If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mercury News)   You won't hear much about the latest group of hate crime victims   (mercurynews.com) divider line 182
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

45371 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Sep 2007 at 5:11 AM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



182 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-09-10 11:31:49 AM  
FTFA - The victim and witnesses told police that Hale and the 17-year-old approached them and taunted and mimicked them. One partygoers [sic] told them to leave and they did, but police said they returned with a stick, a hoe and a concrete brick and a fight ensued.

Beating up a deaf guy because he's deaf. Brilliant. What'll these @ssh0les do next to impress their friends, trip a blind guy? These are the idiots so-called "hate crime" laws were written for.

As for hate crime laws, as best I can tell they're just giving a specific name to something that's been on the books for centuries. I think it's called "mens rea," loosely translated to "what the fark were you thinking?"

For example, if a bunch of gay guys beat up a straight guy because the straight guy threatened them with a gun, then we're looking at self-defense.

If that same bunch of gay guys beat the shiat out of an unarmed straight guy while shouting, "Die, breeder, die," now we're into hate crime territory (not a "thought crime" as some people like to say as the people in this example were acting on their bigotry - if the thought stayed between their ears, no harm no foul).

Different motives, different mens rea, different charges.
 
2007-09-10 11:39:45 AM  
p_marvel: FTFA - The victim and witnesses told police that Hale and the 17-year-old approached them and taunted and mimicked them.



See, it wasn't a hate crime, it was a Hale crime...
 
2007-09-10 11:40:09 AM  
brisken: They have some strange sense of entitlement it seems. Something to the effect that they deserve to be catered to and are even superior to the "hearing" because they have their whole little hand signal thing going on.

We have a deaf guy at work. He shows up maybe half the time, for about 2 years, and he hasn't been fired. Why? Coz he is deaf and can get away with it - if we fire him, he'll sue and create a lot of bad PR. And around here they care more about bad PR than people not showing up to work (apparently).
 
2007-09-10 11:41:14 AM  
The victim and witnesses told police that Hale and the 17-year-old approached them... and mimicked them.

Artist's conception of assailant:

images.jupiterimages.com
 
2007-09-10 11:46:03 AM  
phillydrifter: because no other drug impairs motor coordination nearly as much as alcohol.

Take a roofie and get back to us. Did the crash make you a moron, too?
 
2007-09-10 11:48:03 AM  
Not all crimes are hate crimes.

For instance, smoking pot and entering the country illegally aren't hate crimes.

Victimful crimes are hate crimes. I support the extension of hate crimes. Where in prison are we going to fit all the extra people? Easy, we will put them where we used to keep the people arrested in our drug 'war'.
 
2007-09-10 11:49:13 AM  
PoopStain: Pocket Ninja: People who don't support hate crime legislation generally don't understand what's meant by the term "motive," nor why motive is an element punishable beyond the basic crime itself. But they do make for some amusing posts every now and then, in a "pat the puppy on the head" sort of way.

People who support hate crime legislation don't understand the term "thought crime". They aren't amusing because they are usually libtardic fascists who WANT to punish thought.

Protect your freedoms, people. Elect a conservative. Otherwise opressive idiots like Pocket Ninja will do everything in their power to make sure you live only in a manner agreeable to them.


Yes, because liberals are the ones trying to keep women from controlling their bodies. Liberals are the ones trying to outlaw homosexuality. Liberals are the ones trying to push Christian prayer into schools. Liberals are the ones trying to make English the official language of the US. You lose, and you can't spell.
 
2007-09-10 11:53:22 AM  
Take a roofie and get back to us. Did the crash make you a moron, too?

Who takes roofies for recreation? He obviously didn't mean every single substance on the planet affects motor coordination less than alcohol. In the context, it was recreational drugs. And while some rec-drugs may disturb motor coordination more than alcohol, none of the popular ones come close. (heroin, morphine, crack, coke, meth, ecstasy, LSD, weed, Robitussin)
 
2007-09-10 11:55:14 AM  
Maybe they'd just seen the rubbish Matt Hamill-Michael Bisping decision. Hamill's not the guy I'd want to piss off right now.
 
2007-09-10 11:57:45 AM  
impaler: Not all crimes are hate crimes.

Sure they are. Clearly, people who break the law hate America.
 
2007-09-10 12:00:34 PM  
MrPerfectSU: From an ideological perspective, I support hate crime legislation. Hate crime laws are intended to punish the people caucasians that specifically victimize do anything to minorities. in order to send a threatening message to other minorities in the community.


True hate crimes threaten and intimidate the minority community as a whole, and in my opinion such crimes should carry heavier penalties. However, I don't think that there is a practical way to weed out those types of crimes from all the rest.

