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

(The Advocate)   Everything you know about the Matthew Shepard murder is PC story embellishment, if not straight-up nonsense - so says a) Pat Robertson, b) Fred Phelps, or c) The Advocate?   (advocate.com) divider line 214
    More: Interesting, Matthew Shepard, Mckinney, LGBT rights organizations, murders, Hate Crimes Prevention Act  
•       •       •

2608 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Sep 2013 at 10:33 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



214 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-16 10:13:39 AM  
Actually if you had been paying attention, the meth rumours had been around since the beginning.

Gay men and Tina. A deadly combination.
 
2013-09-16 10:31:14 AM  

vernonFL: Actually if you had been paying attention, the meth rumours had been around since the beginning.


I remember hearing that it wasn't really a hate crime, but motivated by drugs, on the intarwebs right after it happened.  Those voices were drowned out in the rush to martyrdom.
 
2013-09-16 10:35:16 AM  
It's farking sad that this is on the politics tab.
 
2013-09-16 10:35:35 AM  

dittybopper: vernonFL: Actually if you had been paying attention, the meth rumours had been around since the beginning.

I remember hearing that it wasn't really a hate crime, but motivated by drugs, on the intarwebs right after it happened.  Those voices were drowned out in the rush to martyrdom.


Yes, because those voices were pieces of human trash who were looking for anything to make the fact that they were horrible bigots not be quite so broadly exposed.
 
2013-09-16 10:39:20 AM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Yes, because those voices were pieces of human trash who were looking for anything to make the fact that they were horrible bigots not be quite so broadly exposed.


If this article is right, doesn't it chap your ass that they were correct?
 
2013-09-16 10:44:33 AM  
 In the process, he amassed enough anecdotal evidence

lol
 
2013-09-16 10:44:53 AM  
Whether it was a hate crime, a drug crime, or a combination of the two, it's hard to shake the suspicion that self-hate and a misguided culture of masculinity, which taught McKinney to abhor in himself what Shepard had learned to embrace, was as complicit as anything else in the murder of Matthew Shepard.

That would still mean he was killed because he was gay. It hardly matters that the murderer might have been closeted.
 
2013-09-16 10:45:52 AM  

lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: Yes, because those voices were pieces of human trash who were looking for anything to make the fact that they were horrible bigots not be quite so broadly exposed.

If this article is right, doesn't it chap your ass that they were correct?


It does make me curious as to why the guys who are in prison for the murder are lying, as "it was a sex/drug binge spiraled out of control" is a hell of a lot better defense than "it was a hate crime".

But that's just me.
 
2013-09-16 10:46:06 AM  

lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: Yes, because those voices were pieces of human trash who were looking for anything to make the fact that they were horrible bigots not be quite so broadly exposed.

If this article is right, doesn't it chap your ass that they were correct?


After reading the article it looks like the book is based on the same nonsense that worthless wastes of flesh were trotting out at the time. So it looks like it's someone trying to sell a book.
 
2013-09-16 10:47:21 AM  
I guess being beaten and left to slowly die alone is OK if meth was involved.
 
2013-09-16 10:47:28 AM  
I had to sit through a performance of "The Laramie Project: Ten Years Later" for a class, and it was insufferable. The whole play consisted of the worst stereotype of holier-than-thou out-of-town liberal college students acting all shocked and pearl-clutchy that locals weren't all onboard with the federal "Hate Crimes Prevention Act" they were pushing.
 
2013-09-16 10:52:22 AM  

Cheron: I guess being beaten and left to slowly die alone is OK if meth was involved.



Well, shooting a kid who once smoked pot has been ruled legal.
 
2013-09-16 10:52:43 AM  

A Dark Evil Omen: After reading the article it looks like the book is based on the same nonsense that worthless wastes of flesh were trotting out at the time. So it looks like it's someone trying to sell a book.


And you think the rights-holders to the Laramie Project don't get royalties every time some high school wants to do a production to show how thoughtful and compassionate they are and pay no mind to those 17-year-olds in their caps and gowns who can't tell their 'their' from their 'there' from their 'they're'?
 
2013-09-16 10:53:01 AM  

A Dark Evil Omen: lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: Yes, because those voices were pieces of human trash who were looking for anything to make the fact that they were horrible bigots not be quite so broadly exposed.

If this article is right, doesn't it chap your ass that they were correct?

After reading the article it looks like the book is based on the same nonsense that worthless wastes of flesh were trotting out at the time. So it looks like it's someone trying to sell a book.


Certainly it is exploitive, but again, wouldn't it just really chap your ass if the farktard bigots were right?
 
2013-09-16 10:55:29 AM  
Damn, Wyoming sounds farked up.
 
2013-09-16 10:56:08 AM  
 In the process, he amassed enough anecdotal evidence to build a persuasive case that Shepard's sexuality was, if not incidental, certainly less central than popular consensus has lead us to believe.

Not just an oxymoron, but the only thing worse than "anecdotal evidence" are anecdotes told 15 years after the fact.

If he was a drug dealer, there should be hard evidence to support that, like phone records (though obviously I don't expect the family to turn those records over).
 
2013-09-16 10:57:56 AM  

lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: Yes, because those voices were pieces of human trash who were looking for anything to make the fact that they were horrible bigots not be quite so broadly exposed.

If this article is right, doesn't it chap your ass that they were correct?

After reading the article it looks like the book is based on the same nonsense that worthless wastes of flesh were trotting out at the time. So it looks like it's someone trying to sell a book.

Certainly it is exploitive, but again, wouldn't it just really chap your ass if the farktard bigots were right?


And there's the problem  -- it doesn't matter if they actually are right, it only matters if them being right would piss off the libtards.
 
2013-09-16 10:58:50 AM  

lockers: Certainly it is exploitive, but again, wouldn't it just really chap your ass if the farktard bigots were right?


Right about what? That maybe in this particular case they didn't kill him because he was gay? I don't understand what you're driving at.
 
2013-09-16 10:58:54 AM  
I hate that kid died. I hate it when anyone is murdered, but I am disturbed by the ideas of hate crimes. People have the right to think whatever bigoted stupid thing they want to think. We should prosecute the crime not the thought behind the crime.
 
2013-09-16 11:00:07 AM  

A Dark Evil Omen: dittybopper: vernonFL: Actually if you had been paying attention, the meth rumours had been around since the beginning.

I remember hearing that it wasn't really a hate crime, but motivated by drugs, on the intarwebs right after it happened.  Those voices were drowned out in the rush to martyrdom.

Yes, because those voices were pieces of human trash who were looking for anything to make the fact that they were horrible bigots not be quite so broadly exposed.


First, I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say here because it's hard to parse the sentence.  Take a deep breath, let it out, and compose something that makes it clear who you mean.

Secondly, lying about something when you know it's not true, but you do it anyway for some kind of political gain, is still lying.  I don't care if it's in the service of what you believe to be the "right way", it's still lying.  It's still wrong.

From a political standpoint, it can even hurt you when it comes out that you were lying, and it almost always does, eventually.
 
2013-09-16 11:00:42 AM  

comhcinc: I hate that kid died. I hate it when anyone is murdered, but I am disturbed by the ideas of hate crimes. People have the right to think whatever bigoted stupid thing they want to think. We should prosecute the crime not the thought behind the crime.


We already do prosecute based on the thought.  If we didn't there would be no distinction between manslaughter and murder 1.
 
2013-09-16 11:02:31 AM  

dittybopper: vernonFL: Actually if you had been paying attention, the meth rumours had been around since the beginning.

I remember hearing that it wasn't really a hate crime, but motivated by drugs, on the intarwebs right after it happened.  Those voices were drowned out in the rush to martyrdom.


Isn't the CW that all crime is "hate" crime?

But I agree - the motivation for beating a 17-year-old bloody and leaving him tied to a fence to die of his wounds/exposure makes ALL the difference.
 
2013-09-16 11:03:39 AM  

HeartBurnKid: lockers:
Certainly it is exploitive, but again, wouldn't it just really chap your ass if the farktard bigots were right?

And there's the problem  -- it doesn't matter if they actually are right, it only matters if them being right would piss off the libtards.


I am probably to the left of you, but the original post I responded to was the definition of an axe to grind. Mathew Sheppard was a travesty regardless if this exploitative book is right or not. Even if it was true, it wouldn't for one second diminish the light shone upon the very real bigotry afflicting the LGBT community. There are plenty of examples and not enough action surrounding it.
 
2013-09-16 11:04:06 AM  
OK, maybe I don't get it, but this article doesn't really seem to prove that "everything we thought we knew is wrong". It just presents a different side, and shows that maybe the killer was gay himself. That doesn't mean that he didn't kill Sheppard out of his own self loathing for what he perceived as "wrong" behavior. Also, just because meth may have been involved, it also doesn't mean that the drugs weren't just the device that finally made him act.

In other words, I see nothing here that convinces me that Sheppard still wasn't killed because of his homosexuality. Drugs being a part of the equation doesn't change that. Somebody's getting paid money to tell you they're here to "set things straight", and then not doing any of that. I just can't figure out if it's the author of TFA, or the author of TFB.
 
2013-09-16 11:05:25 AM  

Cheron: I guess being beaten and left to slowly die alone is OK if meth was involved.


Being beaten and slowly left to die isn't normal.
i2.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-09-16 11:05:28 AM  

FarkedOver: comhcinc: I hate that kid died. I hate it when anyone is murdered, but I am disturbed by the ideas of hate crimes. People have the right to think whatever bigoted stupid thing they want to think. We should prosecute the crime not the thought behind the crime.

We already do prosecute based on the thought.  If we didn't there would be no distinction between manslaughter and murder 1.


He's saying that he doesn't think there should be any concept of a hate crime.

Murdering someone because they are gay or white or Muslim shouldn't be any different than murdering them because you want their wallet.
 
2013-09-16 11:06:59 AM  

FarkedOver: lockers: Certainly it is exploitive, but again, wouldn't it just really chap your ass if the farktard bigots were right?

Right about what? That maybe in this particular case they didn't kill him because he was gay? I don't understand what you're driving at.


I am driving at that he instantly, without even bothering to read the article, tried to discredit the author by comparing him to the knuckle dragging apologists that forwarded a similar theory without research. That is axe grinding if I have ever seen it.
 
2013-09-16 11:07:47 AM  

comhcinc: I hate that kid died. I hate it when anyone is murdered, but I am disturbed by the ideas of hate crimes. People have the right to think whatever bigoted stupid thing they want to think. We should prosecute the crime not the thought behind the crime.


I take it you're against the difference between homicide and first-degree murder as well, then?
 
2013-09-16 11:08:17 AM  
The defendant initially tried to use the Gay Panic defense; they were driven to the point of temporary insanity at the idea that Shepherd might be hitting on them and had to kill him. That's not a hate crime?
 
2013-09-16 11:08:32 AM  

lockers: I am probably to the left of you, but the original post I responded to was the definition of an axe to grind. Mathew Sheppard was a travesty regardless if this exploitative book is right or not. Even if it was true, it wouldn't for one second diminish the light shone upon the very real bigotry afflicting the LGBT community. There are plenty of examples and not enough action surrounding it.


So should we have waited around for the black woman who wasn't a pregnant, unmarried teenager before we started our bus boycott?
 
2013-09-16 11:08:39 AM  

comhcinc: I hate that kid died. I hate it when anyone is murdered, but I am disturbed by the ideas of hate crimes. People have the right to think whatever bigoted stupid thing they want to think. We should prosecute the crime not the thought behind the crime.


It's when they ACT on it that it becomes a crime. They can think whatever they want, otherwise, people like Fred Phelps would have been locked up years ago. You're thinking of Germany, where it's actually illegal to just be racist. Here in the US, being a bigot is still perfectly legal.

 The idea behind 'hate crimes' laws are to prevent crimes from being focused on specific groups based on nothing more than them belonging to the groups they are a part of. The idea is that if someone is beating up Jews, for example, you have thousands of targets in a city that single people or large groups may hunt down and commit crimes against, and they could be victimized as a group. It's a rather subjective thing sometimes, but I can see why they started these laws, they needed something, they just aren't all well written.
 
2013-09-16 11:10:30 AM  

thornhill:  In the process, he amassed enough anecdotal evidence to build a persuasive case that Shepard's sexuality was, if not incidental, certainly less central than popular consensus has lead us to believe.

Not just an oxymoron, but the only thing worse than "anecdotal evidence" are anecdotes told 15 years after the fact.

If he was a drug dealer, there should be hard evidence to support that, like phone records (though obviously I don't expect the family to turn those records over).


Well the phone records are unlikely to still be around 15+ years later.

Meth is a huge problem in the gay community and it would not be the first time a person connected to meth has met a terrible end.

Not saying I agree or disagree with the article but it is plausible. Not that it makes what they did right, either.
 
2013-09-16 11:11:35 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: FarkedOver: comhcinc: I hate that kid died. I hate it when anyone is murdered, but I am disturbed by the ideas of hate crimes. People have the right to think whatever bigoted stupid thing they want to think. We should prosecute the crime not the thought behind the crime.

We already do prosecute based on the thought.  If we didn't there would be no distinction between manslaughter and murder 1.

He's saying that he doesn't think there should be any concept of a hate crime.

Murdering someone because they are gay or white or Muslim shouldn't be any different than murdering them because you want their wallet.


Citing Chief Justice Rhenquist, from Wisconsin v. Mitchell: "[Hate crimes are] thought to inflict greater individual and societal harm.... bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest."
 
2013-09-16 11:11:50 AM  

FarkedOver: comhcinc: I hate that kid died. I hate it when anyone is murdered, but I am disturbed by the ideas of hate crimes. People have the right to think whatever bigoted stupid thing they want to think. We should prosecute the crime not the thought behind the crime.

We already do prosecute based on the thought.  If we didn't there would be no distinction between manslaughter and murder 1.


It's not "thought", it's your actions to put your plan of murder into reality. You can still plan a murder, and you won't get arrested if nobody ever kills the person.
 
2013-09-16 11:12:41 AM  

Mikey1969: FarkedOver: comhcinc: I hate that kid died. I hate it when anyone is murdered, but I am disturbed by the ideas of hate crimes. People have the right to think whatever bigoted stupid thing they want to think. We should prosecute the crime not the thought behind the crime.

