because LESBIANS

something about this smells fishy.

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

How would you know that particular tidbit?

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,

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.

Thought Hate crime legislation makes me icky.

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.

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...

Kenan Thompson is a Lesbian?

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.

Farking internalized homophobia! How does it work?

[icp.jpg]

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.

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.

Allow me to guess: The victim is white.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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

In Texas, probably a trophy

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

As usual, South Park has this covered:

Hello, Mr. Governor, and thank you for taking the time to hear our presentation on hate-crime laws, entitled, "Hate Crime Laws: A Savage Hypocrisy." Yes, over the past few years our great country has been developing new hate crime laws. If somebody kills somebody, it's a crime. But if someone kills somebody of a different color, it's a hate crime. And we think that that is a savage hypocrisy, because all crimes are hate crimes. If a man beats another man because that man was sleeping with his wife, is that not a hate crime? If a person vandalizes a government building, is it not because of his hate for the government? And motivation for a crime shouldn't affect the sentencing. Mayor, it is time to stop splitting people into groups. All hate crimes do is support the idea that blacks are different from whites, that homosexuals need to be treated differently from non-homos, that we aren't the same. But instead, we should all be treated the same, with the same laws and the same punishments for the same crimes. For in that way Cartman can be freed from prison, and we will have a chance to win the sledding race on Thursday. That is our presentation. An idea that we call..."Hate Crime Laws: A Savage Hypocrisy."
Governor: Hm. That made the most sense of any presentation I've heard in the last three years.

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

Charging too high of a markup on kosher collard greens?

Let me see, I have that right here.

Ok, divide by 4, carry the one

Ah yes, that would be 5 years mandatory minimum.

Sum Dum Gai: 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.

OK. I'm ignoring the asswipes but since you don't seem to be one, I'll ask you a question. According to the article these women beat him up because he bumped them on the stairwell. Although this is a crime, there is a good chance they would have done the same thing to someone else becasue they were bullies. They might have been lesbian bullies, but they were bullies just the same.

FTA: But Jake Wark, a spokesman for Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley, said prosecutors will have no problem proving the women committed a hate crime, even if they are lesbians.

"The defendants' particular orientation or alleged orientations have no bearing on our ability to prosecute for allegedly targeting a person who they believe to be different from them," he said.

I fail to see the "group intimidation" unless there's more to the story and the prosecutor isn't saying so.

Ghastly: 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.

Here's another perspective on the cause of that. Ctrl-F "The early LGBT movement was very much dominated by gay white men."

The entire concept of a hate crime is ridiculous.

Protricity: 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.

*Intent* is what should matter, not motive (motive is useful in determining who might have been interested in committing a crime, not for determining punishment). If you accidentally cause damage to someone it should be treated differently than if you intentionally cause damage. The *WHY* you cause damage should be irrelevant.

If I walk up to you and punch you in the face, intentionally - why does it matter what my reasoning is. How many protected classes of people are you willing to legally recognize? Nobody intentionally punches someone because they *LIKE* them.

If I walk up and punch you because I don't like your X - why should some values of X be more protected than others?

DrPainMD: Sum Dum Gai: 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.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x306]
Warned us about this.

So - if I punch an a**hole at a bar because I can't stand a**holes, I'm punching all a**holes at bars everywhere and I have now committed many crimes?
If I start a fight with a guy who I catch trying to steal something from me....I'm starting a fight with people everywhere who steal?

What if I *HATE* people who cheat on the spouses? And I find out a co-worker is cheating on his wife....so I slash his tires. How many crimes have I committed then? I'm filled with file hate for people who commit infidelity; do you believe I've committed a hate crime?

1. As I recall most fights I've gotten into in my life (grade school mostly) the "faggit" word has gotten thrown around. Does that constitute a hate crime? If I beat someone and call them a sissy is that a hate crime against sissies??

2. I've read that of all relationships (straight, gay, lesbian) lesbians have the highest rate of domestic violenece. At first this seems strange but not so much when you consider that your average lesbian has more testosterone than a bodybuilder on steroids.

lesbians never lose their sex drive. They take a ticking and keep on licking

Professional victims can't be instigators. they were obvious forced into being violent sh*tsacks.

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.

Why would he get any bites on that? It makes perfect sense?

So if I kill someone I get, let's say 20 years, but if I kill someone because I hate them I get life???? Please explain the logic to me and I'l try not to LMFAO.

Fark_Guy_Rob: DrPainMD: Sum Dum Gai: 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.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x306]
Warned us about this.

So - if I punch an a**hole at a bar because I can't stand a**holes, I'm punching all a**holes at bars everywhere and I have now committed many crimes?
If I start a fight with a guy who I catch trying to steal something from me....I'm starting a fight with people everywhere who steal?

What if I *HATE* people who cheat on the spouses? And I find out a co-worker is cheating on his wife....so I slash his tires. How many crimes have I committed then? I'm filled with file hate for people who commit infidelity; do you believe I've committed a hate crime?

Why do you think stealing or assault is a crime in the first place? It's because society has determined that it's unacceptable behaviour, whether you specifically agree or not. It turns out that society has decided that crimes against certain classes of people, motivated generically against those "types" of people, is a bigger deal than crimes against random people.

You may disagree. Disagreement noted. But your vote is apparently a minority vote in this case, so deal with it.

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.

Kind of. Intention *does* count. It's just that ones intention should be measured not in terms of 'race' or something un-scientific like that. I'd have peace with it if they reframed it as 'un-rational hatred of victim as a member of a group, as perceived by perpetrator'. Because that's what 'racism' is: pschychopathy.

Detective: "I have good news and bad news. The bad news is that your son was beaten to death. But look on the bright side, the good news is that he wasn't beaten to death for being gay! They didn't even know he was gay. They just beat him to death anyway!"

Parents: "Oh, we're so relived that it wasn't a hate crime!!"

wademh: Fark_Guy_Rob: DrPainMD: Sum Dum Gai: 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.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x306]
Warned us about this.

So - if I punch an a**hole at a bar because I can't stand a**holes, I'm punching all a**holes at bars everywhere and I have now committed many crimes?
If I start a fight with a guy who I catch trying to steal something from me....I'm starting a fight with people everywhere who steal?

What if I *HATE* people who cheat on the spouses? And I find out a co-worker is cheating on his wife....so I slash his tires. How many crimes have I committed then? I'm filled with file hate for people who commit infidelity; do you believe I've committed a hate crime?

Why do you think stealing or assault is a crime in the first place? It's because society has determined that it's unacceptable behaviour, whether you specifically agree or not. It turns out that society has decided that crimes against certain classes of people, motivated generically against those "types" of people, is a bigger deal than crimes against random people.

You may disagree. Disagreement noted. But your vote is apparently a minority vote in this case, so deal with it.

Being in the majority and being correct are often two very different things. The same majority that felt it was okay to own black people now thinks it's okay to provide different legal frameworks to protect them.

Someday, we'll finally reach equality and we'll feel the same way about these laws as we do about laws governing slavery.

// 9 out of 10 people involved in gang-rape think it's pretty cool

At the T station?
Were they there to talk about his T?

Fark_Guy_Rob: wademh: Fark_Guy_Rob: DrPainMD: Sum Dum Gai: 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.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x306]
Warned us about this.

So - if I punch an a**hole at a bar because I can't stand a**holes, I'm punching all a**holes at bars everywhere and I have now committed many crimes?
If I start a fight with a guy who I catch trying to steal something from me....I'm starting a fight with people everywhere who steal?

What if I *HATE* people who cheat on the spouses? And I find out a co-worker is cheating on his wife....so I slash his tires. How many crimes have I committed then? I'm filled with file hate for people who commit infidelity; do you believe I've committed a hate crime?

Why do you think stealing or assault is a crime in the first place? It's because society has determined that it's unacceptable behaviour, whether you specifically agree or not. It turns out that society has decided that crimes against certain classes of people, motivated generically against those "types" of people, is a bigger deal than crimes against random people.

You may disagree. Disagreement noted. But your vote is apparently a minority vote in this case, so deal with it.

Being in the majority and being correct are often two very different things. The same majority that felt it was okay to own black people now thinks it's okay to provide different legal frameworks to protect them.

Someday, we'll finally reach equality and we'll feel the same way about these laws as we do about laws governing slavery.

// 9 out of 10 people involved in gang-rape think it's pretty cool

Hey, as long as it wasn't the rape of a person because they belonged to some protected group makes it less bad somehow.

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.

This. Assault is already a crime. Prosecuting anything because it is a hate crime supposes that the government can tell what someone is thinking. A criminal should be punished for something he did, not something he thought.

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.

Ummm...no. What's really important is the result of the offenders actions. Offender bashed baseball bat into my head...That's what's really important to me as I lay in ICU. It doesn't matter if he did it to me because I was gay or hit on his girlfriend.Results is what matters!!!!

"Hey Judge, I know I killed 26 people but the voices inside my head told me I was freeing them from Satan!!"

Judge: "Well that sounds like a good motive to me. In your mind you were trying to save them from hell!!"

Motive is a purely judgemental call. If one man decides to kill his wife because she divorced him, does it mean I have a motive for murder because my wife asks for a divorce?

I'm just going to put this out there... Ladies... be careful who you decide to physically attack. Some of us won't pull our punches just because you're female.

Fark_Guy_Rob: wademh: Fark_Guy_Rob: DrPainMD: Sum Dum Gai: 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.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x306]
Warned us about this.

So - if I punch an a**hole at a bar because I can't stand a**holes, I'm punching all a**holes at bars everywhere and I have now committed many crimes?
If I start a fight with a guy who I catch trying to steal something from me....I'm starting a fight with people everywhere who steal?

