Would You Be For An Anti-Lynching Bill?

[Some Guy]

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.

Making thoughts into punishable crimes is the way of any authoritarian who wants to control how you live, how you think and how you act.

 

[night_son]

Nor am I by the subject of your thread: "keep the race hatred fires burning"

Explain how reporting items in the news "keep the race hatred fires burning."

Reason dictates passage of an anti-lynching law, or even its proposal publicly, nationally reported by the MSM, will lead minority groups and their political exploiters on the Left with an ideological taste in their mouth redolent of a belief that lynching is likely to occur in modern America otherwise why else suggest the need for such a Bill?

In my opinion, your thread was not conceived in "good faith" for logical, intellectual review or debate, but rather constructed as a trap to further martyrize Black American suffering by luring into it so-called racists who after answering "No" for an anti-lynching bill, could be encircled and pointed at as if in an ideological zoo, as proponents of lynching people, or in the least not wanting to prevent people from being lynched.

The overall result: perpetuation of the lie that America is less racially tolerant than the pre-1950's era. What agitates my disdain most for such deceptive race baiting lures is the lack of gratitude for the modern American and Western civilization freedoms we all currently thrive on and enjoy. You seem to want a return to the Dark Ages so you can put on your armor and ride out to duel with evil ******. Maturity is not overrated.

 

[JWBooth]

Awww **** it, Marky is just trolling y'all.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

Lynching is already illegal.
This is nothing more than political grandstanding which has no place when it comes to making law.

 

[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.

 

[g5000]

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?

Lynching is already illegal. The anti-lynching bill currently before Congress would make lynching a federal hate crime.

Morris Dees first came to my attention when I read his book about suing the Klan for a lynching in Mobile, Alabama in the 80s. I remember that lynching. I was stationed in Mississippi at the time. The Klan was still marching openly through Meridian back then. I was teaching a 56 year old man how to read back then, and he had had his church burned down by the Klan in the 60s.

I hate the Klan. With a passion. I once had a near-fatal encounter with the fuckwad on whose farm those three civil rights workers were buried. Long story. I'll tell you in a PM if you like.

Dees sued the Klan on behalf of the mother of the lynching victim, and won something like $7 million. Since the Klan didn't have that kind of money, the mother was awarded the property on which their headquarters was located.

That was one of the most beautiful examples of "poetic justice" ever. A black woman taking possession of Klan HQ.

So not only did the two perpetrators who killed the victim go to prison via the criminal justice system, the organization which spawned them suffered through the civil justice system.

It just doesn't get any better than that, Marc.

To be honest with you, I don't see a need to make a federal case out of it. As long as we have people like Morris Dees to hunt these fuckers to ground, we don't need new laws which could have harmful unintended consequences.

It's a horrible, horrible scar on America that we once had public lynchings which were celebratory events. People actually made postcards of them and sent them to friends and relatives. People posed, grinning from ear to ear, in front of the corpses for a photo op. This is a terrible thing which has created an indifference in white people's psyches which persists to this day.

I understand your bitterness. And I am with you that such atrocities should never be forgotten.

But a federal law won't help. This kind of law alienates. If you are trying to break down indifference, this is not the way to go about it.

We need to preserve the memory in our culture, not our laws. Music, museums, art, conversation, education.

 

[MarcATL]

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?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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?

It's a ridiculous bill why wouldnt they?

 

[MarcATL]

Lynching is already illegal. The anti-lynching bill currently before Congress would make lynching a federal hate crime.

Morris Dees first came to my attention when I read his book about suing the Klan for a lynching in Mobile, Alabama in the 80s. I remember that lynching. I was stationed in Mississippi at the time. The Klan was still marching openly through Meridian back then. I was teaching a 56 year old man how to read back then, and he had had his church burned down by the Klan in the 60s.

I hate the Klan. With a passion. I once had a near-fatal encounter with the fuckwad on whose farm those three civil rights workers were buried. Long story. I'll tell you in a PM if you like.

Dees sued the Klan on behalf of the mother of the lynching victim, and won something like $7 million. Since the Klan didn't have that kind of money, the mother was awarded the property on which their headquarters was located.

That was one of the most beautiful examples of "poetic justice" ever. A black woman taking possession of Klan HQ.

So not only did the two perpetrators who killed the victim go to prison via the criminal justice system, the organization which spawned them suffered through the civil justice system.

It just doesn't get any better than that, Marc.

To be honest with you, I don't see a need to make a federal case out of it. As long as we have people like Morris Dees to hunt these fuckers to ground, we don't need new laws which could have harmful unintended consequences.

