay guy? Let's see - the are yelling, "Fag" and "Fuck you, faggot" as they beat him to the ground and then kick him in the head. How on earth can you talk about what "we think" they are thinking? Come on, QM - turn around a couple of times and take another look at that one. Here, there is no doubt what the cretins are thinking. They are EXPRESSING IT OUT LOUD as they ENGAGE IN ACTION TOTALLY CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THEY ARE SAYING. Give me a freaking BREAK and kindly do not insult my (or anyone else's) intelligence with that one again.

When thoughts are accompanied by criminal action, we are no longer dealing with a "thought crime."

We are if we base prosecution on those thoughts.

In my younger days I got into quite a few arguments, and even went as far as calling people names. I even went as far as to use slurs that are insults to homosexuals during those arguments. I can guarantee that those words had nothing to do with the person who I was arguing with, and that I am pretty sure none of them were actually gay. If we had ended up in a physical fight, and the prosecutor decided to push it, he would have been able to prosecute me after this hypothetical fight, he would have been able to charge me with a hate crime, even though there was no hate involved. At least not a hate that is illegal under these stupid laws.

Of course not - because you took no (you should pardon the expression) affirmative action to cause her to break her arm. Now, if you called her a bitch AS you were breaking her arm for her, that would be a hate crime. See the difference? I know you do.

Yet, if that woman happens to be a police officer, it would be assault on a police officer, and a hate crime.

You know better than me just how easy it is to charge anyone with assault, even if the other person is doing the assaulting. Confused witnesses, conflicting statements from the accused, and a determination to stick someone with a charge even if they do not deserve it. Isn't that the main reason lawyers tell clients never to talk to the police, because innocent, and normal, mistakes get turned into lies and used to convict them?

How would YOU interpret their words, considering that, while they were uttering them, they were kicking the "fag" in the head? Once again, QW - give me a break.

Irrelevant, and you know it. I am not an expert in psychology, making my opinion about their motives inadmissible.

I was joking there, but that is exactly what you are asking me to do. On top of that, I do not know all of the facts, making my opinion even less relevant. I do believe that the attack was motivated by hate, but I would not be willing to send anyone to prison based on nothing more than my opinion.

No - different types of murder are prosecuted differently because the law provides for different punishments as the degree of murder gets more culpable. It's the same thing with hate crime legislation. Racially motivated assaults are legally (and morally) much more culpable than "regular" assaults that are not racially motivated. That is why they are punished in a harsher fashion.

And, as an aside - if there is a death in an automobile accident, in order for there to be a prosecution of the other driver, there has to be SOME degree of negligence. Vehicular manslaughter is the only crime we have where a person can be prosecuted and put in jail or prison for an act he/she commits with no criminal intent whatsoever. Your wife could be going to the store and end up in jail and perhaps in prison for a number of years for being in an auto accident where the other person dies. But there still has to be some degree of negligence, or there will be no prosecution.

Why does the law make those provisions? Could it possibly be because juries refused to convict a person who got into a fight of murder and put him in prison for life?

Just for the record, vehicular manslaughter is far from the only crime without intent on the books.

PointofLaw.com | PointOfLaw Forum: Heritage and NACDL: Without Intent

Laws are specifically written to make it easier to prosecute people, which might be why everyone in the system works so hard to stamp out jury nullification. You need to be more cynical George, you are far to trusting that legislatures and prosecutors are interested only in justice.

I know. That's why I enjoy debating with you here.

Thank you George, that more than makes up for all the fools who keep telling me I am an embarrassment to my side.

 

[midcan5]

If the man were not gay he would probably have been left alone. If the dark skinned person were light skinned he would be alive today. If .... you can fill in all sorts of terrible scenarios, evil seems to be with us always. Forcing idiots to think twice could help, could. Conservative dislike of hate crime legislation is consistent with their knee jerk response to government. One wonders if states enacted hate crime legislation would they change their myopic view? Doubtful. Most conservatives only tolerate government when it locks up criminals, denies gays rights, checks your email, tells you your birth decisions are not yours, bombs nations, or keeps out of the way of corporate chicanery, often called profit making.


"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." James Madison

 

[DiveCon]

If the man were not gay he would probably have been left alone. If the dark skinned person were light skinned he would be alive today. If .... you can fill in all sorts of terrible scenarios, evil seems to be with us always. Forcing idiots to think twice could help, could. Conservative dislike of hate crime legislation is consistent with their knee jerk response to government. One wonders if states enacted hate crime legislation would they change their myopic view? Doubtful. Most conservatives only tolerate government when it locks up criminals, denies gays rights, checks your email, tells you your birth decisions are not yours, bombs nations, or keeps out of the way of corporate chicanery, often called profit making.


"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." James Madison

thanks for proving you are totally fucking clueless

 

[RadiomanATL]

If the man were not gay he would probably have been left alone. If the dark skinned person were light skinned he would be alive today. If .... you can fill in all sorts of terrible scenarios, evil seems to be with us always. Forcing idiots to think twice could help, could. Conservative dislike of hate crime legislation is consistent with their knee jerk response to government. One wonders if states enacted hate crime legislation would they change their myopic view? Doubtful. Most conservatives only tolerate government when it locks up criminals, denies gays rights, checks your email, tells you your birth decisions are not yours, bombs nations, or keeps out of the way of corporate chicanery, often called profit making.


"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." James Madison

If you weren't here, the board IQ would increase.

 

[Intense]

If the man were not gay he would probably have been left alone. If the dark skinned person were light skinned he would be alive today. If .... you can fill in all sorts of terrible scenarios, evil seems to be with us always. Forcing idiots to think twice could help, could. Conservative dislike of hate crime legislation is consistent with their knee jerk response to government. One wonders if states enacted hate crime legislation would they change their myopic view? Doubtful. Most conservatives only tolerate government when it locks up criminals, denies gays rights, checks your email, tells you your birth decisions are not yours, bombs nations, or keeps out of the way of corporate chicanery, often called profit making.


"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." James Madison

I don't follow that at all. Reason dictates consistency, fair arbitration, and the punishment fitting the crime. The job of the Ref is to keep the playing field clear, not determine the outcome of the game, nor have money invested in one team or the other, picking winners and losers. Making money is not a bade thing. Do you cash your paychecks? Underhanded scheming is bad, corrupting the Free Market is bad. Government can't protect the bank from being robbed while running cover and driving the get away car for big business. Government has to turn itself in, come clean, restructure. The Union's are not the answer Midcan, respecting Unalienable Right is. Fair Labor Laws, yes, value for value. Madison was a Federalist, not a Centralist. The Threat then, has come full bloom today, Tyranny of the State. No One can control it anymore, Federalism did not bring this to be, tampering did.

 

[Trajan]

So you are saying that the suspects in this case should NOT be punished more severely than anyone else who commits a "plain" assault on a victim? Sure sounds to me as if you are defending the animals in this case.

they should recieve the full punishment for the crime, regardless of WHO it was done to

equal justice under the law
if someone attacks me they should receive the same punishment

Wrong analysis. Hate crime legislation does not single out one class of citizens for punishment. Anyone (white, black or green) can commit a hate crime. If we had a hate crime statute that said: "Any white person who attacks any person of a minority race for racially motivated reasons is guilty of . . . " then there would be an equal protection argument. But that is not the way hate crime statutes are written.

that may be true code wise, what about popular opinion as ascribed by the media?