What if I *HATE* people who cheat on the spouses? And I find out a co-worker is cheating on his wife....so I slash his tires. How many crimes have I committed then? I'm filled with file hate for people who commit infidelity; do you believe I've committed a hate crime?

Why do you think stealing or assault is a crime in the first place? It's because society has determined that it's unacceptable behaviour, whether you specifically agree or not. It turns out that society has decided that crimes against certain classes of people, motivated generically against those "types" of people, is a bigger deal than crimes against random people.

You may disagree. Disagreement noted. But your vote is apparently a minority vote in this case, so deal with it.

Being in the majority and being correct are often two very different things. The same majority that felt it was okay to own black people now thinks it's okay to provide different legal frameworks to protect them.

Someday, we'll finally reach equality and we'll feel the same way about these laws as we do about laws governing slavery.

// 9 out of 10 people involved in gang-rape think it's pretty cool

Luckily, in most places, the majority is against those gang rapists.
As for hate crimes, I look forward to the day when they are rare enough that most people will agree with you. Until then, I understand why people who are well informed about historical motivations for hate crimes treat them as distinct from random criminality.

A few years back the Sydney Gay Mardi Gras organising committee had the lesbian clique getting their hate on the gay male committee members, and vice versa. Dunno if it's still like that. Maybe the bears are kicking' ass nowadays.

There was huge money flying around in its heyday. Government grants and sponsorship. So I guess there was a lot of power and prestige to be had running the show, plus a nice little credit card and a car maybe. One year the tensions were reported in the MMS for a few days. That year the lesbians had the balance of power in the committee, and the media's angle IIRC was that the lesbians were particularly confrontational.

Protricity: 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.

correct.
when a women acts in self defense this fact should mitigate if not totally absolve her of the crime of murder.
but when someone kills a white person it shouldn't matter if they killed him because he was white, because they thought he was an asshole, or because he had some piece of property the attacker wanted.
it's absolutely ridiculous that you would punish a murder to a lesser degree because the murderer didn't kill someone because of their ethnicity.

this is just another case of progressives breaking every conflict down into groups of advantaged people versus disadvantaged people and finding a way to show their support for the disadvantaged group no matter how ridiculous and inequitable the remedy they come up with is.

you can see this ridiculous pattern of thought in almost everything they do. it's why they support race based AA even though it treats a historically marginalized class of people (asians) as less deserving of protection then latino Americans and the program itself requires government discrimination based on race, one of the most abhorrent practices imaginable.
it is why they defended israel up until the 1967 war but after that point they began to side with any group in the region who had the ability to stand up to israel no matter how abhorrent a progressive might find those regimes in isolation.
it's why sean penn is calling for the UK to *give back* the falkland islands to argentina that they never possessed. it's why progressives see everything in terms of racial classifications.

the calculation is always *which group is the weaker group? which is the most marginalized?* then support that group no matter how inequitable or just plain f*cking ridiculous the remedy they have come up with is.

When I read the article, It dose not say that the women had any knowledge that the man was gay before the assault. But I guess women attacking a man because they hate men is not considered a hate crime. After reading all the responses, The focus of whether or not there was a "hate" crime is on the man's homosexuality, not his gender. This is one of the problems with "hate" crimes is it seams you can only be guilty if it is against certain groups. If the victim had been strait, I doubt there would be "hate" crime charges.

RexTalionis: 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.

That kind of thinking demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the legal system. We've always punished criminals different based on the specific intent of their crimes. For example, an assault and battery case will have lesser punishment than if the case had involved the batterer having the specific intent to use a weapon, in which case it becomes aggravated assault and battery. A bank robbery is charged differently than regular old robbery. Why should the specific intent in a hate crime be singled out as being completely invalid when we have such a long historical precedent of punishing actions based on their specific intent?

Because battery and aggravated battery are two different crimes. The robbery? If I had singled out the bank because the owners were black and called the black teller a (add racial slur here) would I be guilty of a hate crime? See my point? I'm not saying it's not the law, I'm saying it's bad law and seems to be punishing people for the behavior of someone who did wrong in the past. That's all I'm saying.

Time for bed now. Work is over. Later all.

RexTalionis: 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.

That kind of thinking demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the legal system. We've always punished criminals different based on the specific intent of their crimes. For example, an assault and battery case will have lesser punishment than if the case had involved the batterer having the specific intent to use a weapon, in which case it becomes aggravated assault and battery. A bank robbery is charged differently than regular old robbery. Why should the specific intent in a hate crime be singled out as being completely invalid when we have such a long historical precedent of punishing actions based on their specific intent?

the intent is not changing.
the motivation is. and we don't normally inquire about motivation.
you wouldn't charge a man that robbed a bank with a gun to pay for medical expenses any different than a man who robbed a bank with a gun because he had a crack addiction he needed to fund.
why start here? the answer is of course that there are several groups that progressives feel deserve protection over and above what is offered to everyone else.

She likes 'birds'.

cman: 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

Only when they die.

Then we send them to PMITA prison, sue their parents into oblivion, pass hyperlaws to 'prevent bullying' and pat ourselves on the back for a job well done.

/until the next time

Ghastly

For example, if I am a Muslim who

wait wait, not so fast. Penn Judge: Muslims Allowed to Attack People for Insulting Mohammad

RexTalionis: relcec: the motivation is. and we don't normally inquire about motivation.

Yeah, we do, it's one of the things the finders of fact would look into in the determination of mens rea (or intent).

not normally.
you normally look to whether they intended to permanently deprive, or break into a residence to commit a felony. you don't look at the motivation behind those intentions. the prosecution need not prove what the actual motivation was for those crimes (whether it was greed or whether the defendant needed to feed a crack addiction), just that the defendant had the requisite intent.
do you actually know anything about the law?

Ah Hate Crimes...

Proof that the Left can be every bit as stupid and destructive as the Right. Whoever even dreamed such crap up must have needed some serious psychiatric help.

Ghastly: 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.

This. And This.

Isn't that the way, the man that gets manhandled by some fiesty lesbians would appreciate it the least.

I dream of lesbians having their way with me... and nothing

It should be a "With intent to cause fear or terrorize" instead of "hate crime".

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.

Sure, I'll bite. Instead of mindless accusations of trolling, how about trying to convince us that it's worse to beat up a gay or black than it is to beat up anybody else?

crispyone: 2. I've read that of all relationships (straight, gay, lesbian) lesbians have the highest rate of domestic violenece. At first this seems strange but not so much when you consider that your average lesbian has more testosterone than a bodybuilder on steroids.

Maybe they just like beating around the bush?

eraser8: Why is it so farking hard for people to understand that hate crime laws are completely in line with Anglo-American legal tradition of the past thousand years or so?

I take it then that you oppose gay marriage.

I don't, by the way. I oppose laws which hold one class of people to a different standard than another. I can be hated and beaten, but as I'm not a member of an arbitrarily defined "protected group", the perpetrator is less guilty -- regardless of the colour of his skin -- than if I were.

Suggestions that a crime against a black constitutes a crime against all blacks are, in my opinion, poetic nonsense.

I realize that society has made the determination that I am in the minority on this issue, and, as an earlier poster pointed out, I must deal with it. So I do. But I still think it's disgusting.

eraser8: Mambo Bananapatch: Sure, I'll bite. Instead of mindless accusations of trolling, how about trying to convince us that it's worse to beat up a gay or black than it is to beat up anybody else?

That's a straw man argument. I don't know whether you did that deliberately or because you don't understand how the law actually works...but, hate crime laws do not command that "it's worse to beat up a gay or black than it is to beat up anybody else."

Oh. I thought you got a harsher punishment for committing a hate crime than for a regular, non-hate crime.

Um, hate is hate, so its pretty simple.

It's the same rule Eric Holder applies for Muslims accused of terrorism.

eraser8: 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.

His logic makes no sense. In essence he is saying "They are using motive as a factor in sentencing anyway so we'll create a new crime that covers motive and increase the disparity in punishment based on intent." They are still going to sentence the battery more harshly due to motive, and now we're going to add 5 years.

eraser8: You're arguing from ignorance.

EVERY PERSON is protected by hate crime laws in EXACTLY the same way. There is no such thing as a "protected group" under these statutes. There are only protected characteristics...and, those are characteristics shared by EVERYONE.

Sorry, bu this is simply not true because, regardless of how the law is written, that is not how it is enforced.

Protricity: 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.

Except those are likely not charged the same. One would be Murder 1 while the other would likely be at most Murder 2. So, it's already covered without adding a new crime.

Pin Fiften Clob: 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?

The article says that he bumped them with his backpack in a stairwell. It's unclear from the article whether the bump was intentional or not.

I think what the lawyer is saying is that it's OK to beat the crap out of idiots who wear backpacks inside and have no concept that the damn thing hangs out a foot and a half behind them, and invade the personal space of everyone they get near. If so, I agree.

/Not really, but the Supreme Court did in Doe v. Asshat

eraser8: Mambo Bananapatch: I take it then that you oppose gay marriage.

I support marriage equality.

Mambo Bananapatch: I oppose laws which hold one class of people to a different standard than another.

That has nothing to do with hate crime laws.

Whatever. The result is that a white man who beats up a black man is guilty of a more serious crime than if he beat up another white man.

Mambo Bananapatch: I can be hated and beaten, but as I'm not a member of an arbitrarily defined "protected group", the perpetrator is less guilty -- regardless of the colour of his skin -- than if I were.

You're arguing from ignorance.