We already do prosecute based on the thought.  If we didn't there would be no distinction between manslaughter and murder 1.

It's not "thought", it's your actions to put your plan of murder into reality. You can still plan a murder, and you won't get arrested if nobody ever kills the person.


Likewise with hate crimes.  You can hate gay people all you want, but if you put your hatred into action, that's a crime.
 
2013-09-16 11:13:45 AM  

Mikey1969: It's not "thought", it's your actions to put your plan of murder into reality. You can still plan a murder, and you won't get arrested if nobody ever kills the person.


What the fark does that have to do with what I said?
 
2013-09-16 11:14:08 AM  

FarkedOver: It's farking sad that this is on the politics tab.


This.
 
2013-09-16 11:15:18 AM  

Dwight_Yeast: So should we have waited around for the black woman who wasn't a pregnant, unmarried teenager before we started our bus boycott?


Are you high? Look, despite whether the allegations are true or not, the response was positive. It doesn't matter if it was warranted or not. In the same way WW1 wasn't really about an archduke, the cause for ending LGBT bigotry is not about Matthew Shepard. What I am saying is you have an agenda and you are reactionary because of it.
 
2013-09-16 11:16:46 AM  

Dwight_Yeast: lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: Yes, because those voices were pieces of human trash who were looking for anything to make the fact that they were horrible bigots not be quite so broadly exposed.

If this article is right, doesn't it chap your ass that they were correct?

It does make me curious as to why the guys who are in prison for the murder are lying, as "it was a sex/drug binge spiraled out of control" is a hell of a lot better defense than "it was a hate crime".

But that's just me.


The former defense would have involved admitting to voluntarily doing gay stuff. In 1998, the "gay panic" defense was considered a halfway plausible explanation for attacking someone. If there's any truth to this article, there was a whole lot of self-loathing going on.
 
2013-09-16 11:16:53 AM  

Dr Dreidel: dittybopper: vernonFL: Actually if you had been paying attention, the meth rumours had been around since the beginning.

I remember hearing that it wasn't really a hate crime, but motivated by drugs, on the intarwebs right after it happened.  Those voices were drowned out in the rush to martyrdom.

Isn't the CW that all crime is "hate" crime?


No.   CW is the most perfect form of communication to ever grace the aether with the imprint of its signal.

But I agree - the motivation for beating a 17-year-old bloody and leaving him tied to a fence to die of his wounds/exposure makes ALL the difference.

It does, but only if you are trying to make political hay out of the murder.

If these guys actually killed Mr. Shepard largely because of drug use, and not because he was gay, than Shepard's status as a martyr is diminished because he wasn't killed for that reason.   That doesn't make his killing any less bad.

I mean, if a Christian in Ancient Rome were thrown to the lions not because of his religion, but in reality because he threatened a Roman Senator (who was a closet Christian), then they could hardly be considered a martyr for Christ, could they?  I'm sure that sort of thing actually happened, and more than once, it's just that we can't really go back in time and call "bullshiat!" on them.

Personally, I would rather the objective truth be known, then to try and hide it away and hope that no one finds out the whole reason legislation got passed was based on a lie.  After all, it's not like the law is going to be repealed.
 
2013-09-16 11:20:15 AM  

someonelse: Dwight_Yeast: lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: Yes, because those voices were pieces of human trash who were looking for anything to make the fact that they were horrible bigots not be quite so broadly exposed.

If this article is right, doesn't it chap your ass that they were correct?

It does make me curious as to why the guys who are in prison for the murder are lying, as "it was a sex/drug binge spiraled out of control" is a hell of a lot better defense than "it was a hate crime".

But that's just me.

The former defense would have involved admitting to voluntarily doing gay stuff. In 1998, the "gay panic" defense was considered a halfway plausible explanation for attacking someone. If there's any truth to this article, there was a whole lot of self-loathing going on.


Yeah, if the killer identified himself as a "straight hustler" who turned tricks for drugs, there's probably a pretty deep well of homophobic self-loathing to draw from.
 
2013-09-16 11:21:37 AM  
So Mathew Shepherd was a druggie so it's okay to kill him for being a gay man?

I thought the reason so many people thought it was a hate crime was because the two men who committed the murder when asked why told everyone they did it because he was gay. I would think they would know best why they killed him.
 
2013-09-16 11:24:41 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Debeo Summa Credo: FarkedOver: comhcinc: I hate that kid died. I hate it when anyone is murdered, but I am disturbed by the ideas of hate crimes. People have the right to think whatever bigoted stupid thing they want to think. We should prosecute the crime not the thought behind the crime.

We already do prosecute based on the thought.  If we didn't there would be no distinction between manslaughter and murder 1.

He's saying that he doesn't think there should be any concept of a hate crime.

Murdering someone because they are gay or white or Muslim shouldn't be any different than murdering them because you want their wallet.

Citing Chief Justice Rhenquist, from Wisconsin v. Mitchell: "[Hate crimes are] thought to inflict greater individual and societal harm.... bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest."


And that's the whole point: people like Debeo want to be able to use crimes as a way of instilling fear in groups of people they don't like without any great legal repercussions.  They want to be able to say "[insert minority here] aren't really people, so it doesn't matter legally what sort of crimes we commit against them"
 
2013-09-16 11:25:16 AM  
This is why "hate crime" laws are dangerous: they presume a thorough understanding of a perpetrator's motives.
 
2013-09-16 11:27:16 AM  

Dwight_Yeast: They want to be able to say "[insert minority here] aren't really people, so it doesn't matter legally what sort of crimes we commit against them"


People say a lot of stupid, hateful things.  I'm just not comfortable with putting them in jail for it.
 
2013-09-16 11:27:19 AM  

FarkedOver: Mikey1969: It's not "thought", it's your actions to put your plan of murder into reality. You can still plan a murder, and you won't get arrested if nobody ever kills the person.

What the fark does that have to do with what I said?


Wow, now you need people to quote your own posts for you? Here you go: "We already do prosecute based on the thought.  If we didn't there would be no distinction between manslaughter and murder 1."I merely pointed out that you are NOT prosecuted based on the "thought", buit on acting on that thought to plan out your murder. There is a difference between thinking about how you would hurt someone and acting on impulses. There is also a difference between a death happening due to negligence and one that you planned.
 
2013-09-16 11:27:36 AM  

someonelse: The former defense would have involved admitting to voluntarily doing gay stuff. In 1998, the "gay panic" defense was considered a halfway plausible explanation for attacking someone. If there's any truth to this article, there was a whole lot of self-loathing going on.


They picked him up from a gay bar, IIRC, so either they were there with the intention of committing a hate crime or they were looking to get laid.  Personally, as one of those options would have probably led to an acquittal, I would have sucked it up and skipped the "gay panic" defense. Because the only rational reason to use it in that situation was because you were in that bar looking to commit a hate crime.
 
2013-09-16 11:30:06 AM  

GoldSpider: This is why "hate crime" laws are dangerous: they presume a thorough understanding of a perpetrator's motives.


Well, actually the perpetrator's OWN WORDS do that just fine...
At trial, McKinney offered various rationales to justify his actions. He originally pleaded the gay panic defense, arguing that he and Henderson were driven to temporary insanity by alleged sexual advances by Shepard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard#Arrests_and_trial
 
2013-09-16 11:30:37 AM  

Dwight_Yeast: Personally, as one of those options would have probably led to an acquittal, I would have sucked it up and skipped the "gay panic" defense.


Sad that an attorney considered that a better defense than "meth-fueled rage".
 
2013-09-16 11:31:32 AM  

Mikey1969: FarkedOver: Mikey1969: It's not "thought", it's your actions to put your plan of murder into reality. You can still plan a murder, and you won't get arrested if nobody ever kills the person.

What the fark does that have to do with what I said?

Wow, now you need people to quote your own posts for you? Here you go: "We already do prosecute based on the thought.  If we didn't there would be no distinction between manslaughter and murder 1."I merely pointed out that you are NOT prosecuted based on the "thought", buit on acting on that thought to plan out your murder. There is a difference between thinking about how you would hurt someone and acting on impulses. There is also a difference between a death happening due to negligence and one that you planned.


No you just explained yourself in a shiatty manner the first go 'round.
 
2013-09-16 11:31:40 AM  

Mikey1969: FarkedOver: comhcinc: I hate that kid died. I hate it when anyone is murdered, but I am disturbed by the ideas of hate crimes. People have the right to think whatever bigoted stupid thing they want to think. We should prosecute the crime not the thought behind the crime.

We already do prosecute based on the thought.  If we didn't there would be no distinction between manslaughter and murder 1.

It's not "thought", it's your actions to put your plan of murder into reality. You can still plan a murder, and you won't get arrested if nobody ever kills the person.


Tell that to this guy.Or Manson
 
2013-09-16 11:32:12 AM  

Mikey1969: He originally pleaded the gay panic defense, arguing that he and Henderson were driven to temporary insanity by alleged sexual advances by Shepard.


Which, according to the article, was not true.
 
2013-09-16 11:33:51 AM  

Mikey1969: I can see why they started these laws, they needed something, they just aren't all well written.


The laws against beating people up, regardless of the motivation*, weren't good enough?  The laws against murder, stalking, harassing, vandalism, and assault weren't good enough?

It seems to me that the motivation for a particular crime is largely irrelevant, and in fact hate crime legislation is verging uncomfortably close to thought crime.  It's just one small leap to go from "punishing someone extra for their thoughts" to "punishing someone for their thoughts".  And that's one solid, bright line you just don't *EVER* want to cross as a society.  But we're crowding up against it.

That doesn't excuse criminal acts, either.  Murder is murder. But we have to be extra vigilant so that we don't actually create a category of "thought crime" here.  Because we're close, and many of you would actually endorse such laws.

*Outside of something like self-defense
 
2013-09-16 11:33:57 AM  

GoldSpider: This is why "hate crime" laws are dangerous: they presume a thorough understanding of a perpetrator's motives.


All homicide sentencing presumes an understanding of the perpetrator's motives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_(United_States_law)#Degrees_of_ murder_in_the_United_States
 
2013-09-16 11:35:01 AM  

GoldSpider: Mikey1969: He originally pleaded the gay panic defense, arguing that he and Henderson were driven to temporary insanity by alleged sexual advances by Shepard.

Which, according to the article, was not true.


Who cares about evidence in the trial. It's the article that counts.
 
2013-09-16 11:37:24 AM  

lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: Yes, because those voices were pieces of human trash who were looking for anything to make the fact that they were horrible bigots not be quite so broadly exposed.

If this article is right, doesn't it chap your ass that they were correct?

After reading the article it looks like the book is based on the same nonsense that worthless wastes of flesh were trotting out at the time. So it looks like it's someone trying to sell a book.

Certainly it is exploitive, but again, wouldn't it just really chap your ass if the farktard bigots were right?


Well, unlike you I read the article so I knew that it was an actually an article about a book making some kind of tired allegations based on anecdotes. Beyond that, I'm not sure why you're so fascinated with whether it would "chap my ass" or not; the fact of the matter is, as has been stated ITT, the defendants were the ones who decided to make it about "gay panic" because they thought it was acceptable to murder gay people, and there are scum - some also ITT - who agree with them.

I guess my question to you is why you're so eager to see bigots "vindicated" based on bullshiat.
 
2013-09-16 11:42:12 AM  

vernonFL: Actually if you had been paying attention, the meth rumours had been around since the beginning.

Gay men and Tina. A deadly combination.


Really, anyone and Tina is a deadly combination:
www.neatorama.com
/hot
 
2013-09-16 11:42:26 AM  

dittybopper: That doesn't excuse criminal acts, either. Murder is murder. But we have to be extra vigilant so that we don't actually create a category of "thought crime" here. Because we're close, and many of you would actually endorse such laws.


Don't be hyperbolic. I have mixed feelings about hate crime laws, but they create nothing close to "thought crimes." They deal with actual actions and behavior. And nobody is endorsing the idea of making particular thoughts a crime. Nobody.
 
2013-09-16 11:42:31 AM  

Fart_Machine: Who cares about evidence in the trial. It's the article that counts.


Not a fan of the appeals process either, I suppose.

Hickory-smoked: All homicide sentencing presumes an understanding of the perpetrator's motives.


So you agree that an additional qualifier such as "hate crime" is redundant?
 
2013-09-16 11:44:03 AM  

dittybopper: Mikey1969: I can see why they started these laws, they needed something, they just aren't all well written.

The laws against beating people up, regardless of the motivation*, weren't good enough?  The laws against murder, stalking, harassing, vandalism, and assault weren't good enough?

It seems to me that the motivation for a particular crime is largely irrelevant, and in fact hate crime legislation is verging uncomfortably close to thought crime.  It's just one small leap to go from "punishing someone extra for their thoughts" to "punishing someone for their thoughts".  And that's one solid, bright line you just don't *EVER* want to cross as a society.  But we're crowding up against it.

That doesn't excuse criminal acts, either.  Murder is murder. But we have to be extra vigilant so that we don't actually create a category of "thought crime" here.  Because we're close, and many of you would actually endorse such laws.

*Outside of something like self-defense


I'm guessing that you think we should prosecute terrorism pretty much like we prosecute murder then.
 
2013-09-16 11:45:38 AM  

GoldSpider: Fart_Machine: Who cares about evidence in the trial. It's the article that counts.

Not a fan of the appeals process either, I suppose.

Hickory-smoked: All homicide sentencing presumes an understanding of the perpetrator's motives.

So you agree that an additional qualifier such as "hate crime" is redundant?


Because this article absolved them in the appeals process?
 
2013-09-16 11:46:55 AM  

GoldSpider: This is why "hate crime" laws are dangerous: they presume a thorough understanding of a perpetrator's motives.


Again, Homicide vs Manslaughter. The prosecution will charge you with the former if they have reason to believe that you had the intent to kill.
 
2013-09-16 11:49:09 AM  

dittybopper: Personally, I would rather the objective truth be known, then to try and hide it away and hope that no one finds out the whole reason legislation got passed was based on a lie. After all, it's not like the law is going to be repealed.


If they'd wanted a lighter sentence, they should have skipped "gay panic" as a defense - using it practically screams "WE COMMITTED A HATE CRIME!", whereas "Drug deal gone bad" would probably have gotten them a lighter sentence.

