Would You Be For An Anti-Lynching Bill?

[Crepitus]

Well, lynchings are pretty rare these days but I can't see any reason not to have an anti-lynching bill. It certainly can't do any harm.

Why Waste Time On Useless, Meanigless
Feel Good Nothingness

Is It For The Point Of Making Another Empty Statement ??

They aren't doing anything else, might as well get some work outta them.

 

[Crepitus]

They've been trying to get an anti-lynching bill signed in Congress for years now.

Are you for, or against such a bill? Why/why not?

Well, lynchings are pretty rare these days but I can't see any reason not to have an anti-lynching bill. It certainly can't do any harm.

How about a "anti-walking the plank bill" or a "anti-burning at the stake bill"

Maybe we could have an "anti-cat of nine tails" bill after those two

Well, none of those have the same historic connotations but whatever floats yer boat I guess.

They are all already illegal, so what’s your point?
Plus Wouldnt lynching a black person already carry an additional penalty?

Why are you against it?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I am embarrassed that the author of this ridiculous bill is from South Carolina....

We all have our burdens to bear.
Ours is Sheila Jackson.

 

[Cecilie1200]

We need an anti-slavery bill. If you don't think so, then you're obviously racist.

We already have one of those.

Although I take your point. Maybe it's not specific enough, since it doesn't directly mention black people, AND it covers indentured servitude, too, which dilutes the special victimhood so craved today.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

What we really need is a stop the blacks killing law.
That'll surely curtail their 50% murder rate.

 

[whitehall]

When lynching was really a threat in the early 20's the democrat party blocked a bill by s republican congressman named Dyer which would have outlawed it. Later on FDR appointed a member of the KKK to the supreme court. That's the 20th century democrat party in a nutshell.

Now the Republican party is the one blocking it.

Strange, huh?

The strange thing is that in the expanded definition of 21st century "lynching" it seems that the only victims are republicans.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

so let me get this straight...……….regardless of party affiliation.....if you vote 'for' the anti-lynching bill, that means you do not support lynchings...yes? and if you vote 'against' such a bill, that means you do support lynching???


with the voting tallies vs replies and/or ratings of replies...…..there's some misunderstandings going on here

 

[miketx]

They've been trying to get an anti-lynching bill signed in Congress for years now.

Are you for, or against such a bill? Why/why not?

Why not just pass a law against murder? Oh yeah we already got one. You're just another liberal that wants to waste taxpayer money on stupid shit.

 

[Correll]

They've been trying to get an anti-lynching bill signed in Congress for years now.

Are you for, or against such a bill? Why/why not?

Against, and because I do not support grandstanding race baiting.

 

[Dana7360]

I've read this whole thread.

What it comes down to for those who are opposed to this legislation is that it's already illegal to kill someone. Which it is.

I remember when hate crimes legislation was trying to get through the congress. The same excuses to not pass those bills were used then too.

The bills finally passed. Now it seems everyone accepts them as the law and don't have a problem with them.

It's weird to see things repeat themselves very needlessly.

I've been a registered Independent since 1978. I voted yes to pass the legislation.

We already make distinctions in killing people in our laws. There's murder one, murder two. There's manslaughter. There's defending your life. There's accidental killing that had nothing nefarious to do with the death so no one is charged. There's vehicular homicide.

Personally, I think that lynching as a hate crime should be added to that list. Motive is one of the components to murder that the prosecution must establish. Hate is a motive.

If it's not going to have any impact because lynchings don't happen anymore, what's the harm of passing that bill?

It's intellectually dishonest and will give the impression to the dumber portion of society thats it's an actual problem?

What's dishonest about making hate being the motive for lynching illegal?

If people are too stupid to know that it is very rare in our society now then passing or not passing a bill will make no difference with their laziness and stupidity.

You're going to make a crime out of thoughts and emotions? Shades of George Orwell.

If people are too stupid to know that you're just as dead regardless of what your murderer was thinking while he killed you, they don't need to be deciding on legislative priorities.

Interesting. That's one of the same excuses conservatives used to not pass the hate crimes laws we already have on the books.

The thing is, it's not about thoughts. It's about motive.

Motive is one component of murder that a prosecutor must prove to a jury. Without motive they don't have much of a case.