Here in Canada the Charter of Rights and Freedoms outlines which groups are protected (race, religion, sexuality etc.). Perhaps wrongly, I assumed that a similar situation exists in the United States. Here in Toronto, a racist homophobe Muslim can stand in his mosque and rail against Jews, Christians and homosexuals without fear of the Human Rights Commission. A white racist Christian homophobe cannot. (I think they're both vile, by the way, but to argue that they are not held to different standards is to argue from ignorance.)

This is not just me spewing. Feel free to peruse the history of Canada's HRC if you doubt it. If you possess a sense of fairness you will horrified.

EVERY PERSON is protected by hate crime laws in EXACTLY the same way. There is no such thing as a "protected group" under these statutes. There are only protected characteristics...and, those are characteristics shared by EVERYONE.

That may be the plan, but the reality on the ground -- here, at least -- is different. (See above.)

Mambo Bananapatch: Suggestions that a crime against a black constitutes a crime against all blacks are, in my opinion, poetic nonsense.

That's something you'll hear some people say...but, again, it has nothing to do with the legal basis for hate crime enhancements.

Isn't the argument that hate crimes are more serious than non-hate crimes based on the idea that they are a crime against an entire community? If not, then why do they exist at all?

Mambo Bananapatch: Oh. I thought you got a harsher punishment for committing a hate crime than for a regular, non-hate crime.

Oh, you do. But, what you fail to understand is that hate crime laws don't make crimes against blacks "more equal" than crimes against others.

You agree with my original contention, and, using semantics and sneer quotes, are arguing that I'm still wrong. You must be a lawyer.

I'm suprised that more gay guys aren't guilty of hate crimes. They beat other guys up, and then down, and then up repeatedly for being gay as well. Beaten to the point that fluids erupt from the point of attack.

EddieWearsUnderoos: 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.

Yes. What do you expect when thoughts are now a crime?

Sum Dum Gai: 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.

Bullshiat.

eraser8: 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

Lemme guess: you watch a lot of MSNBC?

"hate crime laws treat everyone absolutely equally" LOL - say wut? They do???

Sum Dum Gai: 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.

So, I punch somebody in the face and your nose bleeds? Far out, man.

"White and straight can only commit crimes of hate" said the Liberal WhackJob NutJob HatingWhitey Hippie Lawyer

RexTalionis: KyDave: eraser8: 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 crimesi>


So you have no substantive response proof of your suppositions, therefore you respond with sarcasm simply make shiat up.

UCFRoadWarrior: "White and straight can only commit crimes of hate" said the Liberal WhackJob NutJob HatingWhitey Hippie Lawyer

That's enough out of you.

eraser8: Circumstances matter. Motive matters. And, they always have in our legal tradition.

People have always killed people. Why not kill everyone?

/the goal of justice is to be impartial
//the nature of justice is to work toward that goal, in spite of the fact that it will always be flawed by human nature

White guys so much as steps on the shoe of a black person on a crowded subway car = "hate crime."

Pack of feral blacks randomly assault, murder, rob and rape people expressly and exclusively because they're white (AKA every day in America) = "nothing to see here, move along."

Gotta love tolerance, huh?

Apparently Fark understands the purpose of hate crime laws about as well as it understands transsexuals. I see some candles in the darkness in this thread. It's probably futile, but good job anyway.

It seems quite simple to me. If a man comes home, and finds his wife in bed with another man, gets his gun and shoots him, that's punished differently than if a man decides to kill his wife, and sets out a plan weeks or months ahead of the actual crime. Similarly, if a man is assaulted during a strong arm robbery, that crime is punished differently than if someone decides to beat someone up just because they are (for one example) flamboyantly gay. They are different crimes, and they should have different punishments.

Oh_Enough_Already: White guys so much as steps on the shoe of a black person on a crowded subway car = "hate crime."

Pack of feral blacks randomly assault, murder, rob and rape people expressly and exclusively because they're white (AKA every day in America) = "nothing to see here, move along."

Gotta love tolerance, huh?

Enough already indeed.

It's disappointing some feel the need to decide who are less equal and inferior than others thereby requiring special treatment. I would take huge offense at this "assistance." Plus, there are many still unseen consequences, primarily, who decides when your minority sect should be removed from the special list?

Does this stem from some sort of guilt?

chaddsfarkprefect: It's disappointing some feel the need to decide who are less equal and inferior than others thereby requiring special treatment. I would take huge offense at this "assistance." Plus, there are many still unseen consequences, primarily, who decides when your minority sect should be removed from the special list?

Does this stem from some sort of guilt?

Have you read this thread? Your strawman has been repeatedly demolished. I don't see how you could characterize white people as "an inferior class, requiring special protection", but there have been, and will be in the future, crimes committed against whites solely for the fact that they were white.

A textbook case of he/she said, she/he said.

crispyone: 2. I've read that of all relationships (straight, gay, lesbian) lesbians have the highest rate of domestic violenece. At first this seems strange but not so much when you consider that your average lesbian has more testosterone than a bodybuilder on steroids.

You've read wrong:
"Results from the National Violence Against Women Survey indicate that women living with female intimate partners experience less intimate partner violence than women living with male intimate partners. Slightly more than 11% of the women who had lived with a woman as part of a couple reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a female cohabitant, but 21.7% of the women who had married or lived with a man as part of a couple reported such violence by a husband or male cohabitant."
-Link (new window)

... or maybe you're just trolling. Given your second sentence, you're apparently homophobic, so you may be trying to spread this "lesbians are more violent" meme that some anti-same sex marriage Freepers have been pushing.

relcec: RexTalionis: relcec: the motivation is. and we don't normally inquire about motivation.

Yeah, we do, it's one of the things the finders of fact would look into in the determination of mens rea (or intent).

not normally.
you normally look to whether they intended to permanently deprive, or break into a residence to commit a felony. you don't look at the motivation behind those intentions. the prosecution need not prove what the actual motivation was for those crimes (whether it was greed or whether the defendant needed to feed a crack addiction), just that the defendant had the requisite intent.
do you actually know anything about the law?

Wrong - it depends on the crime. For example, as you note, at common law, burglary is defined as entering into a dwelling at night with the intent to commit a felony therein. Not only must the defendant have intentionally entered the dwelling, he or she must have also had a motivation for doing so that includes the commission of a felony. And the prosecution does have to prove that actual motivation.

Fark_Guy_Rob:
So - if I punch an a**hole at a bar because I can't stand a**holes, I'm punching all a**holes at bars everywhere and I have now committed many crimes?
If I start a fight with a guy who I catch trying to steal something from me....I'm starting a fight with people everywhere who steal?

What if I *HATE* people who cheat on the spouses? And I find out a co-worker is cheating on his wife....so I slash his tires. How many crimes have I committed then? I'm filled with file hate for people who commit infidelity; do you believe I've committed a hate crime?


I hope you don't seriously equate being born into a minority group with a PERSONAL CHOICE.......

being hated for being born a latino=/=being hated for choosing to cheat on your spouse, one is uncontrollable, one is an action made with conscious thought.

Ghastly: 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 en ...

I have noticed all of these things as well. A lot of lesbians are total douchebags. It's probably why I don't bother dating anymore.

eraser8: KyDave: So you have no substantive response proof of your suppositions, therefore you respond with sarcasm simply make shiat up.

First, I was the person who wrote the parts you underlined.

Second, I made it perfectly clear that my view was a SUSPICION. I did not state the claim as a truth. I put it in the form of a possibility -- albeit one that has evidence to support it.

By contrast, your belief that hate crime laws are enforced unfairly has no basis in reality. It doesn't even qualify as a suspicion; it's just -- as I wrote earlier -- quite possibly the result of paranoid assumption.

If you can suspect that opposition to hate crime legislation is based on racism, then I can equally suspect you are pulling shiat out of thin air.

Just as you made up the assuption that I believe hate crime laws are being unfairly enforced. The actual statement:

"KyDave: hate crime laws treat everyone absolutely equally" LOL - say wut? They do???"


I beileve a problem with this issue is a lack of common terminology. One side views the phrase "treat everybody the same" as meaning that all victims are protected equally. Another side views the purpose of the law to apply equally to all. When X does Y and receives a different punishment than Z for the exact same act because of some arbitrary factors, how is this equal application? Perhaps the issue is the arbitrariness of the factors.

Yes, the example of a battered spouse demonstrates a place for consideration of external factors. But, how does a life-long history of spousal abuse equate 2-3 chicks beating te crap out of some guy in the hallway? Where should we draw the line between a 'heat-of-the-moment' (slur) and criminal intent?

Returning to X and Z: supposed it was an assault case and the victim, V, is _______. Further supposed that V is also an azzhole. Both X and Z are guilty of assault. Z receives 1 year + probation for beating up an azzhole. X receives an additional 10 years becasue he knew that V was _____. Is this equal application? What if, during the assault, Z had yelled some (slur); not knowing that V was _____? would Z's sentance be extended by 10 years? Or only 5, beacuse he did not know??

The issue you wrongly attributed to me (unequal enforcement) is secondary, i my mind, to the larger issue of unequal application. Isn't it possible that V was beat up twice just because he was an azz? Perhaps an argument could be made for the necessity of hate crime laws for especially aggregious violations. But the general application only seeks to diminish the original intent: once every crime becomes a hate crime against some population segment, what then -- Mean Hate Crime? Really Spiteful Hate Crime? Rotten, Dirty Low-Down Bully Hate Crime???

Also, on a more serious note:

18 and 21 year-old lesbian sisters!? Where's the pics??