As far as "objectivity", the closest thing we have to it is the court transcripts and decisions, which point toward "hate crime", rather than "meth panic". And again, I'm guessing their lawyer wasn't marching them toward a bias crime conviction when a "regular" crime conviction would have meant a lighter sentence. Even risking a tougher sentence on the chance someone likes the "gay panic" defense isn't too smart. (And again-again, why is 15-year-old anecdotal evidence somehow stronger than actual court evidence? If there's new info or someone's story significantly changed, shouldn't someone apply for a retrial?)

// we do all know that "hate crime laws" only enhance a sentence, right?
// that they're not independent charges?
 
2013-09-16 11:49:37 AM  

A Dark Evil Omen: I guess my question to you is why you're so eager to see bigots "vindicated" based on bullshiat.


I am far more interested in why you jumped right in before bothering to read the article. You are willing to prejudge things in way that really isn't helpful. The allegations don't matter even if they were true. The fact remains, LGBT bigotry is a fact and is condemnable despite whether Matthew Shephard is an instance of it or not.
 
2013-09-16 11:49:40 AM  
FTA:  "There are valuable reasons for telling certain stories in a certain way at pivotal times, but that doesn't mean we have to hold on to them once they've outlived their usefulness. "


Scary stuff right there.
 
2013-09-16 11:49:57 AM  

dittybopper: It seems to me that the motivation for a particular crime is largely irrelevant



What's the difference between fraud and bad advice?
Motivation is EVERYWHERE in criminal law.

Fark, crime is pretty much defined by being the intersection of opportunity and MOTIVE.
 
2013-09-16 11:51:09 AM  

Cubicle Jockey: GoldSpider: This is why "hate crime" laws are dangerous: they presume a thorough understanding of a perpetrator's motives.

Again, Homicide vs Manslaughter. The prosecution will charge you with the former if they have reason to believe that you had the intent to kill.


Given that you have to prove intent in a court of law, there's no presumption, as the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

But I don't know why I'm responding to GoldSpider even indirectly, as I have him marked as "traumatic brain injury?" for a reason.
 
2013-09-16 11:52:25 AM  

Cubicle Jockey: Fark, crime is pretty much defined by being the occuring at intersection of opportunity and MOTIVE.


Adjsuted for clarity.
 
2013-09-16 11:54:14 AM  

Cubicle Jockey: dittybopper: It seems to me that the motivation for a particular crime is largely irrelevant


What's the difference between fraud and bad advice?
Motivation is EVERYWHERE in criminal law.

Fark, crime is pretty much defined by being the intersection of opportunity and MOTIVE.


Bingo,  otherwise you send men to prison for twenty years for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his starving family.

Yet, somehow, I don't think that would really bother those in this thread arguing against hate crimes laws.
 
2013-09-16 11:56:01 AM  

Fart_Machine: Because this article absolved them in the appeals process?


No but it's fairly common for further investigation of other crimes to turn up evidence that contradicts the established "facts" of the case.
 
2013-09-16 11:57:11 AM  

Dr Dreidel: (And again-again, why is 15-year-old anecdotal evidence somehow stronger than actual court evidence? If there's new info or someone's story significantly changed, shouldn't someone apply for a retrial?)


It isn't and changing ones own story shouldn't get you a new trial. If anything it should get you perjury charges.
 
2013-09-16 12:00:03 PM  
Uh oh did I open the can of worms?

i.imgur.com
 
2013-09-16 12:02:18 PM  

Cataholic: FTA:  "There are valuable reasons for telling certain stories in a certain way at pivotal times, but that doesn't mean we have to hold on to them once they've outlived their usefulness. "

Scary stuff right there.


Indeed, the ends justify the means.

Dwight_Yeast: Bingo, otherwise you send men to prison for twenty years for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his starving family.


I suppose that's a reasonable sentence if the thief hates the bread-owner's ethnic/sexual identity.
 
2013-09-16 12:03:16 PM  

lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: I guess my question to you is why you're so eager to see bigots "vindicated" based on bullshiat.

I am far more interested in why you jumped right in before bothering to read the article. You are willing to prejudge things in way that really isn't helpful. The allegations don't matter even if they were true. The fact remains, LGBT bigotry is a fact and is condemnable despite whether Matthew Shephard is an instance of it or not.


Uh, I didn't "jump right in before reading the article". I made one - wholly accurate - comment concerning the bigoted response the Matthew Shepard murder got while I was reading that was essentially orthogonal to what the article is talking about. Between the two of us, maybe you're the one who should slow his proverbial roll.
 
2013-09-16 12:09:00 PM  

GoldSpider: Fart_Machine: Because this article absolved them in the appeals process?

No but it's fairly common for further investigation of other crimes to turn up evidence that contradicts the established "facts" of the case.


Except these haven't been admitted as facts to the case. Their ancidotal stories for an author writing a book. Evidence in a legal appeal require a higher standard.
 
2013-09-16 12:09:21 PM  
I've got friends in Laramie.  The whole town knew it was drug related but the national media took off with it.  Shepard dealt drugs on occasion, pissed some people off and got a beating.  It wasn't intended to be a murder...  Such is life...  Certain people were looking for a martyr.

On a distantly related note, Rosa Parks wasn't the first girl to sit at the front of the bus.  The powers that be picked hers as the best media case to push their agenda.  Doesn't change what happened, but you are naive to think these events are spontaneous and free of a healthy amount of opportunism.
 
2013-09-16 12:09:37 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Uh, I didn't "jump right in before reading the article". I made one - wholly accurate - comment concerning the bigoted response the Matthew Shepard murder got while I was reading that was essentially orthogonal to what the article is talking about. Between the two of us, maybe you're the one who should slow his proverbial roll.


You wrung your hands and then later admitted to reading the article after. Having read it you dismissed it as someone trying to sell a book. You have an agenda. It's okay, it's a commendable one. You simply come across as someone with one.
 
2013-09-16 12:10:35 PM  

Mikey1969: FarkedOver: comhcinc: I hate that kid died. I hate it when anyone is murdered, but I am disturbed by the ideas of hate crimes. People have the right to think whatever bigoted stupid thing they want to think. We should prosecute the crime not the thought behind the crime.

We already do prosecute based on the thought.  If we didn't there would be no distinction between manslaughter and murder 1.

It's not "thought", it's your actions to put your plan of murder into reality. You can still plan a murder, and you won't get arrested if nobody ever kills the person.


I know little (okay nothing) about how law actually works, but wouldn't that be conspiracy to commit murder?
 
2013-09-16 12:13:31 PM  

lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: Uh, I didn't "jump right in before reading the article". I made one - wholly accurate - comment concerning the bigoted response the Matthew Shepard murder got while I was reading that was essentially orthogonal to what the article is talking about. Between the two of us, maybe you're the one who should slow his proverbial roll.

You wrung your hands and then later admitted to reading the article after. Having read it you dismissed it as someone trying to sell a book. You have an agenda. It's okay, it's a commendable one. You simply come across as someone with one.


Of course I have an agenda, and I damned well admit it. Civil and human rights are a good thing. It doesn't change the fact that:

a) The response to the Matthew Shepard murder was for bigots and homophobes to turn it into a blame-the-victim situation almost instantly,
b) The killers themselves were the ones to torpedo that, and,
c) This book is not bringing anything new to the table that hasn't already been trotted out and is ultimately and wholly irrelevant to the whole situation.
 
2013-09-16 12:17:16 PM  

someonelse: dittybopper: That doesn't excuse criminal acts, either. Murder is murder. But we have to be extra vigilant so that we don't actually create a category of "thought crime" here. Because we're close, and many of you would actually endorse such laws.

Don't be hyperbolic. I have mixed feelings about hate crime laws, but they create nothing close to "thought crimes." They deal with actual actions and behavior. And nobody is endorsing the idea of making particular thoughts a crime. Nobody.


Actually, that happens all the time with college "speech codes".  They've gotten slapped down, of course, as well they should, but the impulse to regulate speech is still there, especially among people who really should know better.

That sort of thing (the evolution of a very substantial right to a very minimal one) doesn't happen overnight.   It happens in small, incremental steps, which is why I point out that there is a bright line there, and that we've started to crowd that line.  We're not over it, yet, but the only way we'll know we're over it completely is in hindsight.  It won't be very noticeable when it happens.  *IF* it happens.

Ignoring or pooh-poohing the idea that it could happen, btw, is the sort of thing that can help make it possible.
 
2013-09-16 12:17:30 PM  

Graystone2000: It wasn't intended to be a murder...


Bashing someone hard enough to crush their brain stem is just oops my bad.
 
2013-09-16 12:18:18 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Of course I have an agenda, and I damned well admit it. Civil and human rights are a good thing. It doesn't change the fact that:

a) The response to the Matthew Shepard murder was for bigots and homophobes to turn it into a blame-the-victim situation almost instantly,
b) The killers themselves were the ones to torpedo that, and,
c) This book is not bringing anything new to the table that hasn't already been trotted out and is ultimately and wholly irrelevant to the whole situation.


A) okay. Maybe your right. I hadn't heard it at the time, but then again I was in an echo chamber of universal condemnation at the time as I don't keep company with bigots. Maybe if fark was around at the time I would have seen it.

B) The killers are probably the least reputable source on the matter. Regardless, they are where they belong.

C) So you've read it? I haven't.
 
2013-09-16 12:20:10 PM  

thornhill: In the process, he amassed enough anecdotal evidence to build a persuasive case that Shepard's sexuality was, if not incidental, certainly less central than popular consensus has lead us to believe.

Not just an oxymoron, but the only thing worse than "anecdotal evidence" are anecdotes told 15 years after the fact.

If he was a drug dealer, there should be hard evidence to support that, like phone records (though obviously I don't expect the family to turn those records over).


Data is not the plural of anecdote.

Smarted.

HOWEVER, this book might be an important work, especially if others confirm its contents. I don't normally associate the Advocate with being on the bleeding edge of undermining the Gay AgendaTM.
 
2013-09-16 12:21:00 PM  

lockers: Dr Dreidel: (And again-again, why is 15-year-old anecdotal evidence somehow stronger than actual court evidence? If there's new info or someone's story significantly changed, shouldn't someone apply for a retrial?)

It isn't and changing ones own story shouldn't get you a new trial. If anything it should get you perjury charges.


If a key witness (say, the ME who told us the anus was unremarkable, or the first cops on the scene, or the cops who first spoke with the perpetrators - someone like them) changed their story, and the change is significant enough that it begins to unravel the basic narrative of the case (say, that Shep wasn't killed because he was gay, but rather because he'd stolen thousands from his meth-dealing buddies and his being gay was incidental to the case - or was, until the perpetrators claimed "gay panic" as a defense), you're damn right we should want a new trial.

I suspect you may have misunderstood my meaning.
 
2013-09-16 12:23:29 PM  

comhcinc: I hate that kid died. I hate it when anyone is murdered, but I am disturbed by the ideas of hate crimes. People have the right to think whatever bigoted stupid thing they want to think. We should prosecute the crime not the thought behind the crime.


The difference is in intent. We understand terrorism to have victims beyond the dead. That's why we call it terrorism. And just like that, hate crimes have intended victims beyond the dead. The intention is to terrorize or threaten a larger community, and it is that additional threat that is being punished.

That doesn't mean the theory isn't without its flaws.
 
2013-09-16 12:33:01 PM  

under a mountain: Mikey1969: FarkedOver: comhcinc: I hate that kid died. I hate it when anyone is murdered, but I am disturbed by the ideas of hate crimes. People have the right to think whatever bigoted stupid thing they want to think. We should prosecute the crime not the thought behind the crime.

We already do prosecute based on the thought.  If we didn't there would be no distinction between manslaughter and murder 1.

It's not "thought", it's your actions to put your plan of murder into reality. You can still plan a murder, and you won't get arrested if nobody ever kills the person.

Tell that to this guy.Or Manson


Methinks you missed a rather important point there, my friend.
 
2013-09-16 12:33:41 PM  

comhcinc: I hate that kid died. I hate it when anyone is murdered, but I am disturbed by the ideas of hate crimes. People have the right to think whatever bigoted stupid thing they want to think. We should prosecute the crime not the thought behind the crime.


This is just a ridiculously juvenile argument. If I put a bag of dog poop on the porch of a guy and set it on fire, it's an inconvenience and probably a misdemeanor criminal mischief if you want to run wild with it. If I put a cross on the lawn of the black couple that recently moved into a predominantly white neighborhood and set it on fire, I've done something that is demonstratively much worse. And the law should treat those two differently.
 
2013-09-16 12:38:25 PM  

Graystone2000: I've got friends in Laramie.  The whole town knew it was drug related but the national media took off with it.  Shepard dealt drugs on occasion, pissed some people off and got a beating.  It wasn't intended to be a murder...  Such is life...  Certain people were looking for a martyr.

On a distantly related note, Rosa Parks wasn't the first girl to sit at the front of the bus.  The powers that be picked hers as the best media case to push their agenda.  Doesn't change what happened, but you are naive to think these events are spontaneous and free of a healthy amount of opportunism.


Guess that just means that the US is a total utopia that is devoid of homophobia and other forms of bigotry, right?
 
2013-09-16 12:43:16 PM  

dittybopper: someonelse: dittybopper: That doesn't excuse criminal acts, either. Murder is murder. But we have to be extra vigilant so that we don't actually create a category of "thought crime" here. Because we're close, and many of you would actually endorse such laws.

Don't be hyperbolic. I have mixed feelings about hate crime laws, but they create nothing close to "thought crimes." They deal with actual actions and behavior. And nobody is endorsing the idea of making particular thoughts a crime. Nobody.

Actually, that happens all the time with college "speech codes".  They've gotten slapped down, of course, as well they should, but the impulse to regulate speech is still there, especially among people who really should know better.

That sort of thing (the evolution of a very substantial right to a very minimal one) doesn't happen overnight.   It happens in small, incremental steps, which is why I point out that there is a bright line there, and that we've started to crowd that line.  We're not over it, yet, but the only way we'll know we're over it completely is in hindsight.  It won't be very noticeable when it happens.  *IF* it happens.