Despite the good intent behind hate crime laws, prosecutors and law enforcement will take advantage of any avenue available to them. And we end up with a Southpark-esque situation where someone some white person is being charged with a hate crime solely by virtue of the fact that they are different from their victim.


FTFY. We all know only caucasians can be charged with a hate crime.

p_marvel: If that same bunch of gay guys beat the shiat out of an unarmed straight guy while shouting, "Die, breeder, die," now we're into hate crime territory (not a "thought crime" as some people like to say as the people in this example were acting on their bigotry - if the thought stayed between their ears, no harm no foul).

Different motives, different mens rea, different charges.


Still no hate crime. It's all been done before. African-American vs. White (because he's white), Homosexual vs. straight (because he's straight), hispanic vs. African-American, Asian vs. whoever and blah blah blah. It's only a hate crime if a caucasian is involved and there doesn't have to exist a certain prejudice, just a notion that he did it because of "insert generic difference".

I completely understand why there's a need to charge "some" with a hate crime. I just wish it were distributed equally, regardless of race, gender, sexuality, or creed.
 
2007-09-10 12:04:25 PM  
Sure they are. Clearly, people who break the law hate America

True.
 
2007-09-10 12:04:26 PM  
Tofino: Maybe they'd just seen the rubbish Matt Hamill-Michael Bisping decision. Hamill's not the guy I'd want to piss off right now.

Maybe he should've tried NOT getting his ass kicked the entire second half of the fight, no?

/Besping won
//Get over it
 
2007-09-10 12:09:21 PM  
FTFY. We all know only caucasians can be charged with a hate crime.

LOL. You're clearly an ignorant idiot.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/openpage.htm
 
2007-09-10 12:15:49 PM  
impaler: FTFY. We all know only caucasians can be charged with a hate crime.

LOL. You're clearly an ignorant idiot.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/openpage.htm


Ok....I see nowhere in any of those statistics anything about someone being CHARGED with a "Hate Crime". Maybe you can find it.
 
2007-09-10 12:16:51 PM  
impaler: Who takes roofies for recreation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flunitrazepam#Recreational_drug. Learn something new every day eh?
 
2007-09-10 12:19:05 PM  
PoopStain: People who support hate crime legislation don't understand the term "thought crime". They aren't amusing because they are usually libtardic fascists who WANT to punish thought.

Protect your freedoms, people. Elect a conservative. Otherwise opressive idiots like Pocket Ninja will do everything in their power to make sure you live only in a manner agreeable to them.


Interesting... I didn't realize so many people wanted to standardize punishments. Anyone who kills another person, wether it be an accident or on purpose, will get the same punishment. The only difference between the two are thoughts.

Dusty420: FTFY. We all know only caucasians can be charged with a hate crime.

One quick google search and I found this article...
Black man charged with hate crime (new window)
 
2007-09-10 12:20:22 PM  
p_marvel 2007-09-10 11:31:49 AM
If that same bunch of gay guys beat the shiat out of an unarmed straight guy while shouting, "Die, breeder, die," now we're into hate crime territory (not a "thought crime" as some people like to say as the people in this example were acting on their bigotry - if the thought stayed between their ears, no harm no foul).

So what if the gay guys didn't shout anything? And never admitted the beating was prompted by their bigotry even though it was?

Less jail time since it wasn't a hate crime! So really you'll only get the stupid bigots with these laws.

Sounds good to me.
 
2007-09-10 12:20:28 PM  
MrPerfectSU writes: Hate crime laws are intended to punish the people that specifically victimize minorities...

That is not correct. Hate crime enhancement provisions protect the majority just as much as they protect anyone else.

we end up with a Southpark-esque situation where someone is being charged with a hate crime solely by virtue of the fact that they are different from their victim.

That is also incorrect. A prosecutor can't just tack on 10 years to a sentence because the victim looks different from the offender. A jury has to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the victim was intentionally selected because of his race/religion/sexuality/ethnicity/national origin, etc.
 
2007-09-10 12:20:58 PM  
resident_weevil: I still think that's no excuse for essentially forbidding communication between the child and her deaf, signing parents within the home.

I think many people (physicians included) forget that an implant doesn't suddenly make a deaf person a hearing person. When the implant is on and working properly, the person can "hear", but it is far different than what a normal hearing person hears. Plus, once the external parts are taken off, the person is still just as, if not more, deaf than before. The old school of thought with deaf education is either sign or speech, but not both. It is a debate filled with lots of emotion, since language basically defines each culture. It got to the point that, if you simply looked at the location of any research in that field, you could figure out the conclusions without reading the journal article (never a good idea to cloud science with emotion). Now, more research is coming out showing that it isn't an either/or situation. The most important part is to get an L1 into the kid through any modality. Once that is there, an L2 can build on that foundation, but that does not mean that L1 is (or should be) forgotten and abandoned.

