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.

(Boston Herald)   Lawyer: My clients cannot be charged with a hate crime for beating up a gay man simply because they are lesbians   (bostonherald.com) divider line 230
    More: Stupid, The Woman-Identified Woman, domestic partners, hate crimes, gays, lesbians, Harvey Silverglate, Jake Wark, Dorchester  
•       •       •

8305 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Feb 2012 at 2:47 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



230 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-25 11:51:02 PM  
Why arent Geeks included in a hate crime law?

I mean, they are prime target for jocks in high school and college. They get their asses whooped a lot
 
2012-02-26 12:03:40 AM  
uh, what?
 
2012-02-26 12:16:36 AM  
because LESBIANS
 
2012-02-26 12:24:19 AM  
Gay men and lesbians, historically, have been very contentious at the best of times. Despite sexual orientation covering both groups as a class, they are not the same, socially. I can totally see a few lesbians beating a guy up for being a queen - and that would qualify as a hate crime. Or maybe they beat him up because they're just simply thugs and he accidentally bumped one of them with his backpack.

Either way, they should be held to account.
 
2012-02-26 12:30:08 AM  
Those lesbians gave him a serious licking.
 
2012-02-26 12:57:10 AM  
Can't all crimes be hate crimes, then that would at least save tax payers dollars on pre-trial hearings to determine if it falls under hate-crime legislation.
 
2012-02-26 01:07:11 AM  
This case actually brings up some absurdities in hate crime legislation. Work with me here:

Prosecutors and the ACLU of Massachusetts said no matter the defendants' sexual orientation, they can still face the crime of assault and battery with intent to intimidate, which carries up to a 10-year prison sentence, by using hateful language.

Assault and battery is an attempt to intimidate regardless. If they had been calling him a pussy, it wouldn't be a hate crime, but it still fulfills the "intent to intimidate by using hateful language" - just not the language covered under the hate crime law.

Which leads to ridiculous arguments like this:

"Someone who is Jewish can be anti-Semitic," said ACLU staff attorney Sarah Wunsch. "The mere fact that someone is a member of the same class doesn't mean they could not be motivated by hatred for their very own group."

That argument is ridiculous because it assumes the lesbians knew they were beating a gay guy and set out to beat him because he was gay. Even the victim isn't claiming they knew each other, or that the lesbians knew he was gay.

Which leads to this also ridiculous assumption:

She said the victim, who suffered a broken nose, told cops he believed the attack was "motivated as a crime because of his sexual orientation" since the three women "called him insulting homophobic slurs."

If they didn't know him or know he was gay, then how can it possibly be a hate crime? Luck? If someone calls me afaggot while I'm losing a fist fight, am I only a victim of a hate crime if I'm gay? Even if I am gay, am I really a victim of a hate crime if the person beating me in the fight doesn't know I am?
 
2012-02-26 02:48:48 AM  
something about this smells fishy.
 
2012-02-26 02:52:09 AM  

Lsherm: If they didn't know him or know he was gay


How would you know that particular tidbit?
 
2012-02-26 02:54:31 AM  

Lsherm: am I only a victim of a hate crime if I'm gay?


typically hate crime laws also cover "perceived to be" so as long as your assailant genuinely believed you to be homosexual it would likely be covered,
 
2012-02-26 02:55:09 AM  
I once saw two black dudes beating on another black dude in DC one night. They were calling each other the N-word the whole time. I'm pretty sure that does not constitute a 'hate crime.' But I supposed to this prosecutor's logic, it would be a hate crime.
 
2012-02-26 03:03:00 AM  
Thought Hate crime legislation makes me icky.
 
2012-02-26 03:03:03 AM  
All hate crime laws need to be done away with. It's the law they're breaking. The reasoning for it is no matter. If I beat up a black man because he's black or beat him up because I dont' like what he said, it's assault and nothing more.
 
2012-02-26 03:04:48 AM  
who cares about the hate crime? what's more troubling to me is that you can go around beating the shiat out of people and getting nothing for it...
 