Ignoring or pooh-poohing the idea that it could happen, btw, is the sort of thing that can help make it possible.


Is there any law that you can't fashion into a piss-poor slippery slope argument?
 
2013-09-16 12:46:14 PM  

Ricardo Klement: comhcinc: I hate that kid died. I hate it when anyone is murdered, but I am disturbed by the ideas of hate crimes. People have the right to think whatever bigoted stupid thing they want to think. We should prosecute the crime not the thought behind the crime.

The difference is in intent. We understand terrorism to have victims beyond the dead. That's why we call it terrorism. And just like that, hate crimes have intended victims beyond the dead. The intention is to terrorize or threaten a larger community, and it is that additional threat that is being punished.

That doesn't mean the theory isn't without its flaws.


I understand that but to me it just goes too far. On the really bad side where we are dealing with horrible murders how much more that life in prison(or death if you are in to that kind of thing) can you add to a conviction when it is a hate crime?

On the lite side, lets say graffiti. So for example (and please this is just an example guys I am not saying this is actual law) some kid writes "The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing."  on some one's house. Now normally that would be a misdemeanor which means up to a year in county jail and a fine. Should we up that to a felony and throw the kid in prison?
 
2013-09-16 12:46:33 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: Dr Dreidel: Debeo Summa Credo: FarkedOver: comhcinc: I hate that kid died. I hate it when anyone is murdered, but I am disturbed by the ideas of hate crimes. People have the right to think whatever bigoted stupid thing they want to think. We should prosecute the crime not the thought behind the crime.

We already do prosecute based on the thought.  If we didn't there would be no distinction between manslaughter and murder 1.

He's saying that he doesn't think there should be any concept of a hate crime.

Murdering someone because they are gay or white or Muslim shouldn't be any different than murdering them because you want their wallet.

Citing Chief Justice Rhenquist, from Wisconsin v. Mitchell: "[Hate crimes are] thought to inflict greater individual and societal harm.... bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest."

And that's the whole point: people like Debeo want to be able to use crimes as a way of instilling fear in groups of people they don't like without any great legal repercussions.  They want to be able to say "[insert minority here] aren't really people, so it doesn't matter legally what sort of crimes we commit against them"


What? There are no legal repercussions from killing someone?

What the fark are you talking about?
 
2013-09-16 12:50:36 PM  

Ricardo Klement: thornhill: In the process, he amassed enough anecdotal evidence to build a persuasive case that Shepard's sexuality was, if not incidental, certainly less central than popular consensus has lead us to believe.

Not just an oxymoron, but the only thing worse than "anecdotal evidence" are anecdotes told 15 years after the fact.

If he was a drug dealer, there should be hard evidence to support that, like phone records (though obviously I don't expect the family to turn those records over).

Data is not the plural of anecdote.

Smarted.

HOWEVER, this book might be an important work, especially if others confirm its contents. I don't normally associate the Advocate with being on the bleeding edge of undermining the Gay AgendaTM.


Well, The Advocate seems to be trying to have its cake and eat it to. The article concludes pretty much saying that whatever the facts are, it doesn't change anything:

Whether it was a hate crime, a drug crime, or a combination of the two, it's hard to shake the suspicion that self-hate and a misguided culture of masculinity, which taught McKinney to abhor in himself what Shepard had learned to embrace, was as complicit as anything else in the murder of Matthew Shepard.
 
2013-09-16 12:50:54 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: FarkedOver: comhcinc: I hate that kid died. I hate it when anyone is murdered, but I am disturbed by the ideas of hate crimes. People have the right to think whatever bigoted stupid thing they want to think. We should prosecute the crime not the thought behind the crime.

We already do prosecute based on the thought.  If we didn't there would be no distinction between manslaughter and murder 1.

He's saying that he doesn't think there should be any concept of a hate crime.

Murdering someone because they are gay or white or Muslim shouldn't be any different than murdering them because you want their wallet.


Well that's stupid. If we didn't attempt to define motivation, negligent homicide would be equivalent to premeditated murder.
 
2013-09-16 12:52:50 PM  

dittybopper: I remember hearing that it wasn't really a hate crime, but motivated by drugs, on the intarwebs right after it happened.  Those voices were drowned out in the rush to martyrdom.


They were also drowned out by the bigots who were rushing to defend the murderers.  But the bottom line is that the crime, like Matthew Shepard himself, was complicated.
 
2013-09-16 12:53:39 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Debeo Summa Credo: FarkedOver: comhcinc: I hate that kid died. I hate it when anyone is murdered, but I am disturbed by the ideas of hate crimes. People have the right to think whatever bigoted stupid thing they want to think. We should prosecute the crime not the thought behind the crime.

We already do prosecute based on the thought.  If we didn't there would be no distinction between manslaughter and murder 1.

He's saying that he doesn't think there should be any concept of a hate crime.

Murdering someone because they are gay or white or Muslim shouldn't be any different than murdering them because you want their wallet.

Citing Chief Justice Rhenquist, from Wisconsin v. Mitchell: "[Hate crimes are] thought to inflict greater individual and societal harm.... bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest."


Horrible reasoning. Because fellow gays/whites/Muslims or whatever are more likely to riot in response to one of their own being murdered because they are in that group, those crimes are worse than someone being killed for any other reason? Seriously?

The concept of a "hate crime" is fundamentally immoral. How anyone can believe that a murderer for racial or homophobic reasons is due any worse punishment than someone who kills for robbery/rape/random reasons is beyond me.
 
2013-09-16 12:54:45 PM  

Dr Dreidel: lockers: Dr Dreidel: (And again-again, why is 15-year-old anecdotal evidence somehow stronger than actual court evidence? If there's new info or someone's story significantly changed, shouldn't someone apply for a retrial?)

It isn't and changing ones own story shouldn't get you a new trial. If anything it should get you perjury charges.

If a key witness (say, the ME who told us the anus was unremarkable, or the first cops on the scene, or the cops who first spoke with the perpetrators - someone like them) changed their story, and the change is significant enough that it begins to unravel the basic narrative of the case (say, that Shep wasn't killed because he was gay, but rather because he'd stolen thousands from his meth-dealing buddies and his being gay was incidental to the case - or was, until the perpetrators claimed "gay panic" as a defense), you're damn right we should want a new trial.

I suspect you may have misunderstood my meaning.


I did. I took you to mean changing your story as the convicted. Yes, if substantial evidence was manufactured you should be appealing. This is not the case here. Whatever additional motives they may have had, these scumbags are, in their own admission, guilty of the crime.
 
2013-09-16 12:57:42 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Debeo Summa Credo: FarkedOver: comhcinc: I hate that kid died. I hate it when anyone is murdered, but I am disturbed by the ideas of hate crimes. People have the right to think whatever bigoted stupid thing they want to think. We should prosecute the crime not the thought behind the crime.

We already do prosecute based on the thought.  If we didn't there would be no distinction between manslaughter and murder 1.

He's saying that he doesn't think there should be any concept of a hate crime.

Murdering someone because they are gay or white or Muslim shouldn't be any different than murdering them because you want their wallet.

Well that's stupid. If we didn't attempt to define motivation, negligent homicide would be equivalent to premeditated murder.


Apples and oranges.

If my motive to kill you is so I can take your wallet or so I can rape your girlfriend or because I hate you due to your Norwegian heritage, I still want to kill you and am therefore guilty of premeditated murder.

If I accidentally run your lily white Norwegian ass over while you are cross country skiing to your job at the herring cannery then it's negligent homicide. See the difference?
 
2013-09-16 12:58:55 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Dr Dreidel: Debeo Summa Credo: FarkedOver: comhcinc: I hate that kid died. I hate it when anyone is murdered, but I am disturbed by the ideas of hate crimes. People have the right to think whatever bigoted stupid thing they want to think. We should prosecute the crime not the thought behind the crime.

We already do prosecute based on the thought.  If we didn't there would be no distinction between manslaughter and murder 1.

He's saying that he doesn't think there should be any concept of a hate crime.

Murdering someone because they are gay or white or Muslim shouldn't be any different than murdering them because you want their wallet.

Citing Chief Justice Rhenquist, from Wisconsin v. Mitchell: "[Hate crimes are] thought to inflict greater individual and societal harm.... bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest."

Horrible reasoning. Because fellow gays/whites/Muslims or whatever are more likely to riot in response to one of their own being murdered because they are in that group, those crimes are worse than someone being killed for any other reason? Seriously?

The concept of a "hate crime" is fundamentally immoral. How anyone can believe that a murderer for racial or homophobic reasons is due any worse punishment than someone who kills for robbery/rape/random reasons is beyond me.


Because often (or it used to be) such murders were done not just to kill someone, but to terrorize the minority community in the area.
 
2013-09-16 12:59:31 PM  

comhcinc: Ricardo Klement: comhcinc: I hate that kid died. I hate it when anyone is murdered, but I am disturbed by the ideas of hate crimes. People have the right to think whatever bigoted stupid thing they want to think. We should prosecute the crime not the thought behind the crime.

The difference is in intent. We understand terrorism to have victims beyond the dead. That's why we call it terrorism. And just like that, hate crimes have intended victims beyond the dead. The intention is to terrorize or threaten a larger community, and it is that additional threat that is being punished.

That doesn't mean the theory isn't without its flaws.

I understand that but to me it just goes too far. On the really bad side where we are dealing with horrible murders how much more that life in prison(or death if you are in to that kind of thing) can you add to a conviction when it is a hate crime?

On the lite side, lets say graffiti. So for example (and please this is just an example guys I am not saying this is actual law) some kid writes "The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing."  on some one's house. Now normally that would be a misdemeanor which means up to a year in county jail and a fine. Should we up that to a felony and throw the kid in prison?


Well, we're looking at degree of harm, and this is where some of the flaws are. In murder, we differentiate a lot, and murder 1 and murder 2 and murder with a gun enhancement are just some of the variations. Society decided that there is too much victimization of certain groups and that we should make it clear those are not tolerated. It's an additional disincentive against committing crimes where the standard incentive is apparently insufficient. Should scrawling hateful graffiti be a felony? That's a different argument from whether it's worse and deserves more punishment than just My Little Ponies.

I think it should. After all, the only people who suffer here are the people who commit crimes. Don't want a hate-crime enhancement? Don't commit murder or property crimes. I really don't have a lot of sympathy for them.
 
2013-09-16 01:11:05 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: The concept of a "hate crime" is fundamentally immoral. How anyone can believe that a murderer for racial or homophobic reasons is due any worse punishment than someone who kills for robbery/rape/random reasons is beyond me.


You do realize that even without hate crime laws, not all murderers are given the exact same punishment, right? Some just get a long prison sentence, some get life in prison without the possibility of parole, and some get executed. One of the biggest things that sways the sentence one way or another is the court's belief about things related entirely to the defendant's "thoughts", such as whether it was a spur-of-the-moment decision or whether it had been planned for a long time.
 
2013-09-16 01:15:21 PM  

friday13: Debeo Summa Credo: Dr Dreidel: Citing Chief Justice Rhenquist, from Wisconsin v. Mitchell: "[Hate crimes are] thought to inflict greater individual and societal harm.... bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest."

Horrible reasoning. Because fellow gays/whites/Muslims or whatever are more likely to riot in response to one of their own being murdered because they are in that group, those crimes are worse than someone being killed for any other reason? Seriously?

The concept of a "hate crime" is fundamentally immoral. How anyone can believe that a murderer for racial or homophobic reasons is due any worse punishment than someone who kills for robbery/rape/random reasons is beyond me.

Because often (or it used to be) such murders were done not just to kill someone, but to terrorize the minority community in the area.


That's what the CJ was saying, but apparently that flies over some heads.

When I rob you for your wallet, I only want your wallet (the cash inside, most probably - unless you're into CC fraud or identity theft). If I kill you over a gambling debt or because we're in a lovers' quarrel, chances are I want YOU dead.

When I rob someone for their wallet because they're "a Muslim", I'm acting against the Muslim community - even if the victim isn't a Muslim, as it turns out. I want to diminish that community's standing, if only in my own eyes. (It may be easier to imagine the crime of graffiti-ing a building.) If I torture and kill someone because of whatever identifying characteristic (even if it's not accurate: turban = Muslim, big nose = Jew, swishy gait = gay), I'm acting against everyone with that characteristic, and the actual victim becomes a placeholder for "all people with big noses/all Jews".

A crime against one person is bad enough, says Rhenquist, without committing a single crime against a person and "their" group. A crime of necessity or opportunity is bad enough, but a crime against a significant percentage of the population (Jews are 2%, Muslims are 4%?, black folks are 15ish%, gays are somewhere between 6 and 30% depending on how we count and whose count we trust) should be punished more severely.
 
2013-09-16 01:15:35 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: UrukHaiGuyz: Debeo Summa Credo: FarkedOver: comhcinc: I hate that kid died. I hate it when anyone is murdered, but I am disturbed by the ideas of hate crimes. People have the right to think whatever bigoted stupid thing they want to think. We should prosecute the crime not the thought behind the crime.

We already do prosecute based on the thought.  If we didn't there would be no distinction between manslaughter and murder 1.

He's saying that he doesn't think there should be any concept of a hate crime.

Murdering someone because they are gay or white or Muslim shouldn't be any different than murdering them because you want their wallet.

Well that's stupid. If we didn't attempt to define motivation, negligent homicide would be equivalent to premeditated murder.

Apples and oranges.

If my motive to kill you is so I can take your wallet or so I can rape your girlfriend or because I hate you due to your Norwegian heritage, I still want to kill you and am therefore guilty of premeditated murder.

If I accidentally run your lily white Norwegian ass over while you are cross country skiing to your job at the herring cannery then it's negligent homicide. See the difference?


It's all a matter of degrees and context. If I leave a disabled person in a vehicle on a hot day is it because I'm an idiot and forgot about them or do I hate that person enough to let them suffocate? Motive matters. This is why we have individualized sentencing. The more "hateful" the crime, the harsher the punishment.

/BTW I just got laid off from the herring cannery, so thanks for the painful memories
 
2013-09-16 01:21:45 PM  

dittybopper: The laws against beating people up, regardless of the motivation*, weren't good enough? The laws against murder, stalking, harassing, vandalism, and assault weren't good enough?