Hate is a motive. Adding lynching to hate crimes is appropriate.

It has nothing to do with a person's thoughts. Thoughts don't kill anyone and no one is prosecuted for what they think.

It's all about the legal requirement of motive.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

They've been trying to get an anti-lynching bill signed in Congress for years now.

Are you for, or against such a bill? Why/why not?

How is the act of "lynching" any different than assault, battery, kidnapping, or murder?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I've read this whole thread.

What it comes down to for those who are opposed to this legislation is that it's already illegal to kill someone. Which it is.

I remember when hate crimes legislation was trying to get through the congress. The same excuses to not pass those bills were used then too.

The bills finally passed. Now it seems everyone accepts them as the law and don't have a problem with them.

It's weird to see things repeat themselves very needlessly.

I've been a registered Independent since 1978. I voted yes to pass the legislation.

We already make distinctions in killing people in our laws. There's murder one, murder two. There's manslaughter. There's defending your life. There's accidental killing that had nothing nefarious to do with the death so no one is charged. There's vehicular homicide.

Personally, I think that lynching as a hate crime should be added to that list. Motive is one of the components to murder that the prosecution must establish. Hate is a motive.

If it's not going to have any impact because lynchings don't happen anymore, what's the harm of passing that bill?

It's intellectually dishonest and will give the impression to the dumber portion of society thats it's an actual problem?

What's dishonest about making hate being the motive for lynching illegal?

If people are too stupid to know that it is very rare in our society now then passing or not passing a bill will make no difference with their laziness and stupidity.

You're going to make a crime out of thoughts and emotions? Shades of George Orwell.

If people are too stupid to know that you're just as dead regardless of what your murderer was thinking while he killed you, they don't need to be deciding on legislative priorities.

Interesting. That's one of the same excuses conservatives used to not pass the hate crimes laws we already have on the books.

The thing is, it's not about thoughts. It's about motive.

Motive is one component of murder that a prosecutor must prove to a jury. Without motive they don't have much of a case.

Hate is a motive. Adding lynching to hate crimes is appropriate.

It has nothing to do with a person's thoughts. It's all about the legal requirement of motive.

Yeah, it's not an excuse. It's actually a valid concern. Thought crimes are only appropriate if you're a fascist freak.

The thing is, motive is helpful for convincing jurors that the accused committed a crime. It is not, in itself, a crime, nor should it be. Nor are there "good" and "bad" motives for killing someone which merit less or more punishment.

Hate is a motive. Adding lynching to hate crimes is NOT appropriate, because hate crimes in general are not appropriate.

It has everything to do with a person's thoughts, because you want to have a criminal penalty PRECISELY for what someone was thinking. THAT is NOT about "the legal requirement of motive". That's about a whole different legal requirement for motive.

 

[Weatherman2020]

They've been trying to get an anti-lynching bill signed in Congress for years now.

Are you for, or against such a bill? Why/why not?

Thanks for reminding us what dumbasses the left are. They need to outlaw stupidity.

 

[Weatherman2020]

They've been trying to get an anti-lynching bill signed in Congress for years now.

Are you for, or against such a bill? Why/why not?

Why have a bill for something that does not happen much at all and is covered by dozens of other laws.

What's next, a "Anti-walking the plank" bill?

Reminds me of the Los Angeles law outlawing shooting rabbits from the back of street cars, circa 1920.

 

[karpenter]

You're just another liberal that wants to waste taxpayer money on stupid shit.

No

It's Just More-Never-Ending Demands For Apologies
They Want Us To Grovel For Their Forgiveness For Ever And Ever
Beg Until Our Knees Bleed, And Never Get Up

The Last Thing In The World I Need To Care About
Is Their Grievances And Self-Inflicted Suffering

Fuck 'Em...

 

[Meister]

They've been trying to get an anti-lynching bill signed in Congress for years now.

Are you for, or against such a bill? Why/why not?

Not sure why you would have a thread on this.
I just gotta ask a question, Mark, are you a victim, or are you a survivor?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

They've been trying to get an anti-lynching bill signed in Congress for years now.

Are you for, or against such a bill? Why/why not?

Not sure why you would have a thread on this.
I just gotta ask a question, Mark, are you a victim, or are you a survivor?

He is an instigator.