I've seen Sound and Fury, but keep in mind it's a few years out of date. Things have changed since then, on the medical, technologic, and language sides of the story. I think it would be incredibly stupid to tell a deaf parent that they could not use the only mode of communication they have to communicate with their child. It's not like she's going to get any aural stimulation from them, so how about we not cut them off completely.

Anyways, if you're still reading this thread, I hope this answers some of your questions. I probably won't be back here for a little bit, so if you still have questions, email me: gjgenna (at) hotmail.com
 
2007-09-10 12:21:42 PM  
Detroit_Bob:Not to say they had it coming, but some deaf folks are militant assholes.

bobsuncle:I am deaf [...]. First, here's how the deaf will greet YOU. Extend your middle finger in an upright position while folding the others. Good, now be sure to have that moronic grin on your face.

Way to prove the Detroit_Bob's point there...
 
2007-09-10 12:22:42 PM  
subby has yet to recieve enough +1
 
2007-09-10 12:23:57 PM  
Ryan2065:
One quick google search and I found this article...
Black man charged with hate crime (new window)


Thanks, Ryan...I guess I stand corrected.
 
2007-09-10 12:24:12 PM  
fdags629: I went to a college with a large deaf population and I have to agree that many of them do feel a sense of entitlement.

RIT right? I'm there now and I agree with you. I've heard the horror stories but nothing like that has happened to me. The only problem I have is when they are driving and decided to let go of the wheel to sign. I've almost been hit way too many times.

Oh, there is this gay couple who sign with a lisp. Hey! My gay friends found that funny.
 
2007-09-10 12:24:40 PM  
mdeesnuts:
Less jail time since it wasn't a hate crime! So really you'll only get the stupid bigots with these laws.



Can you point to any examples of the other kind of bigots?
 
2007-09-10 12:28:02 PM  
Dusty420: Thanks, Ryan...I guess I stand corrected.

I know what you mean though. It doesn't happen often.
 
2007-09-10 12:31:32 PM  
PoopStain writes: People who support hate crime legislation don't understand the term "thought crime"... Elect a conservative.

It's funny to me that so many self-identified "conservatives" are against hate crime laws. It's pretty much conclusive proof that most self-identified "conservatives" aren't conservative at all. They're just bigots.

I was never a big fan of William Rehnquist. But he got one decision absolutely right: Wisconsin v Mitchell. That was the case in which the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that not only were hate crime enhancement provisions constitutional, but they were also pretty much par for the course under our system of law.

In his opinion, the Chief Justice explained that the common law has taken motives into account for the last 800 years. And until very recently -- that is, until race became an issue -- this was a completely uncontroversial proposition.

So why the newfound outrage over a system that's worked quietly and consistently over many centuries (in every English speaking country in the world)? My guess is that since the "conservatives" are perfectly happy and content when the law works against marginalized minorities -- but go apoplectic the moment the law works in their favor -- their opposition is just a manifestation of their bigotry.
 
2007-09-10 12:32:37 PM  
Dusty420
Ok....I see nowhere in any of those statistics anything about someone being CHARGED with a "Hate Crime". Maybe you can find it.

So you are an idiot. Look closer.

BTW, Blacks make up about 12% of the US population. They make up more than 12% of those prosecuted for hate crimes.
 
2007-09-10 12:35:39 PM  
I heard what you did there.
 
2007-09-10 12:40:07 PM  
eraser8: It's pretty much conclusive proof that most self-identified "conservatives" aren't conservative at all. They're just bigots.

but go apoplectic the moment the law works in their favor -- their opposition is just a manifestation of their bigotry.


Actually, jackass, it's a push back against people like you because SOMEONE HAS TO COME UP WITH THE DEFINITION.

Do you think people YOU don't like are eligible for special victimhood status? I doubt it.

Liberals are more bigoted than conservatives, anyway, because liberals expect only the worst from everyone. That's why liberals tend to be poor and uneducated: no standards to live up to. Hell, why bother closing your legs when you can just kill the baby later? A liberal thinks you are a monkey, all day, every day. I can't think of a more demeaning attitude.
 
2007-09-10 12:41:23 PM  
Dusty420 writes: Thanks, Ryan...I guess I stand corrected.

I appreciate the fact you've accepted that you don't have to be white to be charged with a hate crime...but why would you have thought that in the first place?