It seems to me that the motivation for a particular crime is largely irrelevant, and in fact hate crime legislation is verging uncomfortably close to thought crime. It's just one small leap to go from "punishing someone extra for their thoughts" to "punishing someone for their thoughts". And that's one solid, bright line you just don't *EVER* want to cross as a society. But we're crowding up against it.

That doesn't excuse criminal acts, either. Murder is murder. But we have to be extra vigilant so that we don't actually create a category of "thought crime" here. Because we're close, and many of you would actually endorse such laws.


It's not about punishing the offender's thoughts, it's about the consequences of a crime.  When a person is murdered for their wallet, there's the direct result of the crime (the death) and then secondary effects like making the local community more afraid to go out, the economic effects of the deceased's lost income and support to family and perhaps the whole community, and so on.

When a person is murdered for being gay, all of those same things happen.  But on top of that, a specific message of intimidation is sent to gay people, saying they are unwelcome, unwanted, and someone in their community wants to kill them.  It's like a lynching: the murder is as much a crime as ever, but it's being done as an act of violent and threatening intimidation against the group of people the victim represents.

It makes sense to me that there would be additional punishment in the latter case, though I don't think hate crime laws are implemented ideally.  I wonder if it might be better to replace "hate crime" as a concept with a more general "crime of public intimidation" or something like that.  It makes it more clear that it's the action that triggers the punishment and not the accused's thoughts or opinions or politics, and also applies in other situations where it could be appropriate, such as if a street gang carried out a public murder to intimidate the residents of a specific neighborhood or apartment block.
 
2013-09-16 01:27:34 PM  

Ricardo Klement: comhcinc: Ricardo Klement: comhcinc: I hate that kid died. I hate it when anyone is murdered, but I am disturbed by the ideas of hate crimes. People have the right to think whatever bigoted stupid thing they want to think. We should prosecute the crime not the thought behind the crime.

The difference is in intent. We understand terrorism to have victims beyond the dead. That's why we call it terrorism. And just like that, hate crimes have intended victims beyond the dead. The intention is to terrorize or threaten a larger community, and it is that additional threat that is being punished.

That doesn't mean the theory isn't without its flaws.

I understand that but to me it just goes too far. On the really bad side where we are dealing with horrible murders how much more that life in prison(or death if you are in to that kind of thing) can you add to a conviction when it is a hate crime?

On the lite side, lets say graffiti. So for example (and please this is just an example guys I am not saying this is actual law) some kid writes "The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing."  on some one's house. Now normally that would be a misdemeanor which means up to a year in county jail and a fine. Should we up that to a felony and throw the kid in prison?

Well, we're looking at degree of harm, and this is where some of the flaws are. In murder, we differentiate a lot, and murder 1 and murder 2 and murder with a gun enhancement are just some of the variations. Society decided that there is too much victimization of certain groups and that we should make it clear those are not tolerated. It's an additional disincentive against committing crimes where the standard incentive is apparently insufficient. Should scrawling hateful graffiti be a felony? That's a different argument from whether it's worse and deserves more punishment than just My Little Ponies.

I think it should. After all, the only people who suffer here are the people who commit crimes. Don' ...


I have made no secret on here that I have a felonious past. In my misspent youth I did some dumb things and got caught for them and did some time for it. I can assure that putting minor criminals in (the spray painting kids in this case) in with harden criminals . Does affect you. Most will not see the error of their ways, most would hook up with one of the numerous white power groups in prisons and come out a lot worst to deal with.

Again I don't even know is what we are discussing could happen under current law but from a complete layman's view it I think it could.
 
2013-09-16 01:33:31 PM  

GoldSpider: Mikey1969: He originally pleaded the gay panic defense, arguing that he and Henderson were driven to temporary insanity by alleged sexual advances by Shepard.

Which, according to the article, was not true.


Wow, maybe he should have thought about that before saying it on the record?
 
2013-09-16 01:35:00 PM  

dittybopper: Mikey1969: I can see why they started these laws, they needed something, they just aren't all well written.

The laws against beating people up, regardless of the motivation*, weren't good enough?  The laws against murder, stalking, harassing, vandalism, and assault weren't good enough?

It seems to me that the motivation for a particular crime is largely irrelevant, and in fact hate crime legislation is verging uncomfortably close to thought crime.  It's just one small leap to go from "punishing someone extra for their thoughts" to "punishing someone for their thoughts".  And that's one solid, bright line you just don't *EVER* want to cross as a society.  But we're crowding up against it.

That doesn't excuse criminal acts, either.  Murder is murder. But we have to be extra vigilant so that we don't actually create a category of "thought crime" here.  Because we're close, and many of you would actually endorse such laws.

*Outside of something like self-defense


Yes, I agree that there is a lot of subjective grey area here, but the point is that randomly robbing a person on the street is far different then terrorizing a whole group and actively targeting these people over and over. I see the need for the laws, they just need to be written better.
 
2013-09-16 01:35:37 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: /BTW I just got laid off from the herring cannery, so thanks for the painful memories


excuse me?
 
2013-09-16 01:39:08 PM  

Jackson Herring: UrukHaiGuyz: /BTW I just got laid off from the herring cannery, so thanks for the painful memories

excuse me?


You heard it here, folks. The Jackson brand herring cannery is run by crooks- Boycott Jackson Herring!
 
2013-09-16 01:40:06 PM  

under a mountain: Mikey1969: FarkedOver: comhcinc: I hate that kid died. I hate it when anyone is murdered, but I am disturbed by the ideas of hate crimes. People have the right to think whatever bigoted stupid thing they want to think. We should prosecute the crime not the thought behind the crime.

We already do prosecute based on the thought.  If we didn't there would be no distinction between manslaughter and murder 1.

It's not "thought", it's your actions to put your plan of murder into reality. You can still plan a murder, and you won't get arrested if nobody ever kills the person.

Tell that to this guy.Or Manson


A: Manson manipulated people into doing his bidding, brainwashed them with drugs, sex and his messiah stories, got them to be completely willing to do his bidding, then ordered them to kill on his behalf. He also most likely killed Shorty Shea, and possibly his lawyer as well.

B: This "Cannibal Cop" guy seems to have taken it beyond the "idle chit chat" stage somewhere around this point: "
In July, Valle had emailed one of his creepy co-conspirators pictures of his friend Kimberly Sauer in the days before he and his wife were having brunch with her in Maryland - along with a document called "Abduction and Cooking of Kimberly: A Blueprint."

Now that he's named a potential victim and outlined a plan based specifically on that victim, why is it not Conspiracy at that point? Once again, he's acting on his plans, he's detailed what he will do and who he will do it to specifically.
 
2013-09-16 01:41:28 PM  

FarkedOver: No you just explained yourself in a shiatty manner the first go 'round.


No, you just have the reading comprehension level of my 4 year old daughter. It's not my fault you were home schooled, so quit trying to project. I'd say that your parents are the ones you should be blaming here.

'Kay?
 
2013-09-16 01:42:02 PM  

Mikey1969: dittybopper: Mikey1969: I can see why they started these laws, they needed something, they just aren't all well written.

The laws against beating people up, regardless of the motivation*, weren't good enough?  The laws against murder, stalking, harassing, vandalism, and assault weren't good enough?

It seems to me that the motivation for a particular crime is largely irrelevant, and in fact hate crime legislation is verging uncomfortably close to thought crime.  It's just one small leap to go from "punishing someone extra for their thoughts" to "punishing someone for their thoughts".  And that's one solid, bright line you just don't *EVER* want to cross as a society.  But we're crowding up against it.

That doesn't excuse criminal acts, either.   Murder is murder. But we have to be extra vigilant so that we don't actually create a category of "thought crime" here.  Because we're close, and many of you would actually endorse such laws.

*Outside of something like self-defense

Yes, I agree that there is a lot of subjective grey area here, but the point is that randomly robbing a person on the street is far different then terrorizing a whole group and actively targeting these people over and over. I see the need for the laws, they just need to be written better.


And beyond that, justice systems in the civilized world have indeed not operated based on some simplistic "murder is murder" philosophy for at least a few centuries now. The main difference between first and second degree murder, for instance - premeditation - has to do entirely with the defendant's thoughts rather than his actions or the consequences thereof.
 
2013-09-16 01:49:56 PM  
FTFA: "For many heterosexuals it challenged the myth of America as a guarantor of equality and liberty."


WTF is that shait?

The ones responsible for his murder are in prison.  Sounds like the Judaical system did it's job and it's the MEDIA who farked up.
 
2013-09-16 01:53:17 PM  

Marshal805: Judaical


Wut. Is that like Sharia law? :)
 
2013-09-16 01:55:36 PM  

Biological Ali: And beyond that, justice systems in the civilized world have indeed not operated based on some simplistic "murder is murder" philosophy for at least a few centuries now. The main difference between first and second degree murder, for instance - premeditation - has to do entirely with the defendant's thoughts rather than his actions or the consequences thereof.


It has a lot to do with his actions. When he puts the thoughts into actions by planning ahead, then it becomes premeditated. Otherwise, they have nothing they can prove.

Example: I've thought about how I might take care of the guy who killed my mother when I was a kid. As long as it's just in my head, there is no thought crime. Once I start buying the things I have theorized about, start following him to learn his schedule, take a weapon to a specific spot to meet him, it becomes premeditated. Otherwise, you could put any teenager who tells a family member "I wish you would die!" before they leave the house and get killed in an accident in jail for "premeditated" because they "wished" them dead... You still have to put things into action, premeditated doesn't get you just because you thought about killing them.
 
2013-09-16 01:57:07 PM  

Marshal805: FTFA: "For many heterosexuals it challenged the myth of America as a guarantor of equality and liberty."

WTF is that shait?

The ones responsible for his murder are in prison.  Sounds like the Judaical system did it's job and it's the MEDIA who farked up.


Even if they did fark up, the narrative was sold. Whether or not the narrative was true, it was based on what the criminals said themselves. It certainly didn't do any harm bringing LGBT bigotry to light. Almost certainly this book is simply sensational exploitation of the events.
 
2013-09-16 02:00:15 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Jackson Herring: UrukHaiGuyz: /BTW I just got laid off from the herring cannery, so thanks for the painful memories

excuse me?

You heard it here, folks. The Jackson brand herring cannery is run by crooks- Boycott Jackson Herring!


wordsfromanneli.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-09-16 02:03:20 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: That would still mean he was killed b
ecause he was gay. It hardly matters that the murderer might have been closeted.


As much as it matters as the victim was addicted to meth

Mikey1969: Wow, maybe he should have thought about that before saying it on the record?


Wasn't that one of the better arguments at the defendant's disposal at the time?
 
2013-09-16 02:04:11 PM  

Cataholic: FTA:  "There are valuable reasons for telling certain stories in a certain way at pivotal times, but that doesn't mean we have to hold on to them once they've outlived their usefulness. "


Scary stuff right there.


True.

media.smithsonianmag.com

Who's this Nordic-looking white guy?

witnessed.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-09-16 02:05:14 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Marshal805: Judaical

Wut. Is that like Sharia law? :)


Ha! Thanks for pointing that out.
 
2013-09-16 02:08:05 PM  

comhcinc: I have made no secret on here that I have a felonious past. In my misspent youth I did some dumb things and got caught for them and did some time for it. I can assure that putting minor criminals in (the spray painting kids in this case) in with harden criminals . Does affect you. Most will not see the error of their ways, most would hook up with one of the numerous white power groups in prisons and come out a lot worst to deal with.

Again I don't even know is what we are discussing could happen under current law but from a complete layman's view it I think it could.


Well, I did concede that it's a different question about degree. Our law enforcement is not really set up to express a lot of discretion, unfortunately.
 
2013-09-16 02:08:50 PM  

comhcinc: I hate that kid died. I hate it when anyone is murdered, but I am disturbed by the ideas of hate crimes. People have the right to think whatever bigoted stupid thing they want to think. We should prosecute the crime not the thought behind the crime.


That isn't how hate crimes work. No one is punishing anyone for thought. A hate crime has more than just one victim. If you were to beat up a black woman for being on the "white" end of town. She isn't the only victim. You are causing many other black women to live in fear that they might be beaten or killed by accidentally stumbling into the "white" end of town. Punishing hate crimes isn't about punishing thought, rather it is about punishing the crime AND it's contribution to the culture of fear.
 
2013-09-16 02:09:11 PM  

Graystone2000: On a distantly related note, Rosa Parks wasn't the first girl to sit at the front of the bus. The powers that be picked hers as the best media case to push their agenda.


She chose herself for that role. She was an activist in her own right. She chose to challenge the policy. And she hasn't been portrayed as a "simple woman who just happened to be in the right place at the right time" for a long, time. If a school is still teaching it that way, that school sucks and is an anachronism.
 
2013-09-16 02:09:56 PM  

Mikey1969: It has a lot to do with his actions. When he puts the thoughts into actions by planning ahead, then it becomes premeditated. Otherwise, they have nothing they can prove.

Example: I've thought about how I might take care of the guy who killed my mother when I was a kid. As long as it's just in my head, there is no thought crime. Once I start buying the things I have theorized about, start following him to learn his schedule, take a weapon to a specific spot to meet him, it becomes premeditated. Otherwise, you could put any teenager who tells a family member "I wish you would die!" before they leave the house and get killed in an accident in jail for "premeditated" because they "wished" them dead... You still have to put things into action, premeditated doesn't get you just because you thought about killing them.


It's not about putting thoughts into actions - the actions may at times serve as evidence of the thought, and the eventual conviction (and sentence) will be affected by the strength of the evidence, but it's ultimately the thought that counts. Two murderers could kill their victims in the exact same haphazard and poorly planned way, and one would still be punished more harshly if it was believed that his actions were premeditated whereas the other's were a crime of passion.

Premeditation, moreover, isn't about wishing the person was dead, but rather, about wanting to kill them yourself. Important distinction.
 
2013-09-16 02:13:00 PM  

thismomentinblackhistory: Mikey1969: Wow, maybe he should have thought about that before saying it on the record?

Wasn't that one of the better arguments at the defendant's disposal at the time?


Pretty sad, isn't it? It says something about our mentality less than 20 years ago that someone thought that was some kind of home run defense.
 