2012-02-26 03:08:15 AM  
multimedia.heraldinteractive.com
www.contactmusic.com
Kenan Thompson is a Lesbian?
 
2012-02-26 03:10:27 AM  
So if I demonstrate misanthropy, I can be charged with a hate crime if I beat up anybody.

-note to self
 
2012-02-26 03:11:05 AM  

Bigdogdaddy: All hate crime laws need to be done away with. It's the law they're breaking. The reasoning for it is no matter. If I beat up a black man because he's black or beat him up because I dont' like what he said, it's assault and nothing more.


.
.
NO! NO! NO! They are special superior beings with extra inalienable rights than you or I. Just learn to accept that some are more equal than others you farking bigot, racist, homophobe.
 
2012-02-26 03:11:10 AM  
Farking internalized homophobia! How does it work?

[icp.jpg]
 
2012-02-26 03:11:20 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Gay men and lesbians, historically, have been very contentious at the best of times. Despite sexual orientation covering both groups as a class, they are not the same, socially.


imgs.xkcd.com
 
2012-02-26 03:12:40 AM  

Bigdogdaddy: All hate crime laws need to be done away with. It's the law they're breaking. The reasoning for it is no matter. If I beat up a black man because he's black or beat him up because I dont' like what he said, it's assault and nothing more


7/10. You'll get some bites on that.
 
2012-02-26 03:14:18 AM  
Allow me to guess: The victim is white.
 
2012-02-26 03:14:19 AM  
If I'm ever caught beating the shiat out of someone, I'm doing it because I HATE them, regardless of their color, gender, religion, sexual identity, whatever. I'd imagine most crimes are hate crimes in the right framework.
 
2012-02-26 03:15:44 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Or maybe they beat him up because they're just simply thugs and he accidentally bumped one of them with his backpack.

Either way, they should be held to account.


Of course they should be held to account. But essentially offering extra penalties for the use of offensive language is a bit tricky. Maybe I'm just sensitive, because back in our schooldays, my husband got hit with rocks and throttled by a bully type ( who happened, for the record, to be straight-identified and my husband knew this). My husband didn't have the best vocabulary when he was young, so he called the guy a gay slur -- one for the record he never used on gay people, merely just trying to be defiant to a bigger boy who'd just nearly choked the life out of him.

They were punished equally, the bully for the assault, and my now-husband for the slur. That has never set right with me.
 
2012-02-26 03:17:13 AM  
FTFA: Civil-rights attorney Chester Darling agreed. "No one should go to court. It's knuckle justice," he said. "It's a fair exchange."


I believe my reading comprehension must be off, but is he saying that it was ok for those 3 women to beat up the guy because he may have said something to offend them?
 
2012-02-26 03:25:37 AM  

gadian: If I'm ever caught beating the shiat out of someone, I'm doing it because I HATE them, regardless of their color, gender, religion, sexual identity, whatever. I'd imagine most crimes are hate crimes in the right framework.


If you beat up an individual because you hate them, you commit a crime against the individual. If you beat up an individual because you hate a group, you commit a crime both against the individual and the group.
 
2012-02-26 03:38:41 AM  
So what do you score for an old, gay, black, Jewish woman.
 
2012-02-26 03:44:38 AM  
Motive matters.

We shouldn't charge a woman who kills her abusive husband the same as a woman who kills a man simply because he is black.

By weighing what the person actually did to deserve the crime against them in the first place, we can charge the person who commits it with the appropriate penalty. A Hate Crime is an attempt to define, and punish, those that commit crimes against someone that falls into a group. It is treated more harshly because by definition, motivation based upon your gender, race, or sexual orientation isn't something that inherently deserves such treatment. The entire point being intent, with a basis of appropriate punishment.