KyDave: When X does Y and receives a different punishment than Z for the exact same act because of some arbitrary factors, how is this equal application? Perhaps the issue is the arbitrariness of the factors.

Returning to X and Z: supposed it was an assault case and the victim, V, is _______. Further supposed that V is also an azzhole. Both X and Z are guilty of assault. Z receives 1 year + probation for beating up an azzhole. X receives an additional 10 years becasue he knew that V was _____. Is this equal application?

I believe the problem is that you don't understand how hate crimes work. X, like Z, would receive 1 year + probation for the assault. Thus, equal application of the law regarding assaults. X would also receive 9 years and removal of his probation because of his additional crime of assault with intent to intimidate. Z does not, because Z did not commit that crime.
It's not one law being applied unequally, but two laws being applied equally (or rather, equally based on the fact that one defendant did not commit one of the offenses while the other did).

KyDave: Also, on a more serious note:

18 and 21 year-old lesbian sisters!? Where's the pics??

This took place in Massachusetts. Incest is more of a southern, country inbred rednec-

Location: Frankfort, KY

... awkward.

Theaetetus: KyDave: Also, on a more serious note:

18 and 21 year-old lesbian sisters!? Where's the pics??

This took place in Massachusetts. Incest is more of a southern, country inbred rednec-

Location: Frankfort, KY

... awkward.

Yeah, it's always been a grey area: if a couple from Tennessee get a divorce, are they still brother and sister?

/"I expressly disavow and disclaim any implied duty towards you". Ouch! well, fark you, Chowder Head.
//JK
///xoxoxo

BlaqueKatt: Fark_Guy_Rob:
So - if I punch an a**hole at a bar because I can't stand a**holes, I'm punching all a**holes at bars everywhere and I have now committed many crimes?
If I start a fight with a guy who I catch trying to steal something from me....I'm starting a fight with people everywhere who steal?

What if I *HATE* people who cheat on the spouses? And I find out a co-worker is cheating on his wife....so I slash his tires. How many crimes have I committed then? I'm filled with file hate for people who commit infidelity; do you believe I've committed a hate crime?


I hope you don't seriously equate being born into a minority group with a PERSONAL CHOICE.......

being hated for being born a latino=/=being hated for choosing to cheat on your spouse, one is uncontrollable, one is an action made with conscious thought.

You can't possibly control why other people hate you.

The ways and reasons I can find to hate you are endless.

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. 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.

no no no they are angry about the PENIS

Fark_Guy_Rob:
You can't possibly control why other people hate you.

The ways and reasons I can find to hate you are endless.

If you hate me because I'm Sicilian, I can do nothing about that, if you hate me because I ride a bike, that I can change-see the difference-I can't just up and decide to not be a Sicilian, but I can choose to not ride a bike, and quite frankly I do choose to obey the laws of the road, and I usually don't hang out with douche bags that choose to manufacture reasons to hate another person.....

KyDave: Z receives 1 year + probation for beating up an azzhole. X receives an additional 10 years becasue he knew that V was _____.

That's not how hate crimes laws work. What V is isn't particularly relevant. Whether X knew that V was a certain thing isn't really relevant. For hate crime enhancements to apply, X must have intentionally selected V because he was white or he was Baptist or he was bisexual. If V's race or religion or sexuality or national origin is merely incidental to the crime, hate crime enhancements are off the table.

But how could X have intentionally selected V because he was _____ without X knowing (or believing to know) being releveant?? See the quandry? Not trtying to be snarky here: but X's konwledge of V's status is most certainly at the heart of the issue. It seems a very difficult thing to ascertain if X acted on knowledge, or simply had knowledge and the act was based on some other motivation.

KyDave: Isn't it possible that V was beat up twice just because he was an azz? Perhaps an argument could be made for the necessity of hate crime laws for especially aggregious violations. But the general application only seeks to diminish the original intent: once every crime becomes a hate crime against some population segment, what then -- Mean Hate Crime?


Perhaps you misundertood, or I did not complete the thought. At some level of depth, each of us belongs to some minority. Once the law takes into consideration minority membership, how is distinction made between what sub-groups merit hate protection and what groups do not? Hence my ascertation of being arbitrary. Not arbitrary in the sense that each court and judge decides on their own what classes to consider 'hateable'. As you point out, the classes are defined.

Rather; arbitrary in the sense that sub-group A and B are both minoirties of some sort. Group A is considered to merit hate protections, while group B does not. How is this determined - ratio, popularity (or lack of), changable whim?? This, i suppose, is the kernel of my disagreement. The law does not equally apply to all if crimes against members of group A are treated differently than crimes against members of group B. If someone singles me out becasue I am a, b, and c (none of which are considered worthy of hate protection) why and how is that differnt from singling you out because you are b, c, and d (where d is a protected class)? Moreover, why should they be treated differently? How is that equal protection under the law?? I believe it is patently unequal.

But, wth - it doesn't appear that either of us are legislators or judges, so I guess it's more of an academic exercise.

Theaetetus: relcec: RexTalionis: relcec: the motivation is. and we don't normally inquire about motivation.

Yeah, we do, it's one of the things the finders of fact would look into in the determination of mens rea (or intent).

not normally.
you normally look to whether they intended to permanently deprive, or break into a residence to commit a felony. you don't look at the motivation behind those intentions. the prosecution need not prove what the actual motivation was for those crimes (whether it was greed or whether the defendant needed to feed a crack addiction), just that the defendant had the requisite intent.
do you actually know anything about the law?

Wrong - it depends on the crime. For example, as you note, at common law, burglary is defined as entering into a dwelling at night with the intent to commit a felony therein. Not only must the defendant have intentionally entered the dwelling, he or she must have also had a motivation for doing so that includes the commission of a felony. And the prosecution does have to prove that actual motivation.

Wrong. the motivation isn't to commit a felony, that's the intention. the motive of a robbery isn;t *to commit a robbery*. that is ridiculous. motivation is the underlying reason why the intention to commit the act was there in the first place. motive is created and driven by feelings like greed, fear, lust, resentment, and anger.
the only time I can think of when motivation comes into play is when self defense is at issue. in those cases the court will try to decide if a reasonable person in the defendants position would have feared for their life or seriously bodily injury.

KyDave: Rather; arbitrary in the sense that sub-group A and B are both minoirties of some sort. Group A is considered to merit hate protections, while group B does not. How is this determined - ratio, popularity (or lack of), changable whim?? This, i suppose, is the kernel of my disagreement. The law does not equally apply to all if crimes against members of group A are treated differently than crimes against members of group B. If someone singles me out becasue I am a, b, and c (none of which are considered worthy of hate protection) why and how is that differnt from singling you out because you are b, c, and d (where d is a protected class)? Moreover, why should they be treated differently? How is that equal protection under the law?? I believe it is patently unequal.

It doesn't work the way you think it does. Hate crime protections are not applied to minority groups, but rather, based on a classification, a value of which may define a minority group. For example, hate crimes are not defined as "assault on a gay person," but rather "assault motivated by sexual orientation of the victim". See the distinction? The former, which you seem to believe is how they work, would be unequal because it does not criminalize assaults on heterosexual people. The latter does, where sexual orientation is the motivation for the crime. It's equal because everyone has a sexual orientation, and the law does not select one over another.

KyDave: Rather; arbitrary in the sense that sub-group A and B are both minoirties of some sort. Group A is considered to merit hate protections, while group B does not. How is this determined - ratio, popularity (or lack of), changable whim?? This, i suppose, is the kernel of my disagreement. The law does not equally apply to all if crimes against members of group A are treated differently than crimes against members of group B.

The fundamental misunderstanding is that hate crimes legislation doesn't protect "groups", it protects characteristics that everyone has, not just members of a minority group.

For example, being attacked because you are a Christian is protected just as being attacked because you are Muslim. Being attacked because you are white is protected just as being attacked because you are black. Everyone is equally protected by hate crimes legislation.

In general, the characteristics are chosen to cover attacks against someone because of *who they are*, not because of what they've done. Also, the characteristics cover areas where there is generally a sense of community identity. For example, random violence against blacks is more likely to spread fear and intimidation among the black community than random violence against people whose index fingers are longer than their ring fingers is likely to spread intimidation among that 'community'.

The idea behind hate crimes is that crimes for certain reasons are attacks not just on an individual, but an attempt to spread fear among a community. When black civil rights activists were beaten or murdered, it wasn't just an attack on the person, it was an attempt to make an example of that person to frighten a community. Such an attempt at intimidation can only work if there is a sense of shared community based on that shared characteristic. That's why some characteristics are included and others are not; some contribute strongly to our sense of identity and others don't.

Well, if a big muscly drunk is bashing the crap out of me, I would almost be 100% sure that is is doing it because he has decided to hate me!

relcec: Theaetetus: relcec: RexTalionis: relcec: the motivation is. and we don't normally inquire about motivation.

Yeah, we do, it's one of the things the finders of fact would look into in the determination of mens rea (or intent).

not normally.
you normally look to whether they intended to permanently deprive, or break into a residence to commit a felony. you don't look at the motivation behind those intentions. the prosecution need not prove what the actual motivation was for those crimes (whether it was greed or whether the defendant needed to feed a crack addiction), just that the defendant had the requisite intent.
do you actually know anything about the law?

Wrong - it depends on the crime. For example, as you note, at common law, burglary is defined as entering into a dwelling at night with the intent to commit a felony therein. Not only must the defendant have intentionally entered the dwelling, he or she must have also had a motivation for doing so that includes the commission of a felony. And the prosecution does have to prove that actual motivation.

