Hate-crime legislation

[Keith 0]

Quote

The "reason" does not matter. Their total selection criteria was race. The definition of a hate-crime, do you disagree?

I see where you're coming from, and to an extent, you have a point. However, attacking someone just because of "factor X" should be considered a hate crime. Lashing back at someone because they lashed out at you isn't. I never said I thought it was right, or justified to make an innocent person pay for the wrongs, real or perceived, of others. I do, however, understand their motivation.

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

I never said I thought it was right, or justified to make an innocent person pay for the wrongs, real or perceived, of others. I do, however, understand their motivation.

Hope you never meet my ex-wife. She really thinks she has a good reason for hating me. So if she kicks you dead in the ass for being of the offending gender, at least you'll understand.

[Keith 0]

Quote

Hope you never meet my ex-wife. She really thinks she has a good reason for hating me. So if she kicks you dead in the ass for being of the offending gender, at least you'll understand.

I'll offer words of compassion as they're hauling her off to jail for assault

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

***"Lashing back at someone because they lashed out at you ".

Perfectly acceptable on an individual vs individual basis, but you make it a group issue - and that's not acceptable.

Which person in that gang was 'lashed out at' by that trucker in LA?

Edit: If you understand their motivations, that's fine. But the behavior is still wrong and 'understanding' the reasons why does not give a free pass to do wrong. "understanding" doesn't always equal acceptance or validation. That's a misuse of knowledge and an abuse of compassion.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Casurf1978 0]

So then a crime is a crime regardless, then all crimes should be treated equal. Murder is murder period. Regardless of circumstances. Me getting into an accident and killing someone is completely different than me thinking about, planning and executing the same person. Person is still dead, so should the punishment be the same? Someone comes into your house at night to rob you, you shoot and kill him. Should you go to jail because you killed him?

A robber doesnt care if youre white or black or asian. He just wants to mug the person. Now if you specifiaclly say "lets go find ourselves xyz race etc and beat the crap out of them" how can that be on par with simple altercation or assualt between two people.

[Keith 0]

Quote

Edit: If you understand their motivations, that's fine. But the behavior is still wrong and 'understanding' the reasons why does not give a free pass to do wrong. "understanding" doesn't always equal acceptance or validation. That's a misuse of knowledge and an abuse of compassion.

Point out where I've stated acceptance or validation? I'll say this one last time. I've never said it was OK or acceptable. I just understand where they're coming from.

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

[billvon 3,120]

>I just don't believe we need an extra set of laws defined by motive.

Huh?

Guy A gets in a fight in a bar. Someone tries to stop him; he punches him so hard that the other guy dies of a subdural hematoma. Guy B stalks a young woman for a month, then breaks into her apartment, holds her down, slits her throat and watches her die.

The results of both crimes are exactly the same - someone killed someone else. You are saying you'd hold these two people to the same standard, and suggest the same punishment for both? Most people recognize that motive DOES play a very large part in the severity and punishment of crime.

[billvon 3,120]

>The why add the extra layer?

?? No extra layer suggested. Everyone gets treated the same, whether white or black. It's a hate crime whether the victim is a black man with "nigger" carved in his back or a white woman who is raped and killed by an anti-christian group just because she's catholic.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

>The why add the extra layer?

?? No extra layer suggested. Everyone gets treated the same, whether white or black. It's a hate crime whether the victim is a black man with "nigger" carved in his back or a white woman who is raped and killed by an anti-christian group just because she's catholic.

When you say "anti-christian group," do you have a specific group in mind? Domestic or foreign? 'Cause apart from those places in the world where there is christian/muslim strife, I am having a hard time thinking of "anti-christian groups" around here. Do you mean some sort of atheist mob terrorizing the god-fearing people? Like a bunch of scientists and academics who hate the religious so much that they go around killing them? Or was your example purely hypothetical?

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[PhillyKev 0]

The KKK are pretty anti-catholic. At least were. There was a time when that was their main target, particularly in the mid-west.

[billvon 3,120]

>When you say "anti-christian group," do you have a specific group in mind?

Nope. It was hypothetical. Many protestants in Ireland surely hate catholics, but as they're both christians it's a pretty fine distinction.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

The KKK are pretty anti-catholic. At least were. There was a time when that was their main target, particularly in the mid-west.

Kind of difficult to swallow, given that their public persona is so specifically and predominantly anti-black. "Main target"? Really?

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Quote

The KKK are pretty anti-catholic. At least were. There was a time when that was their main target, particularly in the mid-west.

Kind of difficult to swallow, given that their public persona is so specifically and predominantly anti-black. "Main target"? Really?