2013-09-16 02:13:02 PM  

dittybopper: someonelse: dittybopper: That doesn't excuse criminal acts, either. Murder is murder. But we have to be extra vigilant so that we don't actually create a category of "thought crime" here. Because we're close, and many of you would actually endorse such laws.

Don't be hyperbolic. I have mixed feelings about hate crime laws, but they create nothing close to "thought crimes." They deal with actual actions and behavior. And nobody is endorsing the idea of making particular thoughts a crime. Nobody.

Actually, that happens all the time with college "speech codes".  They've gotten slapped down, of course, as well they should, but the impulse to regulate speech is still there, especially among people who really should know better.

That sort of thing (the evolution of a very substantial right to a very minimal one) doesn't happen overnight.   It happens in small, incremental steps, which is why I point out that there is a bright line there, and that we've started to crowd that line.  We're not over it, yet, but the only way we'll know we're over it completely is in hindsight.  It won't be very noticeable when it happens.  *IF* it happens.

Ignoring or pooh-poohing the idea that it could happen, btw, is the sort of thing that can help make it possible.


People are being charged with crimes for violating college speech codes? Citation? Because otherwise, colleges are entitled to create their own codes of conduct for their students. Just like employers do for their employees. You can be fired for behaving in a way that reflects poorly on your employer. And again, this is in no way a thought crime.
 
2013-09-16 02:13:48 PM  

Epicfarker: comhcinc: I hate that kid died. I hate it when anyone is murdered, but I am disturbed by the ideas of hate crimes. People have the right to think whatever bigoted stupid thing they want to think. We should prosecute the crime not the thought behind the crime.

That isn't how hate crimes work. No one is punishing anyone for thought. A hate crime has more than just one victim. If you were to beat up a black woman for being on the "white" end of town. She isn't the only victim. You are causing many other black women to live in fear that they might be beaten or killed by accidentally stumbling into the "white" end of town. Punishing hate crimes isn't about punishing thought, rather it is about punishing the crime AND it's contribution to the culture of fear.


What if I beat up a black women for her purse. Doesn't that also contribute to the culture of fear?
 
2013-09-16 02:16:52 PM  

Mikey1969: No, you just have the reading comprehension level of my 4 year old daughter. It's not my fault you were home schooled, so quit trying to project. I'd say that your parents are the ones you should be blaming here.

'Kay?


Your 4 year old daughter is a whore!
 
2013-09-16 02:17:13 PM  

Jackson Herring: UrukHaiGuyz: Jackson Herring: UrukHaiGuyz: /BTW I just got laid off from the herring cannery, so thanks for the painful memories

excuse me?

You heard it here, folks. The Jackson brand herring cannery is run by crooks- Boycott Jackson Herring!

[wordsfromanneli.files.wordpress.com image 600x450]


That's beautiful. Wait, do you actually fish herring? I thought it was just a silly moniker.
 
2013-09-16 02:17:13 PM  

Ricardo Klement: comhcinc: I have made no secret on here that I have a felonious past. In my misspent youth I did some dumb things and got caught for them and did some time for it. I can assure that putting minor criminals in (the spray painting kids in this case) in with harden criminals . Does affect you. Most will not see the error of their ways, most would hook up with one of the numerous white power groups in prisons and come out a lot worst to deal with.

Again I don't even know is what we are discussing could happen under current law but from a complete layman's view it I think it could.

Well, I did concede that it's a different question about degree. Our law enforcement is not really set up to express a lot of discretion, unfortunately.


Yeah that is my point. I am not saying I think the end of democracy is happening because of hate crimes. I am just saying that I don't see how they help anymore than just regular crime laws while on the other hand I know (and there is data to back this up) that tougher penlites don't work for everything.

I just want a lot more information on this.
 
2013-09-16 02:22:51 PM  

FarkedOver: Mikey1969: No, you just have the reading comprehension level of my 4 year old daughter. It's not my fault you were home schooled, so quit trying to project. I'd say that your parents are the ones you should be blaming here.

'Kay?

Your 4 year old daughter is a whore!


See, you even have trouble spelling the word 'genius'...  :-)
 
2013-09-16 02:26:39 PM  

Cubicle Jockey: dittybopper: It seems to me that the motivation for a particular crime is largely irrelevant

What's the difference between fraud and bad advice?
Motivation is EVERYWHERE in criminal law.

Fark, crime is pretty much defined by being the intersection of opportunity and MOTIVE.



No, it's not.  It's defined by the intersection of action and intent.

Intent is not motive.  Motive is why you are doing something.  Intent is a matter of the result that an accused desired or predicted would occur as a result of some deliberate action -- e.g., acting in order to cause someone's death, as opposed to merely knowing that an action would cause death.  The reason you want to cause a death is only relevant to the extent that it illuminates the level of your intent, but it is not in itself part of the definition of a crime.

That is, it wasn't part of the definition of a crime up until the point when Proggies started re-writing the criminal law to express their political fee-fees and their smug-but-warped sense of ethics.

Opportunity and motive are for TV shows and Agatha Christie novels.  You may want to write a letter to the producers of Law & Order for a refund on your legal training.
 
2013-09-16 02:33:46 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: That's beautiful. Wait, do you actually fish herring? I thought it was just a silly moniker.


that is a picture of a cloud of herring semen
 
2013-09-16 02:36:48 PM  

Jackson Herring: UrukHaiGuyz: That's beautiful. Wait, do you actually fish herring? I thought it was just a silly moniker.

that is a picture of a cloud of herring semen


Well who doesn't enjoy inseminating large swaths of the landscape? I know I do.
 
2013-09-16 02:43:41 PM  

comhcinc: Epicfarker: comhcinc: I hate that kid died. I hate it when anyone is murdered, but I am disturbed by the ideas of hate crimes. People have the right to think whatever bigoted stupid thing they want to think. We should prosecute the crime not the thought behind the crime.

That isn't how hate crimes work. No one is punishing anyone for thought. A hate crime has more than just one victim. If you were to beat up a black woman for being on the "white" end of town. She isn't the only victim. You are causing many other black women to live in fear that they might be beaten or killed by accidentally stumbling into the "white" end of town. Punishing hate crimes isn't about punishing thought, rather it is about punishing the crime AND it's contribution to the culture of fear.

What if I beat up a black women for her purse. Doesn't that also contribute to the culture of fear?


Fear of indiscriminate crime is not the same as fear of being targeted for something outside of your control. So, no.
 
2013-09-16 02:43:54 PM  

comhcinc: What if I beat up a black women for her purse. Doesn't that also contribute to the culture of fear?


If you beat her up because she has money and you wants it, that's the textbook definition of "robbery". You haven't done anything special to contribute to a culture of fear that would warrant a more severe punishment than the few months/years in jail/prison.

If you beat her up because she's a black woman, that falls outside the textbook definition a bit - you don't want her money, you want her shamed. You've done something to contribute to a culture of fear - a specific fear that another black woman would get beaten, rather than a general fear that this corner is not safe.

It may be a subtle difference, but according to Wm. Rhenquist (who had a bit of legal training, and at least 4 other associate SC justices on his side when he said it), this is the rationale for hate-crime modifiers.
 
2013-09-16 02:44:29 PM  
Hmmm.  Both versions of what really happened seem legit.  I guess i'm on the fence with this one.
 
2013-09-16 02:47:26 PM  

Epicfarker: comhcinc: Epicfarker: comhcinc: I hate that kid died. I hate it when anyone is murdered, but I am disturbed by the ideas of hate crimes. People have the right to think whatever bigoted stupid thing they want to think. We should prosecute the crime not the thought behind the crime.

That isn't how hate crimes work. No one is punishing anyone for thought. A hate crime has more than just one victim. If you were to beat up a black woman for being on the "white" end of town. She isn't the only victim. You are causing many other black women to live in fear that they might be beaten or killed by accidentally stumbling into the "white" end of town. Punishing hate crimes isn't about punishing thought, rather it is about punishing the crime AND it's contribution to the culture of fear.

What if I beat up a black women for her purse. Doesn't that also contribute to the culture of fear?

Fear of indiscriminate crime is not the same as fear of being targeted for something outside of your control. So, no.


How is it indiscriminate? I am after purses. Wouldn't that put add to the culture of fear for the part of the population that carries purses?
 
2013-09-16 02:48:45 PM  

Dr Dreidel: comhcinc: What if I beat up a black women for her purse. Doesn't that also contribute to the culture of fear?

If you beat her up because she has money and you wants it, that's the textbook definition of "robbery". You haven't done anything special to contribute to a culture of fear that would warrant a more severe punishment than the few months/years in jail/prison.

If you beat her up because she's a black woman, that falls outside the textbook definition a bit - you don't want her money, you want her shamed. You've done something to contribute to a culture of fear - a specific fear that another black woman would get beaten, rather than a general fear that this corner is not safe.

It may be a subtle difference, but according to Wm. Rhenquist (who had a bit of legal training, and at least 4 other associate SC justices on his side when he said it), this is the rationale for hate-crime modifiers.


I get that and please believe me when I say I am not trolling, but how can you tell why I beat that woman up?
 
2013-09-16 02:49:20 PM  

Richard Flaccid: Hmmm.  Both versions of what really happened seem legit.  I guess i'm on the fence with this one.


i.imgur.com
 
2013-09-16 02:51:20 PM  

comhcinc: I get that and please believe me when I say I am not trolling, but how can you tell why I beat that woman up?


That has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, just like how they have to prove the assault too.
 
2013-09-16 02:53:38 PM  

lockers: comhcinc: I get that and please believe me when I say I am not trolling, but how can you tell why I beat that woman up?

That has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, just like how they have to prove the assault too.


I get that but my question is how can you tell what was in my mind with I beat up that black woman and took her purse? I am trying to understand the method.


*For any one coming in late I did not really beat a black woman and steal her purse*
 
2013-09-16 02:54:07 PM  

Dr Dreidel: comhcinc: What if I beat up a black women for her purse. Doesn't that also contribute to the culture of fear?

If you beat her up because she has money and you wants it, that's the textbook definition of "robbery". You haven't done anything special to contribute to a culture of fear that would warrant a more severe punishment than the few months/years in jail/prison.

If you beat her up because she's a black woman, that falls outside the textbook definition a bit - you don't want her money, you want her shamed. You've done something to contribute to a culture of fear - a specific fear that another black woman would get beaten, rather than a general fear that this corner is not safe.

It may be a subtle difference, but according to Wm. Rhenquist (who had a bit of legal training, and at least 4 other associate SC justices on his side when he said it), this is the rationale for hate-crime modifiers.



Yeah, the recent spate of all of those hundreds of black women being beaten up for being on the wrong side of town ... somebody should Do Something about that.

I'm sure you heard of this incident, then, right?  Remember when it made the news around the country like wildfire.  They made 16 documentaries about it, and once Hollywood got involved, it prompted legislation that Obama promptly signed into law.  Remember that?

Gee, women sure do get beaten all the time for being in the wrong place.  Oppressive bigots!
 
2013-09-16 02:58:10 PM  

comhcinc: Epicfarker: comhcinc: Epicfarker: comhcinc: I hate that kid died. I hate it when anyone is murdered, but I am disturbed by the ideas of hate crimes. People have the right to think whatever bigoted stupid thing they want to think. We should prosecute the crime not the thought behind the crime.

That isn't how hate crimes work. No one is punishing anyone for thought. A hate crime has more than just one victim. If you were to beat up a black woman for being on the "white" end of town. She isn't the only victim. You are causing many other black women to live in fear that they might be beaten or killed by accidentally stumbling into the "white" end of town. Punishing hate crimes isn't about punishing thought, rather it is about punishing the crime AND it's contribution to the culture of fear.

What if I beat up a black women for her purse. Doesn't that also contribute to the culture of fear?

Fear of indiscriminate crime is not the same as fear of being targeted for something outside of your control. So, no.

How is it indiscriminate? I am after purses. Wouldn't that put add to the culture of fear for the part of the population that carries purses?


No it wouldn't. People are smart enough to know the difference between being targeted to be robbed and being targeted because they look or behave differently. You are trying really hard to go to bat for racists and bigots, seriously tell us what really offends you about hate crimes legislation. u.u
 
2013-09-16 03:10:49 PM  

Epicfarker: comhcinc: Epicfarker: comhcinc: Epicfarker: comhcinc: I hate that kid died. I hate it when anyone is murdered, but I am disturbed by the ideas of hate crimes. People have the right to think whatever bigoted stupid thing they want to think. We should prosecute the crime not the thought behind the crime.

That isn't how hate crimes work. No one is punishing anyone for thought. A hate crime has more than just one victim. If you were to beat up a black woman for being on the "white" end of town. She isn't the only victim. You are causing many other black women to live in fear that they might be beaten or killed by accidentally stumbling into the "white" end of town. Punishing hate crimes isn't about punishing thought, rather it is about punishing the crime AND it's contribution to the culture of fear.

What if I beat up a black women for her purse. Doesn't that also contribute to the culture of fear?

Fear of indiscriminate crime is not the same as fear of being targeted for something outside of your control. So, no.

How is it indiscriminate? I am after purses. Wouldn't that put add to the culture of fear for the part of the population that carries purses?

No it wouldn't. People are smart enough to know the difference between being targeted to be robbed and being targeted because they look or behave differently. You are trying really hard to go to bat for racists and bigots, seriously tell us what really offends you about hate crimes legislation. u.u


Are they?  Again how you know?
 
2013-09-16 03:11:58 PM  

Marshal805: FTFA: "For many heterosexuals it challenged the myth of America as a guarantor of equality and liberty."


WTF is that shait?

The ones responsible for his murder are in prison.  Sounds like the Judaical system did it's job and it's the MEDIA who farked up.


Well, it didn't help that one of his killers initially claimed temporary insanity by reason of "gay panic".
 
2013-09-16 03:12:33 PM  

Phinn: Yeah, the recent spate of all of those hundreds of black women being beaten up for being on the wrong side of town ... somebody should Do Something about that.


Uh, what are you arguing against, exactly? That since there's no epidemic of hate-crime, we should strike those laws from the books? That bias crime can only be committed against minorities and Obama hates white people? That just because people I share demographic identifiers with did some stupid (and illegal) shiat (in a different country than the one we're discussing), I'm a hypocrite for not condemning them in my loudest possible outdoor-voice?
 