If the gay guy can prove that the lesbians attacked him because he was gay, it counts as a hate crime. If they can prove that he provoked them with "racial slurs", then their motive was not simply to attack him because he was gay. However, if he somehow proved they attacked him because he was say "a man", "white", or "atheist" it would also fall into the hate-crime category, because again, it's hatred of a group, not who he is or what he did to them.
 
2012-02-26 03:48:56 AM  

Inhale/exhale: Bigdogdaddy: All hate crime laws need to be done away with. It's the law they're breaking. The reasoning for it is no matter. If I beat up a black man because he's black or beat him up because I dont' like what he said, it's assault and nothing more

7/10. You'll get some bites on that.


Ummmm...I wasn't trolling. I was giving my honest opinion.
 
2012-02-26 03:51:38 AM  

MouserMusing: So what do you score for an old, gay, black, Jewish woman.


In Texas, probably a trophy
 
2012-02-26 03:53:45 AM  

MouserMusing: So what do you score for an old, gay, black, Jewish woman.


A pretty good weekend in Vegas?
 
2012-02-26 03:56:49 AM  

Lsherm: If someone calls me afaggot while I'm losing a fist fight, am I only a victim of a hate crime if I'm gay?


Whether you're gay or not isn't particularly important.

What's important is the offender's motivation.
 
2012-02-26 03:57:11 AM  

charity: Benevolent Misanthrope: Gay men and lesbians, historically, have been very contentious at the best of times. Despite sexual orientation covering both groups as a class, they are not the same, socially.

[imgs.xkcd.com image 500x271]


Actually this is quite true for older gays and lesbians. In the 1970s there was a very vocal faction of lesbians that actually championed against equal rights for gay men and transsexuals. Their thinking was society would never accept gays and trans as equal human beings and would always view them as perverts but if they also protested against gays and trans under the "you're right they're sick freaks but WE'RE nothing like THEM" then lesbians might get equal rights. Some older gay men still harbour a resentment towards lesbians as 'traitors' and some older lesbians still hate gay men as perverts.

Now adays there's more of an alliance between gays, lesbians, and trans but there are still some hard core feminist lesbians who hate gays as they view them to be the ultimate misogynists (sort of along the lines of, we don't want to have sex with you, but if you don't want to have sex with us too then you're a filthy ball of anti-woman hate). Likewise they hate male to female trans as pretenders trying to steal feminine "culture". Thankfully those types are amongst the minority now adays.

And of course theirs a number of gay men who have a resentment towards lesbians simply because whenever gay men get a really great gay bar going where we can just unwind and be men and enjoy each other's company it is only a matter of time before the lesbians find us and move in and take over the bar. Then next thing you know every night is softball league night and you've got some 400lb diesel up on stage belting out off key Janis Joplin songs at ear shattering decibels. And it's futile to try and stop them. They will always win.

I suspect all women, gay or straight, just have some natural in-built power to detect when men are having fun and enjoying themselves and they're simply determined by genetics to do whatever is within their powers to put a stop to it.

You can see the division in Toronto amongst the older gay communities. Church Street is where the old gays are and there aren't many lesbians there, however Parliament is where all the older lesbians are. But the younger gay crowd is in the Queen West village and they simply don't have that same underlying animosity towards each other and probably don't understand the roots of it.
 
2012-02-26 04:00:42 AM  

eraser8: Lsherm: If someone calls me afaggot while I'm losing a fist fight, am I only a victim of a hate crime if I'm gay?

Whether you're gay or not isn't particularly important.

What's important is the offender's motivation.


Obviously their motivation was to kick the living shiat out of him. That is all that matters. If he had died, then it would have been first degree murder because they mean killed him in a felonious act.
 
2012-02-26 04:01:04 AM  

Bigdogdaddy: Inhale/exhale: Bigdogdaddy: All hate crime laws need to be done away with. It's the law they're breaking. The reasoning for it is no matter. If I beat up a black man because he's black or beat him up because I dont' like what he said, it's assault and nothing more

7/10. You'll get some bites on that.

Ummmm...I wasn't trolling. I was giving my honest opinion.