The most famous hate crime prosecution that I can think of was against a black man:
On the evening of October 7, 1989, a group of young black men and boys, including Mitchell, gathered at an apartment complex in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Several members of the group discussed a scene from the motion picture "Mississippi Burning," in which a white man beat a young black boy who was praying. The group moved outside and Mitchell asked them: "`Do you all feel hyped up to move on some white people?'" Shortly thereafter, a young white boy approached the group on the opposite side of the street where they were standing. As the boy walked by, Mitchell said: "`You all want to fark somebody up? There goes a white boy; go get him.'" Mitchell counted to three and pointed in the boy's direction. The group ran towards the boy, beat him severely, and stole his tennis shoes. The boy was rendered unconscious and remained in a coma for four days.

After a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Kenosha County, Mitchell was convicted of aggravated battery. That offense ordinarily carries a maximum sentence of two years' imprisonment. But because the jury found that Mitchell had intentionally selected his victim because of the boy's race, the maximum sentence for Mitchell's offense was increased to seven years under § 939.645. That provision enhances the maximum penalty for an offense whenever the defendant "intentionally selects the person against whom the crime...is committed...because of the race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry of that person...."
Since the beginning, these provisions have affected offenders regardless of race. I just don't understand where people get such bad information; I just don't understand how they could make these ridiculous claims that hate crime laws only target whites or only protect blacks. Is it right wingnut radio or Fox "News" that's responsible for this kind of ignorance?
 
2007-09-10 12:41:25 PM  
Oh, Poopstain. Your name says it all.
 
2007-09-10 12:44:38 PM  
eraser8

Not that I disagree with any of your points, but the ad hominem bit is bad style. That is, "hate crime laws are justified because motive is a traditional factor in legal decisions" would have been a good argument.

Not so good is "hate crime laws are justified because motive is a traditional factor in legal decisions, and my opponents are bigots".
 
2007-09-10 12:46:03 PM  
PoopStain:That's why liberals tend to be poor and uneducated: no standards to live up to. Hell, why bother closing your legs when you can just kill the baby later? A liberal thinks you are a monkey, all day, every day. I can't think of a more demeaning attitude.

Man, this thread is getting pretty silly, even for Fark.
 
2007-09-10 12:47:55 PM  
I don't know if anyone brought this up but in the first third of the post no one seemed to understand that the guy who got the most severe ass beating was the guy who showed up with the block and garden tools. I think this should teach us all a good lesson. Don't fark with the deaf.
 
2007-09-10 12:48:39 PM  
PoopStain writes: SOMEONE HAS TO COME UP WITH THE DEFINITION.

What are you talking about?

Do you think people YOU don't like are eligible for special victimhood status?

Again, what are you talking about?

You just don't seem to understand how these laws work...so it's probably not a good idea for you to hold forth on them as if you're an expert.

That's why liberals tend to be poor and uneducated

First, the best educated people in our society tend to be liberal. Second, you know nothing about liberals. You're just repeating the tired lies of your masters. Use your brain once in a while. It should be a refreshing change from (brain dead) conservatism.
 
2007-09-10 12:49:23 PM  
eraser8: I appreciate the fact you've accepted that you don't have to be white to be charged with a hate crime...but why would you have thought that in the first place?

Since I don't pay attention to the sensationalist news media anymore, I guess it's just not widely publicized. Besides, I was being a touch troll-ish on that one.

Come one, come all!!!

/troll-fu is weak, at best.
 
2007-09-10 12:52:26 PM  
PoopStain: That's why liberals tend to be poor and uneducated

I always thought it was because economically the conservatives tend to have better plans for the wealthy while the liberals tend to have better plans for the working man. Guess its really because they don't have a good role model (like Bush).

PoopStain: Hell, why bother closing your legs when you can just kill the baby later?

Maybe they are just trying to air it out...

PoopStain: A liberal thinks you are a monkey

I've always wanted a monkey...

PoopStain: I can't think of a more demeaning attitude.

I'd rather be a monkey than a slug... That would be more demeaning to me. They are slimey and move slow... While I move slow I don't tend to be slimey.
 
2007-09-10 12:55:20 PM  
jshine writes: Not that I disagree with any of your points, but the ad hominem bit is bad style.

I think, perhaps, you misunderstand the point of my post. I wasn't arguing for or against hate crime enhancement provisions. I wasn't making the case that they are good or bad. I was asking a question about the psychology of hate crime provision opponents.

That is, why would this particular application of the centuries-old motive principle provoke such opposition and outrage? Why would this particular issue make so-called conservatives want to throw out 800 years of common law tradition?

And the only explanation that makes any sense is bigotry.
 