2013-09-16 03:17:16 PM  

comhcinc: Epicfarker: comhcinc: Epicfarker: comhcinc: Epicfarker: comhcinc: I hate that kid died. I hate it when anyone is murdered, but I am disturbed by the ideas of hate crimes. People have the right to think whatever bigoted stupid thing they want to think. We should prosecute the crime not the thought behind the crime.

That isn't how hate crimes work. No one is punishing anyone for thought. A hate crime has more than just one victim. If you were to beat up a black woman for being on the "white" end of town. She isn't the only victim. You are causing many other black women to live in fear that they might be beaten or killed by accidentally stumbling into the "white" end of town. Punishing hate crimes isn't about punishing thought, rather it is about punishing the crime AND it's contribution to the culture of fear.

What if I beat up a black women for her purse. Doesn't that also contribute to the culture of fear?

Fear of indiscriminate crime is not the same as fear of being targeted for something outside of your control. So, no.

How is it indiscriminate? I am after purses. Wouldn't that put add to the culture of fear for the part of the population that carries purses?

No it wouldn't. People are smart enough to know the difference between being targeted to be robbed and being targeted because they look or behave differently. You are trying really hard to go to bat for racists and bigots, seriously tell us what really offends you about hate crimes legislation. u.u

Are they?  Again how you know?


Ok so, if you can't understand the difference between fear minorities live with in some places in this country and the fear people have of being mugged, than there is no talking to you. I get it, you don't like hate crimes legislation because you want to pretend that no hate crimes ever occur. Gotcha bro, have a good self-delusional life.
 
2013-09-16 03:18:21 PM  

comhcinc: lockers: comhcinc: I get that and please believe me when I say I am not trolling, but how can you tell why I beat that woman up?

That has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, just like how they have to prove the assault too.

I get that but my question is how can you tell what was in my mind with I beat up that black woman and took her purse? I am trying to understand the method.


Well, I assume witnesses or self-incrimination would probably be involved. Prosecutors won't just throw it out willy-nilly. Without clear evidence the prosecutor will typically avoid charges he doesn't believe will survive appeal. For instance, they didn't charge Zimmerman with a hate crime because the evidence was very flimsy.

*For any one coming in late I did not really beat a black woman and steal her purse*

Typically the "a crime is just a crime" crowd haven't done anything other than use actions as a rhetorical device. The ones I have talked with aren't overtly racist, they just believe that hate isn't something we should punish. I disagree.
 
2013-09-16 03:21:26 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Uh, what are you arguing against, exactly? That since there's no epidemic of hate-crime, we should strike those laws from the books? That bias crime can only be committed against minorities and Obama hates white people?


What's really silly is that hate crimes cover crimes committed against white people. The follow up is a litany of hand wringing that the judicial system is rigged against caucasians. It would be laughable if it wasn't so utterly pathetic.
 
2013-09-16 03:31:34 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Phinn: Yeah, the recent spate of all of those hundreds of black women being beaten up for being on the wrong side of town ... somebody should Do Something about that.

Uh, what are you arguing against, exactly? That since there's no epidemic of hate-crime, we should strike those laws from the books? That bias crime can only be committed against minorities and Obama hates white people? That just because people I share demographic identifiers with did some stupid (and illegal) shiat (in a different country than the one we're discussing), I'm a hypocrite for not condemning them in my loudest possible outdoor-voice?



I'm making a comment on how ideas like "hate crimes" come into being.

They are enacted because of a large number of people who live inside a Cartoon-Realty Bubble, wherein they believe the world is a mean, scary place, where (for example) black women are being accosted left, right and center for straying into the wrong side of town.  It's a fantasyland where WASP men are lurking under every rock, waiting for their golden opportunity to oppress someone for her Otherness.

This is a mode of thought built on story.  It's functionally equivalent to going to the movies, and staying there, all the time.  This is where the Matthew Shepard story was concocted.

Meanwhile, a white guy in his pick shirt bought gas in Baton Rouge, and was immediately beaten, and his daughter had her face bashed in, for being in the wrong neighborhood.  By this guy:

wafb.images.worldnow.com

These things happen. Statistics are what they are.  All our fantasizing and hand-wringing and moralizing doesn't actually change reality. It only changes how we think about reality.

Did you hear about the Baton Rouge Wrong Neighborhood story?  Did anyone outside of Baton Rouge hear about it?

No.  If it had been Professor Cornell West who'd been beaten that evening, we'd have heard about it.  We'd have had another National Conversation about Race.  There would be marches and TV crews and presidential pressers and documentaries and Hollywood actors (experts at constructing Cartoon Reality Bubbles) all over the media telling us about our disturbing culture of hate and guilt and more hate.

I'm sure you'll respond by saying that the Gas Station Wrong Neighborhood Beating incident was wrong and how the perps should be punished, because it costs you nothing to say that.  That's not my point.  My point is not to debate the existence of black-on-white crime, or compare it to the incidence of white-on-black crime.  My point (since you asked) is that the MEDIA respond to incidents according to the MEDIA TRACTION they can get with certain story lines, not with actual reality.

And the reality is that stories about gay bashing get a lot more traction than white-bashing, even when the gay bashing incident turns out to be just a bunch of drug dealers.
 
2013-09-16 03:39:27 PM  

Phinn: I'm making a comment on how ideas like "hate crimes" come into being.


That was an awfully long-winded way of saying "I don't know what hate crime laws actually are".
 
2013-09-16 03:53:09 PM  

Phinn: They are enacted because of a large number of people who live inside a Cartoon-Realty Bubble, wherein they believe the world is a mean, scary place, where (for example) black women are being accosted left, right and center for straying into the wrong side of town.


Hate crime laws punish people who commit violent crimes for reasons of discrimination. The victims race, religion and (depending on the state) sexuality aren't the issue. It's the criminals intent that matters. But you knew this.

Phinn: My point (since you asked) is that the MEDIA respond to incidents according to the MEDIA TRACTION they can get with certain story lines, not with actual reality.


The media played that angle because this is what the killers themselves said. But you knew this.
 
2013-09-16 03:58:15 PM  
R.I.P. Sheppard
Ronon Dex and Teyla will have your revenege
 
2013-09-16 03:58:33 PM  
Good for me I did not know a lot of the facts outside of Matt Shepard was murdered. Seems indisputable.
 
2013-09-16 04:00:44 PM  

Phinn: That is, it wasn't part of the definition of a crime up until the point when Proggies started re-writing the criminal law to express their political fee-fees and their smug-but-warped sense of ethics.


Aren't you just adorable!
 
2013-09-16 04:05:19 PM  

Phinn: That is, it wasn't part of the definition of a crime up until the point when Proggies started re-writing the criminal law to express their political fee-fees and their smug-but-warped sense of ethics.


Those darn proggies and their pantoozlers, floofloopers, and tartinkers! And don't get me started on their zuzithercarzays! They're almost as bad as their whocarnioflunxs.
 
2013-09-16 04:05:29 PM  

lockers: Phinn: They are enacted because of a large number of people who live inside a Cartoon-Realty Bubble, wherein they believe the world is a mean, scary place, where (for example) black women are being accosted left, right and center for straying into the wrong side of town.

Hate crime laws punish people who commit violent crimes for reasons of discrimination. The victims race, religion and (depending on the state) sexuality aren't the issue. It's the criminals intent that matters. But you knew this.

Phinn: My point (since you asked) is that the MEDIA respond to incidents according to the MEDIA TRACTION they can get with certain story lines, not with actual reality.

The media played that angle because this is what the killers themselves said. But you knew this.


As was said above, the truth was reported on the early version of the Internet in the 1990s, before blogs really existed. I distinctly remember the disparity between the media's version of events and the actual facts, as it was happening at the time. It was sort of like the Folklore Version of the Trayvon Martin shooting, and reality.

The Matthew Shepard Folklore is notable only because a new medium was developing at the time, which provided a long-overdue reality check on the Folklore Media.
 
2013-09-16 04:08:00 PM  

Phinn: I distinctly remember the disparity between the media's version of events and the actual facts,


Where did you find these "actual facts"?
 
2013-09-16 04:11:20 PM  

Phinn: And the reality is that stories about gay bashing get a lot more traction than white-bashing, even when the gay bashing incident turns out to be just a bunch of drug dealers.


And the fun part is, it can be a hate crime while ALSO being about a drug deal gone bad. And in the case you cited, prosecutors had the option to add a hate crime modifier, but didn't, and I'm sure you'll tell us why - like, if there was no or flimsy evidence, if there's no state hate-crime legislation and there's no reason for it to be a Federal case, if they're just the most anti-white people since Marcus Garvey...

Phinn: It's a fantasyland where WASP men are lurking under every rock, waiting for their golden opportunity to oppress someone for her Otherness.


It's also a fantasyland where no one is attacked for being The Other.

Now that we're done with the respective fantasies, can you tell me why we should turn a blind eye to bias crimes (which no one can deny the occurrence of)? Do you just not think it's as big a deal for the community as Rhenquist thought it was (and not just the X community, all of us)?

Are you just pissed because there haven't been headline-grabbing hate crimes cases against black defendants for attacking Whitey?
 
2013-09-16 04:17:26 PM  

Phinn: My point is not to debate the existence of black-on-white crime, or compare it to the incidence of white-on-black crime.


And I should hope not, since racially-motivated crimes against black people far outweigh the racially-motivated crimes committed against white people. So if you're sensing that the former get more media coverage, the simple explanation would be that it's because one simply happens more often than the other, rather than there being some convoluted anti-white media conspiracy.
 
2013-09-16 04:20:55 PM  

Phinn: And the reality is that stories about gay bashing get a lot more traction than white-bashing


So, despite the fact that there are there are two and a half times as many anti-gay crimes as there are anti-white crimes a year, white people are the real victims here.
 
2013-09-16 04:23:57 PM  
UrukHaiGuyz: Marshal805: Judaical

Wut. Is that like
Sharia Sherry  law? :)

FTFtheguyIheardsayexactlythatyesterday
 
2013-09-16 04:27:14 PM  

someonelse: Phinn: I distinctly remember the disparity between the media's version of events and the actual facts,

Where did you find these "actual facts"?


I don't remember. It's been 15 years. It took longer than I expected for something like TFA to be written, though.

I also remember the early Internet being a source of unorthodox info about TWA Flight 800. Not too long ago, 6 of the original investigators started giving interviews and contributing to a documentary about how flawed and politicized the investigation was. It only took 14 years.

At the time, the Internet was treated like the National Enquirer. It wasn't until the DNA results came back on Monica Lewinsky's blue dress that the Internet was considered a potentially viable source of the heretical information that "journalists" deem unworthy of dissemination.

I had a lot of hope for the Internet, as an enlightening force in society. Bur the Zimmerman threads pretty much convinced me that most people, even moderately intelligent people, insist on believing the propaganda that's packaged for their consumption. People are not just deluded. They're willfully deluded. They like the lies. They will fight to preserve the Folklore Version they're being fed.
 
2013-09-16 04:28:42 PM  

Biological Ali: Phinn: My point is not to debate the existence of black-on-white crime, or compare it to the incidence of white-on-black crime.

And I should hope not, since racially-motivated crimes against black people far outweigh the racially-motivated crimes committed against white people. So if you're sensing that the former get more media coverage, the simple explanation would be that it's because one simply happens more often than the other, rather than there being some convoluted anti-white media conspiracy.



Just fyi, that chart self-selects hate crimes specifically as already defined by the us gov.  It's tautological when discussing causes and definitions for classifications.
 
2013-09-16 04:33:12 PM  

BafflerMeal: Biological Ali: Phinn: My point is not to debate the existence of black-on-white crime, or compare it to the incidence of white-on-black crime.

And I should hope not, since racially-motivated crimes against black people far outweigh the racially-motivated crimes committed against white people. So if you're sensing that the former get more media coverage, the simple explanation would be that it's because one simply happens more often than the other, rather than there being some convoluted anti-white media conspiracy.


Just fyi, that chart self-selects hate crimes specifically as already defined by the us gov.  It's tautological when discussing causes and definitions for classifications.


Folklore tends to be self-referential. That characteristic is what helps turn Story Time into a fully-functional, permanent way of life for some people.
 
2013-09-16 04:33:38 PM  

BafflerMeal: Just fyi, that chart self-selects hate crimes specifically as already defined by the us gov.  It's tautological when discussing causes and definitions for classifications.


You've typed a lot of words in there but I have yet to discern what, if anything, you're trying to say.
 
2013-09-16 04:37:24 PM  

Biological Ali: BafflerMeal: Just fyi, that chart self-selects hate crimes specifically as already defined by the us gov.  It's tautological when discussing causes and definitions for classifications.

You've typed a lot of words in there but I have yet to discern what, if anything, you're trying to say.


It means that your statistics are unreliable.

I'm sure you exhibit a healthy skepticism toward statistics that don't confirm your worldview. But you'll accept these without hesitation? That's not very smart.
 
2013-09-16 04:38:46 PM  

Phinn: Folklore tends to be self-referential. That characteristic is what helps turn Story Time into a fully-functional, permanent way of life for some people.


Has this thread turned into an impromptu slam poetry exhibition or something?
 
2013-09-16 04:44:53 PM  

Phinn: Biological Ali: BafflerMeal: Just fyi, that chart self-selects hate crimes specifically as already defined by the us gov.  It's tautological when discussing causes and definitions for classifications.

You've typed a lot of words in there but I have yet to discern what, if anything, you're trying to say.

It means that your statistics are unreliable.

I'm sure you exhibit a healthy skepticism toward statistics that don't confirm your worldview. But you'll accept these without hesitation? That's not very smart.


How exactly are the statistics "unreliable"? Are you suggesting that there's some slew of anti-white hate crimes that aren't being recorded, or that there's some large number of crimes that have wrongly been determined to be racially motivated when they actually aren't?
 
2013-09-16 04:45:37 PM  

Biological Ali: Phinn: Folklore tends to be self-referential. That characteristic is what helps turn Story Time into a fully-functional, permanent way of life for some people.

Has this thread turned into an impromptu slam poetry exhibition or something?


