Want To See A REAL Hate Crime?

[PoliticalChic]

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

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

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.

Now, there is a perfect example of why you believing you can read minds is bogus.

 

[George Costanza]

So it wouldn't have been assault, battery and robbery if the victim was straight?

We already have laws against such. Motivation behind the crime does not make the crime worse than if it was just a average straight joe who got beaten and robbed.

Yes, it does - and this is the point that hate crime opponents consistently either fail to recognize or intentionally overlook.

I guess, however, that if you don't see the attack in this case as being "worse" than a "plain" assault, there is little I can say. Fortunately, the legislatures in most states DO see an attack of this nature as being worse than a "plain" assault, PRECISELY because of the motivation behind it.

 

[Zoom-boing]

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.

How do you know that?

Because of what the suspects said during the attack. Their motivation is clear here.

Did the suspects know the victim or did they just happen upon him?

Did they call him fag (just as an insult) or did they know he was gay?

 

[George Costanza]

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

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.

Now, there is a perfect example of why you believing you can read minds is bogus.

It is not too difficult to "read minds," when the attackers are screaming "fucking fag" at the victim as they are kicking him in the head while he is on the ground.

Or have I missed the point of what you are trying to say - with you, it is often difficult to find your point in among all of the invective and insults which regularly seem to be present in your posts.

 

[DiveCon]

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.

How do you know that?

Because of what the suspects said during the attack. Their motivation is clear here.

what if the guy wasnt actually gay?

 

[George Costanza]

How do you know that?

Because of what the suspects said during the attack. Their motivation is clear here.

Did the suspects know the victim or did they just happen upon him?

Did they call him fag (just as an insult) or did they know he was gay?

They knew him.

 

[manifold]

All right - I take it you are opposed to hate crime legislation. What is/are your objection(s)? Why do you feel hate crime legislation is wrong?

I feel that it is unnecessary and ultimately does more harm than good.

People like those in this story aren't going to fag-bash any less because of hate crime laws, all they will do is learn "what not to say" when doing so.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

How do you know that?

Because of what the suspects said during the attack. Their motivation is clear here.

So, if you believe the perp about his motivation, how come you don't believe them when they use the SODDI defense?

Ah, the logic of a liberal.

(Some other dude did it.)

 

[George Costanza]

How do you know that?

Because of what the suspects said during the attack. Their motivation is clear here.

what if the guy wasnt actually gay?

Interesting question. I think the crime would have been complete, but you might have more trouble getting a prosecutor to file on it. Good quesiton.

 

[RadiomanATL]

So it wouldn't have been assault, battery and robbery if the victim was straight?

We already have laws against such. Motivation behind the crime does not make the crime worse than if it was just a average straight joe who got beaten and robbed.

Yes, it does - and this is the point that hate crime opponents consistently either fail to recognize or intentionally overlook.

So a rib that was broken during a so-called "hate crime" hurts worse than a rib that was broken during a plain assault? Someone killed during a hate crime is somehow deader than a normal homicide?



A crime is a crime is a crime. Period.

I guess, however, that if you don't see the attack in this case as being "worse" than a "plain" assault, there is little I can say. Fortunately, the legislatures in most states DO see an attack of this nature as being worse than a "plain" assault, PRECISELY because of the motivation behind it.

Legislatures in states and the feds used to uphold slavery as well. Your argument is an Appeal to Authority fallacy. Try again.

 

[George Costanza]

How do you know that?

Because of what the suspects said during the attack. Their motivation is clear here.

So, if you believe the perp about his motivation, how come you don't believe them when they use the SODDI defense?

Ah, the logic of a liberal.

(Some other dude did it.)

PC - listen up. Pay attention now. When suspects are calling the victim a "fucking fag" as they attack him, the motivation of the attack is clear - any problem with that? When a defendant tells his attorney SODDI, there is no independent verification one way or the other to prove that this is true, other than the defendant's word. Big difference.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

Now, there is a perfect example of why you believing you can read minds is bogus.

It is not too difficult to "read minds," when the attackers are screaming "fucking fag" at the victim as they are kicking him in the head while he is on the ground.

Or have I missed the point of what you are trying to say - with you, it is often difficult to find your point in among all of the invective and insults which regularly seem to be present in your posts.

Point: since you couldn't read my mind, there is no reason to believe you can read anyone's mind.

And, if you could read minds, you would have known that I was going to use ' invective and insults,' you pantywaist.

 

[George Costanza]

So it wouldn't have been assault, battery and robbery if the victim was straight?

We already have laws against such. Motivation behind the crime does not make the crime worse than if it was just a average straight joe who got beaten and robbed.

Yes, it does - and this is the point that hate crime opponents consistently either fail to recognize or intentionally overlook.