Wrong. the motivation isn't to commit a felony, that's the intention. the motive of a robbery isn;t *to commit a robbery*. that is ridiculous. motivation is the underlying reason why the intention to commit the act was there in the first place. motive is created and driven by feelings like greed, fear, lust, resentment, and anger.
the only time I can think of when motivation comes into play is when self defense is at issue. in those cases the court will try to decide if a reasonable person in the defendants position would have feared for their life or seriously bodily injury.

Remind me to not hire you as my attorney should I ever get into trouble.

Do you understand why sometimes when one person kills another, the same sentence isn't always handed down for the crime? Do you understand why premeditated murder is punished more severely than murder committed as a crime of passion? Why don't you understand that the same logic applies when person A was given a black eye because they were being robbed, while person B was given a black eye just because they were gay (or at least, the person who assaulted them thought they were)?

Sum Dum Gai: The idea behind hate crimes is that crimes for certain reasons are attacks not just on an individual, but an attempt to spread fear among a community.

That. KyDave, you have to realize that hate crime legislation is actually more about terrorism of a group that the victim belongs to, than the attack on the particular victim.

Theaetetus: KyDave: Rather; arbitrary in the sense that sub-group A and B are both minoirties of some sort. Group A is considered to merit hate protections, while group B does not. How is this determined - ratio, popularity (or lack of), changable whim?? This, i suppose, is the kernel of my disagreement. The law does not equally apply to all if crimes against members of group A are treated differently than crimes against members of group B. If someone singles me out becasue I am a, b, and c (none of which are considered worthy of hate protection) why and how is that differnt from singling you out because you are b, c, and d (where d is a protected class)? Moreover, why should they be treated differently? How is that equal protection under the law?? I believe it is patently unequal.

It doesn't work the way you think it does. Hate crime protections are not applied to minority groups, but rather, based on a classification, a value of which may define a minority group. For example, hate crimes are not defined as "assault on a gay person," but rather "assault motivated by sexual orientation of the victim". See the distinction? The former, which you seem to believe is how they work, would be unequal because it does not criminalize assaults on heterosexual people. The latter does, where sexual orientation is the motivation for the crime. It's equal because everyone has a sexual orientation, and the law does not select one over another.

No, I do not see the distinction between our examples. If I am singled out because I am a, b, and c, then I am singled out because I'm a, b, and c. If you are singled out because you are b, c, and d, then you are singled out because you are b, c, and d. The only difference being that 'd' is considered worthy of hate protection, while 'a', 'b', and 'c' are not. That is what I believe to be unequal and arbitrary - the selection of 'd' as a protected class. The perpretrator in both instances selected a victim based on some criteria. Just because my membership does not include a protected classification, it is not a hate crime? How is that equal?

KyDave: No, I do not see the distinction between our examples. If I am singled out because I am a, b, and c, then I am singled out because I'm a, b, and c. If you are singled out because you are b, c, and d, then you are singled out because you are b, c, and d. The only difference being that 'd' is considered worthy of hate protection, while 'a', 'b', and 'c' are not. That is what I believe to be unequal and arbitrary - the selection of 'd' as a protected class. The perpretrator in both instances selected a victim based on some criteria. Just because my membership does not include a protected classification, it is not a hate crime? How is that equal?

Let's put some actual definitions on a-d, because otherwise, you may be misled about what they are and what the law would apply to.

Say:
"a" is "from Kentucky"
"b" is "male"
"c" is "white", and
"d" is "Jewish".

I believe these probably apply truthfully, too - you're a, b, c, while I'm b, c, and d. But that's relatively irrrelevant.

So, the first thing is that hate crime laws are not applied to values - e.g. "from Kentucky", "male", "white", or "Jewish" - but rather are based on classifications that include those values. For example, the relevant classifications would be:
a - "geographic residence location"
b - "gender"
c - "race"
d - "religion"

With that in mind, even though our religions are different, we both have them. It's not that I'm "d" and you're not "d", but rather I'm Jewish and you're some other religion (or an atheist - for our purposes here, that counts as a religious classification).
So, your membership does include a protected classification. It would be a hate crime to assault me because of my religion, and it would likewise be a hate crime to assault you because of your religion.
See? Equal.

This leads to the second question... Why is "religion" (as well as gender and race) protected by hate crime legislation but "residence location" isn't? Because there's not a widespread problem with people getting attacked due to the former or terrorized because of their relationship to a particular residence location, so the legislature hasn't seen the need to criminalize attacks based on that.

Oh, and to address your specific hypothetical, if you (or I) were attacked because you live in Kentucky (or I live in Massachusetts), that would not be a hate crime. If I (or you) were attacked because I'm Jewish (or you're 7th Day Adventist or whatever), then that would be. See, equal in both instances.

Repo Man: Do you understand why sometimes when one person kills another, the same sentence isn't always handed down for the crime? Do you understand why premeditated murder is punished more severely than murder committed as a crime of passion? Why don't you understand that the same logic applies when person A was given a black eye because they were being robbed, while person B was given a black eye just because they were gay (or at least, the person who assaulted them thought they were)?

I understand that you think there's a difference, and that apparently a majority of society thinks there's a difference, and that I"m in the minority. I don't care.

Why don't you understand that the crime is the assault, and not what was in the mind of the assaulter?

Mambo Bananapatch: Repo Man: Do you understand why sometimes when one person kills another, the same sentence isn't always handed down for the crime? Do you understand why premeditated murder is punished more severely than murder committed as a crime of passion? Why don't you understand that the same logic applies when person A was given a black eye because they were being robbed, while person B was given a black eye just because they were gay (or at least, the person who assaulted them thought they were)?

I understand that you think there's a difference, and that apparently a majority of society thinks there's a difference, and that I"m in the minority. I don't care.

Why don't you understand that the crime is the assault, and not what was in the mind of the assaulter?

Because, while thinking It's still very wrong, I can imagine myself in circumstances where I might rob someone. Robbery is an inexcusable reason for assaulting someone. Assaulting a person merely for existing is even worse. You can rob someone with no malice towards them at all. The harm is incidental to the motive. In the case of the hate crime, the assault was the intent, with no mitigating circumstances.

I don't think you can dismiss hate crimes, and be ok with the difference between sentence for manslaughter for a man who kills his wife in the heat of the moment, and sentence of murder one for the man who plans it out months in advance. Both ended up with a dead wife, what they were thinking at the time is irrelevant right? Same crime, same punishment.

Protricity: 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.

THIS.

/Hate crime laws exist because people who attack based on prejudice exist.
//For example, World War II.
///...Not to Godwin or anything.

Theaetetus:

Very well reasoned and presented. I'll take it under advisment.

'Because there's not a widespread problem with people getting attacked due to [residence location]"

LOL - so, if a bunch of us KY rednecks started pounding on a bunch of Massachusetts high-breds, then it might become a problem, and you'd get special protection?

/JK - levity

Mambo Bananapatch: Why don't you understand that the crime is the assault, and not what was in the mind of the assaulter?

Because the assault was only one crime; there is another crime, too.

Take again, for example, a black civil rights worker in the '60s being assaulted for his work. The assault was one crime, but it wasn't the only crime committed. The other crime was the intent to cause fear and intimidation among the others in the black community by "making an example" of that one person. Sowing intimidation and fear through a community by targeted acts of violence against that community's members is a separate crime.

KyDave: 'Because there's not a widespread problem with people getting attacked due to [residence location]"

LOL - so, if a bunch of us KY rednecks started pounding on a bunch of Massachusetts high-breds, then it might become a problem, and you'd get special protection?

No, rather "residence location" may then get special protection, so when we Yankees order our servants to go down there and kick your asses, we will have committed a hate crime. Again, the classification gets protection, but no particular value of said classification has unequal protection.

Repo Man: Mambo Bananapatch: Repo Man: Do you understand why sometimes when one person kills another, the same sentence isn't always handed down for the crime? Do you understand why premeditated murder is punished more severely than murder committed as a crime of passion? Why don't you understand that the same logic applies when person A was given a black eye because they were being robbed, while person B was given a black eye just because they were gay (or at least, the person who assaulted them thought they were)?

I understand that you think there's a difference, and that apparently a majority of society thinks there's a difference, and that I"m in the minority. I don't care.

Why don't you understand that the crime is the assault, and not what was in the mind of the assaulter?

Because, while thinking It's still very wrong, I can imagine myself in circumstances where I might rob someone. Robbery is an inexcusable reason for assaulting someone. Assaulting a person merely for existing is even worse. You can rob someone with no malice towards them at all. The harm is incidental to the motive. In the case of the hate crime, the assault was the intent, with no mitigating circumstances.

I don't think you can dismiss hate crimes, and be ok with the difference between sentence for manslaughter for a man who kills his wife in the heat of the moment, and sentence of murder one for the man who plans it out months in advance. Both ended up with a dead wife, what they were thinking at the time is irrelevant right? Same crime, same punishment.

I for one don't see a whole lot of difference between a man who planned his wife's murder for insurance and a man who shoots his wife because he's mad.

Again I get that the law does see a difference, and in that sense I am "wrong." Well, I think the law is wrong.

I simply don't understand how somebody who claims to value fairness can say it is more serious to commit a hate crime than a greed crime, lust crime, or anger crime.

Mambo Bananapatch: I simply don't understand how somebody who claims to value fairness can say it is more serious to commit a hate crime than a greed crime, lust crime, or anger crime.

Are you opposed to terrorism? Do you think we should charge terrorists with terrorism-related offenses? Or should they simply be charged with battery, attempted murder, etc.?