Reasoning almost always matters in criminal prosecutions. Especially in sentencing.
 
2012-02-26 04:04:06 AM  

Bigdogdaddy: Obviously their motivation was to kick the living shiat out of him. That is all that matters.


About a thousand years of legal tradition disagrees with you.

The "why" of the crime is very important.
 
2012-02-26 04:05:07 AM  

eraser8: Bigdogdaddy: Inhale/exhale: Bigdogdaddy: All hate crime laws need to be done away with. It's the law they're breaking. The reasoning for it is no matter. If I beat up a black man because he's black or beat him up because I dont' like what he said, it's assault and nothing more

7/10. You'll get some bites on that.

Ummmm...I wasn't trolling. I was giving my honest opinion.

Reasoning almost always matters in criminal prosecutions. Especially in sentencing.


Yes, perhaps in the punishment phase, but not the prosecution phase. I don't believe in any violence towards any group of people, but I stand against making a violent crime somehow worse because someone was prejudiced against a person or a group.
 
2012-02-26 04:06:05 AM  
Bigdogdaddy: Inhale/exhale: Bigdogdaddy: All hate crime laws need to be done away with. It's the law they're breaking. The reasoning for it is no matter. If I beat up a black man because he's black or beat him up because I dont' like what he said, it's assault and nothing more

7/10. You'll get some bites on that.

Ummmm...I wasn't trolling. I was giving my honest opinion.


Reasoning and motivation are a huge part of the criminal justice system today. In addition, your emotional state at the time of commiting the crime is (supposed to be) a weighing factor in sentencing.

Your reason for shooting someone in the face is the difference between justifiable homicide, manslaughter, and first degree murder.

If your reason for murdering and/or harming someone is based soley on their skin color, religion, or descent, and no other reason, then why shouldn't that be taken into consideration with sentencing, again? I'm honestly not trolling you, I want to hear your logic on this one.
 
2012-02-26 04:06:40 AM  

Ghastly: Actually this is quite true...


That was an interesting read. Thanks.
 
2012-02-26 04:08:49 AM  

Bigdogdaddy: Yes, perhaps in the punishment phase, but not the prosecution phase.


Um, that's what hate crime laws are. They enhance sentences for existing crimes.
 
2012-02-26 04:13:00 AM  

Bigdogdaddy: All hate crime laws need to be done away with. It's the law they're breaking. The reasoning for it is no matter. If I beat up a black man because he's black or beat him up because I dont' like what he said, it's assault and nothing more.


It is different because your victim isn't just the black man you beat up but the black community at large that you want to feel intimidated by your hatred.

For example, if I am a Muslim who hates Christians and decide to to blow up a church on Sunday to send a message to Christians that I hate them and want them all to die but for some reason my bomb is a dud and simply does minor damage to a door on the church and nobody is even injured. Should I just be charged with vandalism? All I did was damage some property. Or should I and would I be charged with an act of terrorism.

Hate crime legislation is legislation against a form of terrorism.
 
2012-02-26 04:13:30 AM  
Something is wrong here. The movies have taught me that if you accidentally bump into a group of lesbians, you have a mild exchange of angry words, followed by sexy time with bad music.
 
2012-02-26 04:14:45 AM  

MouserMusing: So what do you score for an old, gay, black, Jewish woman.


taking her out with the vehicle door or the bumper? difficulty rating would adjust the score appropriately. add wheelchair, 15 bonus points.
 
2012-02-26 04:14:55 AM  

BronyMedic: Bigdogdaddy: Inhale/exhale: Bigdogdaddy: All hate crime laws need to be done away with. It's the law they're breaking. The reasoning for it is no matter. If I beat up a black man because he's black or beat him up because I dont' like what he said, it's assault and nothing more

7/10. You'll get some bites on that.

Ummmm...I wasn't trolling. I was giving my honest opinion.

Reasoning and motivation are a huge part of the criminal justice system today. In addition, your emotional state at the time of commiting the crime is (supposed to be) a weighing factor in sentencing.