So a rib that was broken during a so-called "hate crime" hurts worse than a rib that was broken during a plain assault? Someone killed during a hate crime is somehow deader than a normal homicide?



A crime is a crime is a crime. Period.

I guess, however, that if you don't see the attack in this case as being "worse" than a "plain" assault, there is little I can say. Fortunately, the legislatures in most states DO see an attack of this nature as being worse than a "plain" assault, PRECISELY because of the motivation behind it.

Legislatures in states and the feds used to uphold slavery as well. Your argument is an Appeal to Authority fallacy. Try again.

Touche. You are correct, sir - with regard to the logical fallacy. That does not, however, make my position incorrect.

 

[DiveCon]

Because of what the suspects said during the attack. Their motivation is clear here.

what if the guy wasnt actually gay?

Interesting question. I think the crime would have been complete, but you might have more trouble getting a prosecutor to file on it. Good quesiton.

thats why hate crime legislation is wrong
it matters not who the person was that was attacked
the punishment should be the same for the same crime

 

[George Costanza]

Point: since you couldn't read my mind, there is no reason to believe you can read anyone's mind.

"I" do not claim to be able to read anyone's mind. But a hate crime requires a certain motivation. Motivation is what is in someone's mind, and that is impossible to determine UNLESS the person says or does something as he is committing the crime, which makes his frame of mind (his motivation) apparent.

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

 

[DiveCon]

Because of what the suspects said during the attack. Their motivation is clear here.

So, if you believe the perp about his motivation, how come you don't believe them when they use the SODDI defense?

Ah, the logic of a liberal.

(Some other dude did it.)

PC - listen up. Pay attention now. When suspects are calling the victim a "fucking fag" as they attack him, the motivation of the attack is clear - any problem with that? When a defendant tells his attorney SODDI, there is no independent verification one way or the other to prove that this is true, other than the defendant's word. Big difference.

yes, because no one ever calls someone "fag" if they aren't actually gay

 

[RadiomanATL]

Yes, it does - and this is the point that hate crime opponents consistently either fail to recognize or intentionally overlook.

So a rib that was broken during a so-called "hate crime" hurts worse than a rib that was broken during a plain assault? Someone killed during a hate crime is somehow deader than a normal homicide?



A crime is a crime is a crime. Period.

I guess, however, that if you don't see the attack in this case as being "worse" than a "plain" assault, there is little I can say. Fortunately, the legislatures in most states DO see an attack of this nature as being worse than a "plain" assault, PRECISELY because of the motivation behind it.

Legislatures in states and the feds used to uphold slavery as well. Your argument is an Appeal to Authority fallacy. Try again.

Touche. You are correct, sir - with regard to the logical fallacy. That does not, however, make my position incorrect.

George, at this point you don't have a point, other than hate crimes are bad.

You have not made your argument that they are worse than any other crime.

 

[George Costanza]

what if the guy wasnt actually gay?

Interesting question. I think the crime would have been complete, but you might have more trouble getting a prosecutor to file on it. Good quesiton.

thats why hate crime legislation is wrong
it matters not who the person was that was attacked
the punishment should be the same for the same crime

No, that is not why hate crime legislation is wrong. Hate crime legislation is not "wrong." It is a good thing, if it discourages hate crimes by punishing them more severely.

Look - homicides are divided up into various degrees and types of homicides. In each and every homicide, the victim is just as dead, yet the perp gets punished more, depending on how he killed the victim. Would you have just one punishment for a homicide, regardless of how it was implemented?

 

[George Costanza]

So a rib that was broken during a so-called "hate crime" hurts worse than a rib that was broken during a plain assault? Someone killed during a hate crime is somehow deader than a normal homicide?



A crime is a crime is a crime. Period.




Legislatures in states and the feds used to uphold slavery as well. Your argument is an Appeal to Authority fallacy. Try again.

Touche. You are correct, sir - with regard to the logical fallacy. That does not, however, make my position incorrect.

George, at this point you don't have a point, other than hate crimes are bad.

You have not made your argument that they are worse than any other crime.

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.

 

[Intense]

From another Perspective, All Violent crime is pretty much motivated by Hate. First, you water down the punishment of the crime, you create excuses to divert from justice, then you institute another law to protect privileged classes from the watered down effect and failure, of an unjustified barrier that you constructed. So some of us are privileged, and better protected than others. You imagine the reasoning to be justified, it is not. It is a corruption of fair and impartial justice, and it will continue to abuse the concept as long as people like you, abandon reason, in it's defense. You are better than that George. Why do you let them set the premise, as though it is absolute and complete, without flaw. Imagine, question, test the barriers, see them for what they are.