I simply don't understand how somebody who claims to value fairness can say it is more serious to commit a hate crime than a greed crime, lust crime, or anger crime.

Because as fellow humans, we realize that sometimes our emotions impair our judgement? That we aren't dispassionate Vulcans, who calculate the risks and benefits of crime, the chances of getting caught, then act accordingly? You've staked out some lonely territory there. You don't so much have a beef with hate crimes as you do with the entire criminal justice system both here, and in the rest of the western countries.

Sum Dum Gai: Mambo Bananapatch: Why don't you understand that the crime is the assault, and not what was in the mind of the assaulter?

Because the assault was only one crime; there is another crime, too.

Take again, for example, a black civil rights worker in the '60s being assaulted for his work. The assault was one crime, but it wasn't the only crime committed. The other crime was the intent to cause fear and intimidation among the others in the black community by "making an example" of that one person. Sowing intimidation and fear through a community by targeted acts of violence against that community's members is a separate crime.

If I'm a drunken asshole and beat the shiat out of a black guy in a bar because he bumped into me, or winked at my girlfriend, how do I prove I didn't do it to "sow intimidation and fear" or "send a message"? Would it matter if I could?

RobSeace: Fark_Guy_Rob: So - if I punch an a**hole at a bar because I can't stand a**holes, I'm punching all a**holes at bars everywhere and I have now committed many crimes?

[www.startrek.com image 320x240]

"No, no, no, no, you don't understand the scope of my crime. I didn't punch just one asshole, or a hundred, or a thousand. I punched them all. All assholes, everywhere."

Brilliant. One internet to you.

"We are not qualified to be your judges. We have no law to fit your crime. You're free to return to the planet, and to punch assholes again."

/now imagines the Husnock ship to be the cast of Jersey Shore...

Theaetetus: Mambo Bananapatch: I simply don't understand how somebody who claims to value fairness can say it is more serious to commit a hate crime than a greed crime, lust crime, or anger crime.

Are you opposed to terrorism? Do you think we should charge terrorists with terrorism-related offenses? Or should they simply be charged with battery, attempted murder, etc.?

If a terrorist beats a guy up, he should be charged with assault. It's not really terrorism. If he releases a toxic gas in a movie theatre, he should be charged with the murder/attempted murder of however many. I don't understand what you're getting at.

Mambo Bananapatch: Sum Dum Gai: Mambo Bananapatch: Why don't you understand that the crime is the assault, and not what was in the mind of the assaulter?

Because the assault was only one crime; there is another crime, too.

Take again, for example, a black civil rights worker in the '60s being assaulted for his work. The assault was one crime, but it wasn't the only crime committed. The other crime was the intent to cause fear and intimidation among the others in the black community by "making an example" of that one person. Sowing intimidation and fear through a community by targeted acts of violence against that community's members is a separate crime.

If I'm a drunken asshole and beat the shiat out of a black guy in a bar because he bumped into me, or winked at my girlfriend, how do I prove I didn't do it to "sow intimidation and fear" or "send a message"? Would it matter if I could?

The justice system is imperfect, we all know that. Sometimes people are going to be charged with hate crimes, when the motive was more mundane. Sometimes people will commit hate crimes, and be able to pass it off as a simple robbery (fag bashers take a wallet from the guy they beat down, and maintain that was all they were after). Sometimes people will be able to pass premeditated murder off as a crime of passion. Sometimes people manage to pass off murder as an accident, thereby getting away with murder. If you know of some way to perfect our justice system, we're all listening.

Repo Man: I simply don't understand how somebody who claims to value fairness can say it is more serious to commit a hate crime than a greed crime, lust crime, or anger crime.

Because as fellow humans, we realize that sometimes our emotions impair our judgement? That we aren't dispassionate Vulcans, who calculate the risks and benefits of crime, the chances of getting caught, then act accordingly?

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not. Are lust, greed, envy, and anger not also among the canon of human emotions? Why is hate worse?

You've staked out some lonely territory there. You don't so much have a beef with hate crimes as you do with the entire criminal justice system both here, and in the rest of the western countries.

I appreciate your trying to tell me what is in my head, but I can assure you I have a beef with hate crimes, thanks.

Mambo Bananapatch: Theaetetus: Mambo Bananapatch: I simply don't understand how somebody who claims to value fairness can say it is more serious to commit a hate crime than a greed crime, lust crime, or anger crime.

Are you opposed to terrorism? Do you think we should charge terrorists with terrorism-related offenses? Or should they simply be charged with battery, attempted murder, etc.?

If a terrorist beats a guy up, he should be charged with assault. It's not really terrorism. If he releases a toxic gas in a movie theatre, he should be charged with the murder/attempted murder of however many. I don't understand what you're getting at.

Let me try asking the question in a slightly different way...
Currently, if someone threatens (or attempts) to asplode an airplane as part of their global jihad on America, in addition to be charged with attempted murder, they may also be charged with violations of 18 USC 2331 et seq., which include:
"... activities that-
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended-
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States." (this is domestic terrorism, btw... For international, they change C, but not B.)

In other words, in addition to being charged with attempted murder (18 USC 1113), they can also be charged with domestic (or international terrorism) under 18 USC 2331-2332.

Do you believe that this is unfair and we should repeal the anti-terrorism statutes?

I appreciate your trying to tell me what is in my head, but I can assure you I have a beef with hate crimes, thanks.

You've just admitted that you don't think there should be a differentiation between manslaughter, murder one, or murder two. Apparently you feel that if one person kills another person, circumstances, motives, none of that matter. Judges should be simple automatons. So, no, your problem isn't just with hate crimes, but rather with our entire legal system, going back centuries.

Repo Man: Mambo Bananapatch: Sum Dum Gai: Mambo Bananapatch: Why don't you understand that the crime is the assault, and not what was in the mind of the assaulter?

Because the assault was only one crime; there is another crime, too.

Take again, for example, a black civil rights worker in the '60s being assaulted for his work. The assault was one crime, but it wasn't the only crime committed. The other crime was the intent to cause fear and intimidation among the others in the black community by "making an example" of that one person. Sowing intimidation and fear through a community by targeted acts of violence against that community's members is a separate crime.

If I'm a drunken asshole and beat the shiat out of a black guy in a bar because he bumped into me, or winked at my girlfriend, how do I prove I didn't do it to "sow intimidation and fear" or "send a message"? Would it matter if I could?

The justice system is imperfect, we all know that. Sometimes people are going to be charged with hate crimes, when the motive was more mundane. Sometimes people will commit hate crimes, and be able to pass it off as a simple robbery (fag bashers take a wallet from the guy they beat down, and maintain that was all they were after). Sometimes people will be able to pass premeditated murder off as a crime of passion. Sometimes people manage to pass off murder as an accident, thereby getting away with murder. If you know of some way to perfect our justice system, we're all listening.

If establishing motive assists the prosecution during the trial, fine, but afterwards, the defendant's actions, not thoughts, should be the only measure.

This is simplistic, obviously, and I don't have a way to to solve the problem. Thankfully I don't have to. I'm just telling anybody who cares why I think prosecution of thought crimes is wrong and riddled with room for mistakes.

Mambo Bananapatch: prosecution of thought crimes is wrong

If I may interrupt, "thought crimes" refers to situations where a thought, alone, without action, is criminalized. I.e. "it shall be a felony to think of overthrowing the government." What you're talking about here is mens rea, or the required intent for a criminal act, such as murder.
So, to be correct, it's not "prosecution of thought crimes" but "prosecution of crimes of varying levels based on thought".

Mambo Bananapatch: If I'm a drunken asshole and beat the shiat out of a black guy in a bar because he bumped into me, or winked at my girlfriend, how do I prove I didn't do it to "sow intimidation and fear" or "send a message"? Would it matter if I could?

You don't have to prove you didn't commit a hate crime. This is America. Like with any other crime, you are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The burden of proof on the hate crime is on the prosecution. They need to prove you DID attack because of racial prejudice, and they need to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.

Gyrfalcon: Better idea: Drop the "hate crime" thingy, and just charge people with whatever crime they commit. Why is it any MORE of a crime because two thugs beat up a black man, as opposed to two thugs beating up a black man "because" he is black? Either way, they committed a felony, so throw their sorry asses in jail. Don't give them some kind of reverse badge of honor to strut behind when they get there.

Let's do a little though experiment. Let's say you live in a town where there are ten Muslims, and dammit, you hate them. So you and a bunch of your friends get stinking drunk and go out looking for a Muslim to attack. You find one on the street and beat him into a coma, then hang a sign saying "Mooslums go hom!" around his neck.

Clearly you've committed serious crimes against that man. Have you also committed a crime against the other nine Muslims in the town? Do you think your actions have caused harm to them as well, or are they completely unaffected by your actions?

Giving some crimes "hate crime" status and not others equates to reverse discrimination, which results in just as much hatred and lack of unity as regular discrimination. And it makes zero sense. ALL crimes are hate crimes, in that the people committing them obviously don't love the victims. Execute murderers and violent rapists, period. Make lesser criminals work off their crime doing hard labor, with the proceeds paid to the victim.

In this instance, it does nobody any good to just lock up the lesbians. Would be much more useful to make them work until they pay the man's medical bills, plus maybe a bit additional for his pain and suffering.

j0ndas: Giving some crimes "hate crime" status and not others equates to reverse discrimination

Yeah! It's discriminatory that homicide is punishable by life in prison but DUI is punishable only by a year! That's reverse discrimination against death!

/do you have any idea wtf you're talking about?

UnspokenVoice: My humble opinion...