-

Yes, do some research on the subject. The 2nd incarnation of the klan at the beginning of the 20th century was primarily focused against new immigrants to the country. The civil war was over, the North was no longer occupying the South, and the governments of the South had free reign to oppress blacks as much as they wanted. No one was fighting for civil rights, the blacks were "in their place". The main threat was immigrants. And something most of these immigrants had in common was that they were from predominantly catholic countries.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I just don't believe we need an extra set of laws defined by motive. Perhaps a guy who murders based on race or whatever does deserve a harsher sentence, but the leeway to provide that sentence could easily be incorporated into sentencing guidlines.

Historically the problem has been that some judges have been less than impartial in their leeway when it comes to race based cases. A murder based on race really bumps up into the murder 1 or 2 category, not manslaughter, and should be sentenced accordingly.

Is the need as strong now as it was in the 60s? Probably not. But there are still people getting killed out there. Same reason we have special circumstances clauses for murder. If someone accidentally gets shot while you are holding up the 7-11, you're punished as if you planned to kill them because you created the volatile situation by committing the armed robbery.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Point out where I've stated acceptance or validation? I'll say this one last time. I've never said it was OK or acceptable. I just understand where they're coming from.

Here, perhaps I inferred too much in this. Seemed you sympathized with one victim and not at all with the other. If so, my bad, but I wasn't alone.

Post 36?
"The two situations are very different. In one instance a man, unprovoked, was brutally murdered just because he was black. The other is an instance of a people retaliating for centuries of wrongs committed against their people, and exacerbated by a black man being brutally beaten on camera by white cops. If you recall, the LA riots were started because four white cops beat Rodney King after a routine traffic stop. When the cops were acquitted of any wrong doing, the riots ensued. Very different situations."

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Guy A gets in a fight in a bar. Someone tries to stop him; he punches him so hard that the other guy dies of a subdural hematoma. Guy B stalks a young woman for a month, then breaks into her apartment, holds her down, slits her throat and watches her die.

The results of both crimes are exactly the same - someone killed someone else. You are saying you'd hold these two people to the same standard, and suggest the same punishment for both? Most people recognize that motive DOES play a very large part in the severity and punishment of crime.

Since judges already have the power to adjust penalties according to the nature of the crime, I don't understand the usefulness of making "extra" laws to cover specific motives.

. . =(_8^(1)

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

>The why add the extra layer?

?? No extra layer suggested.

I was referring to hate crime laws as the extra layer.

. . =(_8^(1)

[sundevil777 102]

What about hate crimes against old people?

What about hate crimes against rich people?

If aggravated, premeditated crimes are not being punished sufficiently, then we should advocate that all such crimes be more severely punished.

I can picture it now, a prosecutor tells the victim's family, "If only your son/daughter had been black/gay, then I would have been able to get more years on the sentence".

This is of course pure bullshit.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[sundevil777 102]

In my opinion, what really is desired by some is to make hating someone a crime in itself.

I believe we should be free to hate people.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[quade 4]

Quote

I believe we should be free to hate people.

You are! You're free to hate whoever you like. Uh, wait a minute, that didn't sound right, but I think you get my drift.

So, let's be clear, you can hate whoever you want to hate AND you can even tell other people who you hate and why you hate them. That right is protected by the First Amendment. Stand on a street corner and spew your hate if that's what you have to do.

What you can NOT do, is act on the hate in a way that interferes with the rights and lives of other people. You can NOT incite a riot. You can NOT terrorize people.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

I believe we should be free to hate people.

You are! You're free to hate whoever you like. Uh, wait a minute, that didn't sound right, but I think you get my drift.

So, let's be clear, you can hate whoever you want to hate AND you can even tell other people who you hate and why you hate them. That right is protected by the First Amendment. Stand on a street corner and spew your hate if that's what you have to do.

What you can NOT do, is act on the hate in a way that interferes with the rights and lives of other people. You can NOT incite a riot. You can NOT terrorize people.

Yes, these last things you mention are ALREADY illegal to do, and we do not need to criminalize the thoughts you recognize as protected when they occur in conjunction with these ALREADY illegal acts. The illegal acts are prosecutable on their own.

Blue skies,
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Yes, do some research on the subject. The 2nd incarnation of the klan at the beginning of the 20th century was primarily focused against new immigrants to the country. The civil war was over, the North was no longer occupying the South, and the governments of the South had free reign to oppress blacks as much as they wanted. No one was fighting for civil rights, the blacks were "in their place".

Actually, I had a black high school civics teacher. When I spoke of the KKK and the South, he gave me extra credit for a research paper.

During the 40's, the KKK was regarded as a patriotic organization also. Secondly, the KKK had a larger membership in many northern states than the southern ones due to population concentrations.