It's a horrible, horrible scar on America that we once had public lynchings which were celebratory events. People actually made postcards of them and sent them to friends and relatives. People posed, grinning from ear to ear, in front of the corpses for a photo op. This is a terrible thing which has created an indifference in white people's psyches which persists to this day.

I understand your bitterness. And I am with you that such atrocities should never be forgotten.

But a federal law won't help. This kind of law alienates. If you are trying to break down indifference, this is not the way to go about it.

We need to preserve the memory in our culture, not our laws. Music, museums, art, conversation, education.

What words, in your mind, conveyed my bitterness?

 

[MarcATL]

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?

It's a ridiculous bill why wouldnt they?

So then what was the point of you stating that Democrats blocked it back then?

What makes it ridiculous now, and not ridiculous then?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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?

It's a ridiculous bill why wouldnt they?

So then what was the point of you stating that Democrats blocked it back then?

What makes it ridiculous now, and not ridiculous then?

Where did I state that?

 

[MarcATL]

Where did I state that?

You stated it's a ridiculous bill, and that's why it's justifiable for Republicans now to block it.

Previously, you stated this: Would You Be For An Anti-Lynching Bill?

 

[mudwhistle]

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?

Who got lynched?

 

[g5000]

What words, in your mind, conveyed my bitterness?

I understand the rationale for a federal law. It's a fact that many lynchings were attended by members of local law enforcement. And during the Jim Crow days, if someone connected to the good old boy network was caught perpetrating some harm against blacks, the local justice system did not exercise the necessary zeal in pursuing an arrest, much less a trial and aggressive prosecution. Even in modern times, that is still the case. I've seen that shit first hand.

So I get it. I really do.

The Deep South had its chance to correct its ways, and they chose to double down on their sins instead. They forced the federal government's hand. And so it took a shit ton of federal laws to force them to get in line. Were those federal laws to be repealed today, I have little doubt large swathes of the Deep South would quickly return to the bad old days of Jim Crow, and we would even see new lynchings.

With a federal lynching law on the books, if local law enforcement doesn't do its duty, then the feds get a crack at the criminals. But any time you circumvent the constitutional protection against double jeopardy, you create hazards. We need to ask ourselves when enough is enough.

I think the federal government, especially its policing and enforcement powers, have expanded way, way, way beyond their proper scope. And this is why I oppose yet another expansion of its powers, especially since it is unnecessary.

 

[Tilly]

Where did I state that?

You stated it's a ridiculous bill, and that's why it's justifiable for Republicans now to block it.

Previously, you stated this: Would You Be For An Anti-Lynching Bill?

different posters.

 

[MarcATL]

I understand the rationale for a federal law. It's a fact that many lynchings were attended by members of local law enforcement. And during the Jim Crow days, if someone connected to the good old boy network was caught perpetrating some harm against blacks, the local justice system did not exercise the necessary zeal in pursuing an arrest, much less a trial and aggressive prosecution. Even in modern times, that is still the case. I've seen that shit first hand.

So I get it. I really do.

The Deep South had its chance to correct its ways, and they chose to double down on their sins instead. They forced the federal government's hand. And so it took a shit ton of federal laws to force them to get in line. Were those federal laws to be repealed today, I have little doubt large swathes of the Deep South would quickly return to the bad old days of Jim Crow, and we would even see new lynchings.

With a federal lynching law on the books, if local law enforcement doesn't do its duty, then the feds get a crack at the criminals. But any time you circumvent the constitutional protection against double jeopardy, you create hazards. We need to ask ourselves when enough is enough.

I think the federal government, especially its policing and enforcement powers, have expanded way, way, way beyond their proper scope. And this is why I oppose yet another expansion of its powers, especially since it is unnecessary.

But which of my words, conveyed my bitterness? That's what I'm more concerned about.

 

[Kosh]

Yes would the far left apply the laws to the far left terror groups like Antifi?

I say no, they would only apply it to those organizations they deem so, not apply it to all.

Plus there is not need for such a law.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Where did I state that?

You stated it's a ridiculous bill, and that's why it's justifiable for Republicans now to block it.

Previously, you stated this: Would You Be For An Anti-Lynching Bill?

I didnt post that ya fucken moron.
I guess after reading your original post I shoulda have figured you for a dimwit.

 

[Mac1958]

Lynching is already illegal. This is nothing more than political grandstanding which has no place when it comes to making law.

Yup.

You'd think more people would be insulted by something like this.

We just love to find new lows. It's a national hobby.
.

 

[Desperado]

Why have a law for something that is not a problem?
There are far toom many laws on the books as it stands