The hate crime laws WOULD be fine if they included something along the line of, "with the intent of causing harm to a group of people." As it is I can only think of a couple of articles that I've read where hate crime sentencing would be justified.

Let's just be honest and say that it is currently used to scare people into plea agreements or to punish people more because certain groups of people are considered a protected class - something that is inherently wrong. I haven't a problem with punishing people based on the motive but beating someone up because they're gay AND bothering you doesn't mean you were trying to stop other people from being gay nor does it mean your intentions were to terrorize the group as a whole.

Current uses of the law, this case for example, are lacking that. That is, of course, unless there is more information that is not in this article which could easily be the case.

Being straight is also a protected class. As in, if a group of gay men decided to beat up a straight man just for being straight.

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. 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.

I never saw any contention during the years I identified as part of the gay community. Are you trolling?

FTFA: "If you beat someone up, you're guilty of assault and battery of a human being. Period. The idea of trying to break down human beings into categories is doomed to failure."

Amen. I'm sure I'll be called a bad dyke for this, but I've always been skeptical of these laws. A crime is a crime is a crime, period, and the action is the crime, not the reason for doing it. If a court feels that a specific motive is evident and relevant, then let that court apply its own determination to sentencing, within statutory guidelines.

More broadly, I see this as part of the same very dubious trend that started a few decades earlier with the hysterical and draconian Rockefeller drug laws. In general, I strongly dislike restrictive sentencing guidelines. If legislators want to be justices, let them join the judicial branch. People often talk about 'legislating from the bench'. I would call this 'ruling from the floor'.

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Amen. I'm sure I'll be called a bad dyke for this, but I've always been skeptical of these laws. A crime is a crime is a crime, period, and the action is the crime, not the reason for doing it.

Do you believe that terrorism should be illegal on its own, or should statutes like the one I referenced above be abolished?

Theaetetus: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Amen. I'm sure I'll be called a bad dyke for this, but I've always been skeptical of these laws. A crime is a crime is a crime, period, and the action is the crime, not the reason for doing it.

Do you believe that terrorism should be illegal on its own, or should statutes like the one I referenced above be abolished?

Care to cite specifics, or run it by me in short form? I don't feel like reading the whole thread to find it. Thanks.

Off the cuff, I wouldn't consider 'terrorism' comparable to hate crimes, for a variety of reasons. There might be some parallel considerations, in terms of form and approach.

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Theaetetus: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Amen. I'm sure I'll be called a bad dyke for this, but I've always been skeptical of these laws. A crime is a crime is a crime, period, and the action is the crime, not the reason for doing it.

Do you believe that terrorism should be illegal on its own, or should statutes like the one I referenced above be abolished?

Care to cite specifics, or run it by me in short form? I don't feel like reading the whole thread to find it. Thanks.

"Currently, if someone threatens (or attempts) to asplode an airplane as part of their global jihad on America, in addition to be charged with attempted murder, they may also be charged with violations of 18 USC 2331 et seq., which include:
"... activities that-
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended-
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States." (this is domestic terrorism, btw... For international, they change C, but not B.)

In other words, in addition to being charged with attempted murder (18 USC 1113), they can also be charged with domestic (or international terrorism) under 18 USC 2331-2332.

Do you believe that this is unfair and we should repeal the anti-terrorism statutes?"

Off the cuff, I wouldn't consider 'terrorism' comparable to hate crimes, for a variety of reasons. There might be some parallel considerations, in terms of form and approach.

Actually, given a broad enough reading of "civilian population" to include "minority group", they're almost identical.

Gyrfalcon: It eventually becomes either a he-said/he-said situation

Wouldn't that apply to every single alleged crime?

RexTalionis: Gyrfalcon: Better idea: Drop the "hate crime" thingy, and just charge people with whatever crime they commit. Why is it any MORE of a crime because two thugs beat up a black man, as opposed to two thugs beating up a black man "because" he is black? Either way, they committed a felony, so throw their sorry asses in jail. Don't give them some kind of reverse badge of honor to strut behind when they get there.

The same reason why we have punitive damages and double/treble damages on the civil side. The whole point is to make a case of it so that it shows to the other people that "This is bad - as policy, we aren't going to stand for this kind of behavior, so we will punish you fittingly if you do engage in this activity."

and that's exactly why it is ridiculous.
breaking someone's nose isn't any less offensive to society when someone does it because someone thought someone snatched a sideways glance at their girlfriend than if they did because the victim was albanian.
murdering someone isn't less offensive when someone's daughter is killed because she was a the wrong place at the wrong time than if she was of your chosen protected ethnicity.
in your desire to show your empathy for disadvantaged groups you've gone off the rails and are now advocating different levels of punishment for the exact same crime.
and we all know the real tragedy will occur when your fellow progressives will use this opportunity to protect some groups more than others, because real progressives believe that certain groups deserve more protection, those that are truly disadvantaged in their eyes. this just opens the door to yet more arbitrary justice.

in your desire to show your empathy for disadvantaged groups you've gone off the rails and are now advocating different levels of punishment for the exact same crime.

In the real world, motive matters. Killing someone in the commission of an armed robbery (for a real travesty of justice, you don't even have to be the guy who pulled the trigger - if someone is killed, the getaway driver also gets charged with murder) is punished more severely that dropping your pistol at a range, and killing someone. Why? In both cases an innocent person is dead? Same crime, right?

My sister is a lesbian and I was hanging out with her and her girlfriend/whatever. Somehow the topic came up about gay guys and rednecks have nothing on her hate for a homo male. She went off for a good hour about how they were scum and should be rounded up and shot etc... I thought she was going to get violent but she didn't. I "thought" that they (homosexuals) would understand each other or something but dayum. I'm not gay btw but I do talk like one for teh funnies sometimes though i still can't figure out how the hell they do the "s" sound.

relcec: and that's exactly why it is ridiculous.
breaking someone's nose isn't any less offensive to society when someone does it because someone thought someone snatched a sideways glance at their girlfriend than if they did because the victim was albanian.
murdering someone isn't less offensive when someone's daughter is killed because she was a the wrong place at the wrong time than if she was of your chosen protected ethnicity.
in your desire to show your empathy for disadvantaged groups you've gone off the rails and are now advocating different levels of punishment for the exact same crime.

... so, why exactly did we go to war with Iraq and Afghanistan, if 9/11 was no more offensive than a bunch of individual murders?

Gyrfalcon: RexTalionis: Gyrfalcon: Better idea: Drop the "hate crime" thingy, and just charge people with whatever crime they commit. Why is it any MORE of a crime because two thugs beat up a black man, as opposed to two thugs beating up a black man "because" he is black? Either way, they committed a felony, so throw their sorry asses in jail. Don't give them some kind of reverse badge of honor to strut behind when they get there.

The same reason why we have punitive damages and double/treble damages on the civil side. The whole point is to make a case of it so that it shows to the other people that "This is bad - as policy, we aren't going to stand for this kind of behavior, so we will punish you fittingly if you do engage in this activity."

Civilly, yes. Criminally, I'm not so sure. The problem is, how do you define it? if my hypothetical two thugs beat up the black man, and don't use any racist epithets during the attack, was it a hate crime? What if they bragged to their thug friends beforehand? What if they didn't? What if they were known Klansmen...but on THIS occasion they beat up the guy because he owed one of them money and not primarily because of his race? What if two black thugs beat up a white guy? What if the white guy happens to be a Klansman? Who owed one of them money?

The problem as I see it is, absent an obvious motive--like a cross-burning or lynching--how can any one-on-one crime be proven to be a "hate" crime? It eventually becomes either a he-said/he-said situation, or a situation where any mixed-race violence is de facto a "hate crime" unless proven otherwise. Which is why I think the "hate" aspect needs to be taken out of it. When you have a situation (as they did in Santa Monica a while back) where two kids having a fight over a girl becomes a "hate crime" because one called the other the n-word during the scuffle, then it's time to rethink the definition.

Thank you for laying this out the practical aspects so clearly. I had addressed it as a problem of theory, of basic criminal equality, but you've done an excellent job of explaining the great difficultly at the other end of the law, where the rubber meets the road. In my mind, the very notion that someone could get a different sentence for the same direct action, based on what a court *believes* was their motive, seems unlikely to be constitutional.

RexTalionis: Gyrfalcon: The problem is, how do you define it?

Simple. By giving the finders of fact all the evidence and letting them figure out whether it is or it isn't.

Let's try a parallel hypothetical, then: How would you propose that we determine if someone is trolling or not? I think that follows a similar enough theory of intent to help us get a handle on how hate crime enforcement should work.

Also relcec; if you were to unknowingly walk into the wrong bar, and find that you were in a bar where your race (I'm going to assume that you're white) was very unwelcome, and you received a severe beating for the offense of being white, you wouldn't want the perpetrators charged with a hate crime? You do realize that under the right circumstances, you are also a member of a "protected" class?

Repo Man: In the real world, motive matters.

No argument here, but let courts handle this on their own. Hate crimes are an attempt by the legislature to invade the judiciary's purview over such matters.

Theaetetus: ... so, why exactly did we go to war with Iraq and Afghanistan, if 9/11 was no more offensive than a bunch of individual murders?

Your question is a bit of an overreach, in that terrorism is categorically different from individual murder, as it has a different intent and motive, and different societal effects. The former is, after all, as I said above, a federal matter, while the latter a state matter. That alone draws some important differences.

So I don't agree with the premise for your question, but I do feel that these wars have yet to be defended with adequate rational explanations.