Your reason for shooting someone in the face is the difference between justifiable homicide, manslaughter, and first degree murder.

If your reason for murdering and/or harming someone is based soley on their skin color, religion, or descent, and no other reason, then why shouldn't that be taken into consideration with sentencing, again? I'm honestly not trolling you, I want to hear your logic on this one.


If your intent was to kill the person or it was an accidental killing is completely different. I understand that. But if I intend to kill you just beause I don't like you or I kill you because I don't like black people (or whatever group of people you associate yourself with) to me it doesn't matter. I suppose I put the same value on a person's life no matter what the "motivation" was. I just don't agree with doubling the sentence as a lot of states do when it's labled a hate crime.
 
2012-02-26 04:23:31 AM  

Inhale/exhale: Bigdogdaddy: All hate crime laws need to be done away with. It's the law they're breaking. The reasoning for it is no matter. If I beat up a black man because he's black or beat him up because I dont' like what he said, it's assault and nothing more

7/10. You'll get some bites on that.


Last time I checked, being racist wasn't a crime. Assault is. This isn't the future. Last time I checked, the Libtards still haven't implemented thoughtcrime...but we're getting closer.

I'll give you a reverse 3/10, because if you were any dumber, we'd have to water you twice a week.
 
2012-02-26 04:25:31 AM  

Bigdogdaddy: But if I intend to kill you just beause I don't like you or I kill you because I don't like black people (or whatever group of people you associate yourself with) to me it doesn't matter.


The law has been doing this for about a thousand years and it's only now becoming controversial. And, I suspect a lot of the controversy is rooted, to a large degree, in racism.

I'm not saying that's true for you. I'm just saying it seems to be true in the main.

Here's why I say that: many people (especially self-identified conservatives) hate any law or rule that is perceived1 to disproportionately help minorities at the expense of whites. These same people tend not to have any problem with laws or rules that disproportionately hurt minorities (see conservative support for racial profiling).

1 I used the word "perceived" because hate crime laws treat everyone absolutely equally. But, there are huge swaths of the public under the misapprehension that black people are never get hate crime enhancements and that anti-white crimes are never prosecuted as hate crimes
 
2012-02-26 04:28:27 AM  
If their motives make the crime more heinous, you apply a harsher penalty for the crime. "Sentence enhancements" like hate crimes are a dirty business though.
 
2012-02-26 04:29:14 AM  

Lee451: Allow me to guess: The victim is white.


Ha, if you're going to be a snarky racist then at least be educated. There are more black on black crimes than black on white.
 
2012-02-26 04:31:30 AM  

Fade2black: Last time I checked, being racist wasn't a crime. Assault is. This isn't the future.


You're right. It's not the future. It's the way the law has ALWAYS worked in the United States. And, it worked in England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland for hundreds of years before that.

As Chief Justice Rehnquist noted in declaring hate crime laws constitutional: [m]otives are most relevant when the trial judge sets the defendant's sentence, and it is not uncommon for a defendant to receive a minimum sentence because he was acting with good motives, or a rather high sentence because of his bad motives.
 
2012-02-26 04:34:00 AM  

Bigdogdaddy: But if I intend to kill you just beause I don't like you or I kill you because I don't like black people (or whatever group of people you associate yourself with) to me it doesn't matter.


It's not just about the one person, but about the fear and intimidation of a group of people by targeting crimes against members of that group. Hate crimes have additional victims, therefore there is additional punishment.
 
2012-02-26 04:34:14 AM  

Bigdogdaddy: Inhale/exhale: Bigdogdaddy: All hate crime laws need to be done away with. It's the law they're breaking. The reasoning for it is no matter. If I beat up a black man because he's black or beat him up because I dont' like what he said, it's assault and nothing more

7/10. You'll get some bites on that.

Ummmm...I wasn't trolling. I was giving my honest opinion.


score recalced to 5/10, in that case.
 
Displayed 50 of 230 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report