2007-09-10 12:59:23 PM  
eraser8: You're just repeating the tired lies of your masters. Use your brain once in a while. It should be a refreshing change from (brain dead) conservatism.

I don't have a master, as I'm not a monkey. I realize it's a foreign notion to a farking jackass liberal like yourself. Just because I don't agree with your belief that every human being bears absolutely no responsibility for any of their own actions doesn't mean my opinions are any less valid than yours.

Go find someone else to do a monkey dance for you. I'm not buying.
 
2007-09-10 01:04:28 PM  
PoopStain writes: I don't have a master

Of course you do. If you didn't, you wouldn't be parroting the obviously lies of right wingnut message-smiths.

Just because I don't agree with your belief...

You don't know what my beliefs are. You should stop pretending that you do.

I'm not buying.

And you're not thinking, either. As I wrote earlier, use your brain once in a while. I know the right wingnut machine doesn't want you to. But treat yourself to the pleasures of logic and independence thought for once.
 
2007-09-10 01:04:40 PM  
eraser8: And the only explanation that makes any sense is bigotry.

Oh, you're a stupid liberal. The problem is defining who gets to be the hated class, farktard. Christians? Scientologists? Only certain minorities? What if you are a mime that shadows people on the sidewalk and someone hauls off and hits you? Is that a hate crime?

We punish crimes, not thoughts. Thoughts factor into sentencing when they apply to crime itself, not what you thought about your victim. Get it? Thinking about a murder beforehand carries more weight because it proves you planned the farking murder, not that you have a beef with an entire class of people.

I understand it's a hard concept for your liberal head to wrap around, particularly since you seem so gung ho to put on your jackbboots and stomp all over anyone who disagrees with you.
 
2007-09-10 01:05:56 PM  
eraser8: If you didn't, you wouldn't be parroting the obviously lies of right wingnut message-smiths.

You know, in 100 years after you all have aborted yourself out of existence we won't even have to have these arguments any more.
 
2007-09-10 01:06:53 PM  
PoopStain, I think I her your mom calling you. She's telling you it's time to get off the computer and do your chores.
 
2007-09-10 01:08:33 PM  
brainiac-dumdum: PoopStain, I think I her your mom calling you. She's telling you it's time to get off the computer and do your chores.

Cute, someone shares their fark account with their significant other. Why don't you go abort something and congratulate yourself on being "responsible"?
 
2007-09-10 01:08:35 PM  
PoopStain:I'm not a monkey.

This is correct. Humans are more closely related to the great apes (Hominidae), rather than the other families of "Monkeys" within the order Primates. In particular, Pan troglodytes, the common chimpanzee, is the closest living relative to Homo sapiens. The two species share on the order of 94% common DNA and originated from a common ancestor about 4-7 million years ago (reference).
 
2007-09-10 01:09:57 PM  
PoopStain:You know, in 100 years after you all have aborted yourself out of existence we won't even have to have these arguments any more.

Very possible, President Camacho.
 
2007-09-10 01:13:39 PM  
jshine: This is correct. Humans are more closely related to the great apes (Hominidae), rather than the other families of "Monkeys" within the order Primates. In particular, Pan troglodytes, the common chimpanzee, is the closest living relative to Homo sapiens. The two species share on the order of 94% common DNA and originated from a common ancestor about 4-7 million years ago

And? This isn't news to me.

Tell it to eraser8, he's the one who treats people like monkeys.
 
2007-09-10 01:14:30 PM  
jshine: Very possible, President Camacho.

That wasn't a very well directed movie. Maya Rudolph is hot.
 
2007-09-10 01:19:26 PM  
jshine: PoopStain:I'm not a monkey.

This is correct. Humans are more closely related to the great apes (Hominidae), rather than the other families of "Monkeys" within the order Primates. In particular, Pan troglodytes, the common chimpanzee, is the closest living relative to Homo sapiens. The two species share on the order of 94% common DNA and originated from a common ancestor about 4-7 million years ago (reference).



Sort of.

Any group that is inclusive enough to contain chimps, bonobos, gorillas, orangutans and gibbons ("the apes" traditionally) must also include humans since chimps and bonobos are more closely related to humans than they are to gorillas, orang's and gibbons.

But by the same token, any group that is inclusive enough to contain all of the "monkeys" (both new world and old) must also contain humans, since some of the monkeys are more closely related to us than to the other monkeys.

Think of it as nested sets. All humans are apes, but not all apes are humans. All apes are primates, but not all primates are apes. All primates are mammals, but not all mammals are primates, and so on.

HTH

/Taxonomy geek
 
Displayed 50 of 182 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report