Repo Man: Also relcec; if you were to unknowingly walk into the wrong bar, and find that you were in a bar where your race (I'm going to assume that you're white) was very unwelcome, and you received a severe beating for the offense of being white, you wouldn't want the perpetrators charged with a hate crime? You do realize that under the right circumstances, you are also a member of a "protected" class?

Self-interest should never justify any structural legal change that creates any unequal treatment. The law is for everyone, and must treat everyone equally.

Theaetetus: Just checking in. I had a banquet for one of the kids, and I have papers to write, so I doubt we can continue in this thread. I appreciate your tone throughout and look forward to seeing you elsewhere. Goodluck, and Godspeed!

I love you man. You frickin' Yankee :)

RexTalionis: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Let's try a parallel hypothetical, then: How would you propose that we determine if someone is trolling or not? I think that follows a similar enough theory of intent to help us get a handle on how hate crime enforcement should work.

Actually, let me propose to go one step further. How do you determine whether someone is angry at you? Or desirous of harm upon you? Or friendly? Or condescending?

We humans are not mind readers. However, we can, generally, make determinations of motivations based on the totality of evidence that we can observe or see (well, for most people, anyway).

The question before us is: Assuming that's true -- and I do believe it is, *sometimes* -- should specific action based thereon be chiefly a purview of jurisprudence, on a case-by-case basis during the sentencing face of existing criminal acts otherwise actionable apart from motive, or of legislatures, through narrowly crafted criminal codes specifically and exclusively addressing motive? More to the point, should the motive for a crime, *if* ascertainable, constitute a *separate* charge -- separately actionable and separately sentenced? Because that's what hate crime laws are: separately defined crimes, based *entirely* on ascertaining the motive of another crime.

I strongly support the reporting and recording of so-called hate crimes, but I maintain that describing specific and separate criminal acts, under the same or similar description, at best strains constitutional concepts of equal protection, and at worst offends them.

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Your question is a bit of an overreach, in that terrorism is categorically different from individual murder, as it has a different intent and motive, and different societal effects.

Yes, that's my point. Similarly, hate crimes (or rather, "assault with intent to intimidate" or "murder with intent to intimidate" or "arson with intent to intimidate") are also categorically different from said crimes without the additional motive, and have different societal effects. I burn down your house, that's one thing. I burn down your house, while planting a burning cross on your lawn and an "attractive and successful people go home" sign, that's another. And that's what hate crime legislation realizes.

The former is, after all, as I said above, a federal matter, while the latter a state matter. That alone draws some important differences.

Actually, that's not one of the differences. State and federal criminal statutes are different in jurisdiction (namely, whether the action occurred across state lines or outside of the country), but they aren't different in scope.

So I don't agree with the premise for your question, but I do feel that these wars have yet to be defended with adequate rational explanations.

Well, that, we can agree on. My sole point in bringing them up was that, other than size, terrorism and hate crimes are really two sides of the same coin. Both are not merely about the individual victim, but rather are an attempt to efficiently intimidate an entire population of people similar to the victim. "Don't be around here while being X" is the message in both crimes.

KyDave: Theaetetus: Just checking in. I had a banquet for one of the kids, and I have papers to write, so I doubt we can continue in this thread. I appreciate your tone throughout and look forward to seeing you elsewhere. Goodluck, and Godspeed!

I love you man. You frickin' Yankee :)

Happy to be of service. You can be entirely wrong about everything from the color of the sky to the flavor of bacon, but I'm not going to call you names if you don't explicitly deserve it, you inbred hick. :)

Threadjack: Hey, Rex, did you mention elsewhere you're in Boston, or was it New Yawk or D.C.? If the former, we should get together for a drink and talk law at each other. EIP.

UnspokenVoice: Repo Man: UnspokenVoice: My humble opinion...

The hate crime laws WOULD be fine if they included something along the line of, "with the intent of causing harm to a group of people." As it is I can only think of a couple of articles that I've read where hate crime sentencing would be justified.

Let's just be honest and say that it is currently used to scare people into plea agreements or to punish people more because certain groups of people are considered a protected class - something that is inherently wrong. I haven't a problem with punishing people based on the motive but beating someone up because they're gay AND bothering you doesn't mean you were trying to stop other people from being gay nor does it mean your intentions were to terrorize the group as a whole.

Current uses of the law, this case for example, are lacking that. That is, of course, unless there is more information that is not in this article which could easily be the case.

Being straight is also a protected class. As in, if a group of gay men decided to beat up a straight man just for being straight.

I don't know of any case law supporting that statement. I would be kind of curious about it though it doesn't negate my point at all. Do you have any cases to support your claim? I know that, in theory, you could be correct much as saying elves could be a protected class.

I did some looking, but I'm not too surprised that I wasn't able to find a case where gay men straight bashed a guy. It wouldn't surprise me at all if it has happened, but cases of straight or conflicted men bashing gays will obviously numerically dwarf any outlying incidents of this nature. Eraser8 gave an example of a case of a white boy beaten by a group of black boys that was prosecuted as a hate crime up thread. That seems like a sufficient example to me.

Sum Dum Gai: 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.

That's idiotic. But then, so is the"hate crime" concept. It's so nice to know that equal protection under the law is more equal for some than for others.

RexTalionis: Theaetetus: Threadjack: Hey, Rex, did you mention elsewhere you're in Boston, or was it New Yawk or D.C.? If the former, we should get together for a drink and talk law at each other. EIP.

Sorry, man, I'm much closer to New York than I am to Boston. Boston's something like 4 hours away.

New Jersey's not a real state. Even your Governor admits that.

RexTalionis: If you have a problem with legislatures mucking about in criminal codes, then you don't just have a problem with the "hate crime statutes" but also essentially the totality of modern criminal law.

You're missing my point, which is that motive is quite apart from action. You previously argued that motive is ascertainable, in context of supporting specific legislation relating thereto. We do not agree on this point. I feel very strongly that it is only within the scope of a given and specific case that motive may be ascertainable, if at all, and that it is only appropriate for that court, within its own discretion, to make such determination for that specific case. I do not feel that legislatures, remote from such proceedings, are in any position to suggest what kinds of determinations should be made based on crudely broad descriptions, never mind what sort of separate sentencing guidelines may be appropriate based on such determinations. That's actually a pretty narrow consideration and argument, in view of the entirely of the law in whole. So for you to suggest that that somehow translates to my rejecting the proper legislative role in jurisprudence as a whole is simply absurd. Not the least also because, if I really did feel that way, it would be equally absurd for me to argue the point of *any* law. I appreciate that you're trying to make a point here, but it doesn't appear to be based on what I actually said and what I actually meant. It seems more likely that you skimmed my reply, from a view that I already disagreed with you broadly, which I do not, and formulated an interpretation from that. Unfortunately, that approach now wastes both our time, because I can't simply walk away without appearing to disrespect you, which I don't intend.

In respect to terrorists attacks responce to an attack on the nation is solely the purview of the federal government. Surely you know this. It's not merely a matter of scale. You should know this also.

Finally, your argument that terrorism and hate crimes are more or less conflatable is an untenable view, because it presumes motive as the main defining characteristic. This is only a valid theory of hate crimes, however, and that only because the very concept of hate crimes is wholly dependent on that theory. In point of fact, however, terrorism occurs for as many different reasons as there are terrorists. We know this because they freely tell us as much. And a great many times, it is not primarily based on nor defined, by either party, as class-based, but just as often, if not more so, on specific complaints or goals. None less than Osama bin Laden clarified that the 9/11 attacks were mainly about the presence of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia. It was not, by similar definition, a 'hate crime' against the U.S. as a whole, nor Americans generally. Though he has said such things, it's not defensible to argue from that that terrorism is necessarily a hate crime. So please just drop that, or come up with a more plausible analogy.

You seem determined to prove to me that I must be wrong, but I really have given this many years of thought, and discussed it often with various legal experts. You're very unlikely to persuade me here and now in this venue.

I'm very sorry, but it's late now and I need to be up earlier. This is interesting, but I just don't have time for it at the moment. Tomorrow, perhaps.

Magorn: Oh_Enough_Already: White guys so much as steps on the shoe of a black person on a crowded subway car = "hate crime."

Pack of feral blacks randomly assault, murder, rob and rape people expressly and exclusively because they're white (AKA every day in America) = "nothing to see here, move along."

Gotta love tolerance, huh?

and I'm sure you can cite a single time, other than in your own imagination, inwhich the law has ever been applied that way

Of course it never happens that way, you nitwit, but when blacks are able to - and do - successfully blame "racism" for every single thing that goes wrong in their life while, at the same time, killing, murdering, and maiming whites expressly because they are white in the commission of bonafide "hate crimes" without ever being charged for said, it belies the BS nature of these things if they only ever get charged in one direction.

Theaetetus: KyDave: Theaetetus: Just checking in. I had a banquet for one of the kids, and I have papers to write, so I doubt we can continue in this thread. I appreciate your tone throughout and look forward to seeing you elsewhere. Goodluck, and Godspeed!

I love you man. You frickin' Yankee :)

Happy to be of service. You can be entirely wrong about everything from the color of the sky to the flavor of bacon, but I'm not going to call you names if you don't explicitly deserve it, you inbred hick. :)

Done with papers for tonight; off to bed.

WTH you know about the flavor of bacon? You taunting me, now?? That's not kosher err.. cool

I know this fat farking dike who looks like fabio who just hates all men in general.

RexTalionis: don't you see?

We don't seem to be communicating here. Yours seems to me a pedantic argument based on semantics. I don't find that a constructive basis for a rational discussion likely to succeed in mutual understanding.

I suggest you go back and study the Rockefeller drug laws to get a idea of what my concerns are.