Your confusion is an effect of rationality intruding on your well-practiced habit of exercising your confirmation bias. I'm sure it's very disorienting for you.

Go back to your cocoon. It's nice and comfy in there.
 
2013-09-16 04:46:35 PM  
Can I just mention Hitler and end this?
 
2013-09-16 04:50:08 PM  

Phinn: Your confusion is an effect of rationality intruding on your well-practiced habit of exercising your confirmation bias. I'm sure it's very disorienting for you.

Go back to your cocoon. It's nice and comfy in there.


Now you're just stringing together buzzwords into sentences that are vaguely insulting but don't really say anything at all.
 
2013-09-16 04:51:09 PM  

comhcinc: Can I just mention Hitler and end this?


 mypetjawa.mu.nu
 
2013-09-16 04:53:24 PM  

BafflerMeal: comhcinc: Can I just mention Hitler and end this?

 [mypetjawa.mu.nu image 250x256]


Nice.
 
2013-09-16 04:55:26 PM  

Biological Ali: How exactly are the statistics "unreliable"? Are you suggesting that there's some slew of anti-white hate crimes that aren't being recorded, or that there's some large number of crimes that have wrongly been determined to be racially motivated when they actually aren't?


Because, if there is anything we all know, the criminal justice system is extremely biased against white people and furthermore.
 
2013-09-16 04:59:05 PM  

friday13: under a mountain: Mikey1969: FarkedOver: comhcinc: I hate that kid died. I hate it when anyone is murdered, but I am disturbed by the ideas of hate crimes. People have the right to think whatever bigoted stupid thing they want to think. We should prosecute the crime not the thought behind the crime.

We already do prosecute based on the thought.  If we didn't there would be no distinction between manslaughter and murder 1.

It's not "thought", it's your actions to put your plan of murder into reality. You can still plan a murder, and you won't get arrested if nobody ever kills the person.

Tell that to this guy.Or Manson

Methinks you missed a rather important point there, my friend.


Yes, yes i did.
/Hangs head in shame
 
2013-09-16 05:17:00 PM  

lockers: Biological Ali: How exactly are the statistics "unreliable"? Are you suggesting that there's some slew of anti-white hate crimes that aren't being recorded, or that there's some large number of crimes that have wrongly been determined to be racially motivated when they actually aren't?

Because, if there is anything we all know, the criminal justice system is extremely biased against white people and furthermore.


The federal government gives large amounts of taxpayer money to the DOJ and state/local law enforcement for its activities in responding to "hate crimes."

And violence against women.

Ordinary crime against white males doesn't flip the switches that dispense as much federal money.

The system is institutionslly biased in favor of finding as many hate crimes (against non-whites and women) as possible.

These facts are not a conspiracy theory. They're right out in the open. They do not prove that the FBI statistics are wrong. But they do make the statistics unreliable. The government provides an incentive to distort, in the form of tax money for identifying politically-approved crime patterns.

If the government gave doctors 10% more money for every case of autism they reported, there would be a sharp uptick in autism statistics.
 
2013-09-16 05:24:22 PM  

Phinn: lockers: Biological Ali: How exactly are the statistics "unreliable"? Are you suggesting that there's some slew of anti-white hate crimes that aren't being recorded, or that there's some large number of crimes that have wrongly been determined to be racially motivated when they actually aren't?

Because, if there is anything we all know, the criminal justice system is extremely biased against white people and furthermore.

The federal government gives large amounts of taxpayer money to the DOJ and state/local law enforcement for its activities in responding to "hate crimes."

And violence against women.

Ordinary crime against white males doesn't flip the switches that dispense as much federal money.

The system is institutionslly biased in favor of finding as many hate crimes (against non-whites and women) as possible.

These facts are not a conspiracy theory. They're right out in the open. They do not prove that the FBI statistics are wrong. But they do make the statistics unreliable. The government provides an incentive to distort, in the form of tax money for identifying politically-approved crime patterns.

If the government gave doctors 10% more money for every case of autism they reported, there would be a sharp uptick in autism statistics.



You keep using that word. Yet you do not provide any actual facts.
 
2013-09-16 05:32:55 PM  

someonelse: Phinn: lockers: Biological Ali: How exactly are the statistics "unreliable"? Are you suggesting that there's some slew of anti-white hate crimes that aren't being recorded, or that there's some large number of crimes that have wrongly been determined to be racially motivated when they actually aren't?

Because, if there is anything we all know, the criminal justice system is extremely biased against white people and furthermore.

The federal government gives large amounts of taxpayer money to the DOJ and state/local law enforcement for its activities in responding to "hate crimes."

And violence against women.

Ordinary crime against white males doesn't flip the switches that dispense as much federal money.

The system is institutionslly biased in favor of finding as many hate crimes (against non-whites and women) as possible.

These facts are not a conspiracy theory. They're right out in the open. They do not prove that the FBI statistics are wrong. But they do make the statistics unreliable. The government provides an incentive to distort, in the form of tax money for identifying politically-approved crime patterns.

If the government gave doctors 10% more money for every case of autism they reported, there would be a sharp uptick in autism statistics.


You keep using that word. Yet you do not provide any actual facts.


The appropriation and grants of federal money to agencies, based on their statistical reporting, is a fact. It is usually sold to the public as a self-congratulatory good thing -- "We're fighting hate!"

But that system of funding also necessarily introduces perverse incentives, as it would in any other context. When the federal government gives more tax money to schools based on its annual testing, there is an increased rate of cheating, by the teachers and administrators, in an effort to qualify for more money.

The dividing line between hate crime and regular crime is particularly vague and prone to abuse, and thus even less reliable than the NCLB school grading system.
 
2013-09-16 05:43:26 PM  
 
2013-09-16 05:48:34 PM  

dittybopper: It seems to me that the motivation for a particular crime is largely irrelevant, and in fact hate crime legislation is verging uncomfortably close to thought crime. It's just one small leap to go from "punishing someone extra for their thoughts" to "punishing someone for their thoughts". And that's one solid, bright line you just don't *EVER* want to cross as a society. But we're crowding up against it.



It's not punishing for thoughts.  There has to be some outward objective manifestation.


Is painting "San Dimas High School Football Rules!" on a bridge the same thing as painting swastikas on a synagogue?
 
2013-09-16 05:55:11 PM  

Cheron: I guess being beaten and left to slowly die alone is OK if meth was involved.


Yeah, why does it matter what the motive was if the end result is "victim pistol-whipped and left unconscious to die of exposure on a fence" except that meth heads make even less sense than bigots?
 
2013-09-16 06:05:34 PM  

bikerific: dittybopper: It seems to me that the motivation for a particular crime is largely irrelevant, and in fact hate crime legislation is verging uncomfortably close to thought crime. It's just one small leap to go from "punishing someone extra for their thoughts" to "punishing someone for their thoughts". And that's one solid, bright line you just don't *EVER* want to cross as a society. But we're crowding up against it.


It's not punishing for thoughts.  There has to be some outward objective manifestation.


Is painting "San Dimas High School Football Rules!" on a bridge the same thing as painting swastikas on a synagogue?


I would say yes. Both are property damage, but I do see a difference with intent. Let's say both groups of kids where caught breaking the law. I have no issue with charging the kids spray painting the bridge to two week of community service while the kids who painted the synagogue with getting six month of community service plus a visit to the holocaust museum. The law as it stands allows us to deal with a difference. My question to you do you think it is necessary to charge those kids at the synagogue with a federal crime?
 
2013-09-16 06:09:04 PM  

Biological Ali: Phinn: The system is institutionslly biased in favor of finding as many hate crimes (against non-whites and women) as possible.

Meanwhile, in reality:

The Hate Crime Statistics Program of the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program collects data regarding criminal offenses that are motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender's bias against a race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity/national origin, or disability and are committed against persons, property, or society. (Forthcoming system changes will also allow the future collection of data for crimes motivated by gender and gender identity as well as data about crimes committed by, and crimes directed against, juveniles.) Because motivation is subjective, it is sometimes difficult to know with certainty whether a crime resulted from the offender's bias. Moreover, the presence of bias alone does not necessarily mean that a crime can be considered a hate crime. Only when law enforcement investigation reveals sufficient evidence to lead a reasonable and prudent person to conclude that the offender's actions were motivated, in whole or in part, by his or her bias, should an incident be reported as a hate crime.

If anything, the high burden of proof means that the actual rates of hate crimes are being under-reported in these statistics.


There is no proof required to include any particular incident in the reporting. It's subjective. And these events are reported by one interested party to another interested party, and are not independently verified.

But sure, it's still 100% reliably accurate. Seems legit.

Hey, did you hear about the Miami School Police Department and the fallout from the Trayvon Martin shooting and trial? It turns out that a lawsuit ensued, and the school police chief either resigned or was fired. It turns out that he was pressuring his subordinates to under-report the crimes committed by black males, so as to give a phony boost to his success record and to keep the offenders (including one named Trayvon) out of the criminal justice system. Big scandal. Heads rolled.
 
2013-09-16 06:10:51 PM  

GoldSpider: Mikey1969: He originally pleaded the gay panic defense, arguing that he and Henderson were driven to temporary insanity by alleged sexual advances by Shepard.

Which, according to the article, was not true.


Where does it say that?
 
2013-09-16 06:15:31 PM  

Phinn: Hey, did you hear about


Tipped your hand there. Now I know you've been pulling my leg all along.

I don't know what exactly you get out of pretending to be an idiot in front of strangers on the internet, but I strongly recommend that you find a more meaningful and worthwhile hobby.
 
2013-09-16 06:17:42 PM  

Phinn: Biological Ali: Phinn: The system is institutionslly biased in favor of finding as many hate crimes (against non-whites and women) as possible.

Meanwhile, in reality:

The Hate Crime Statistics Program of the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program collects data regarding criminal offenses that are motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender's bias against a race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity/national origin, or disability and are committed against persons, property, or society. (Forthcoming system changes will also allow the future collection of data for crimes motivated by gender and gender identity as well as data about crimes committed by, and crimes directed against, juveniles.) Because motivation is subjective, it is sometimes difficult to know with certainty whether a crime resulted from the offender's bias. Moreover, the presence of bias alone does not necessarily mean that a crime can be considered a hate crime. Only when law enforcement investigation reveals sufficient evidence to lead a reasonable and prudent person to conclude that the offender's actions were motivated, in whole or in part, by his or her bias, should an incident be reported as a hate crime.

If anything, the high burden of proof means that the actual rates of hate crimes are being under-reported in these statistics.

There is no proof required to include any particular incident in the reporting. It's subjective. And these events are reported by one interested party to another interested party, and are not independently verified.

But sure, it's still 100% reliably accurate. Seems legit.

Hey, did you hear about the Miami School Police Department and the fallout from the Trayvon Martin shooting and trial? It turns out that a lawsuit ensued, and the school police chief either resigned or was fired. It turns out that he was pressuring his subordinates to under-report the crimes committed by black males, so as to give a phony boost to his success record and to keep the offenders (including one named Trayvon) out of the criminal justice system. Big scandal. Heads rolled.


You are telling the absolute truth, without a single lie to be found.

Of course, the lawsuit was for sexual harassment, and nothing at all to do with Trayvon Martin, but it is factually correct that there was a lawsuit. You win two Internets for not being a liar!
 
2013-09-16 06:36:41 PM  

Biological Ali: Phinn: Hey, did you hear about

Tipped your hand there. Now I know you've been pulling my leg all along.

I don't know what exactly you get out of pretending to be an idiot in front of strangers on the internet, but I strongly recommend that you find a more meaningful and worthwhile hobby.


You've said nothing to demonstrate the reliability of the statistics you cited. You haven't even tried. You've said nothing to overcome the problems that arise from the (admitted) inherent subjectivity of the matter being reported, the lack of impartiality of those doing the reporting, the outright financial and political incentives to systematically engage in distortion, and lack of independent verification.

You stink at this reasoning thing.
 
2013-09-16 07:00:59 PM  

Phinn: You've said


It's poor form to keep trying to troll somebody who's already figured out that you're trolling. It's desperate and pathetic, even by troll standards.
 
2013-09-16 07:26:34 PM  

Biological Ali: Phinn: You've said

It's poor form to keep trying to troll somebody who's already figured out that you're trolling. It's desperate and pathetic, even by troll standards.


You're awfully invested in your opinions. Notice how you keep avoiding the facts and your rhetorical/cognitive failures, and yet keep steering the conversation back to yourself and your own point of view.

You must be a Millenial. Only Millenials and Baby Boomers exhibit your level of self-absorption.
 
2013-09-16 07:52:58 PM  

Phinn: You're awfully


Are you under the impression that if you keep trolling me long enough, I'll somehow magically forget that you're a troll? Or are you putting on this act for somebody else?

Honestly, it seems like your evening would be better spent if you just stopped trolling this thread and did something else instead.
 
2013-09-16 08:01:31 PM  
Just get a room you two : )
/Maybe Phinn just really wants attention from a man.
//NTTATWWT
 
2013-09-16 08:07:03 PM  

comhcinc: I hate that kid died. I hate it when anyone is murdered, but I am disturbed by the ideas of hate crimes. People have the right to think whatever bigoted stupid thing they want to think. We should prosecute the crime not the thought behind the crime.


A large number of Farkers likely agree with you (have not read whole thread). I'm as libtard as they come but I don't see the sense in classifying crimes based on the target. Murder is murder, so prosecute it accordingly.
 
2013-09-16 08:24:58 PM  

dickfreckle: comhcinc: I hate that kid died. I hate it when anyone is murdered, but I am disturbed by the ideas of hate crimes. People have the right to think whatever bigoted stupid thing they want to think. We should prosecute the crime not the thought behind the crime.

A large number of Farkers likely agree with you (have not read whole thread). I'm as libtard as they come but I don't see the sense in classifying crimes based on the target. Murder is murder, so prosecute it accordingly.


It's not based on the target so much as it's based on motive.  We have a long history of looking at why people commit crimes and for what reasons in the context of the crimes they commit.
 
2013-09-16 08:33:12 PM  
Phinn really augered this baby right into the ground, didn't he.
 
2013-09-16 08:49:34 PM  

dickfreckle: comhcinc: I hate that kid died. I hate it when anyone is murdered, but I am disturbed by the ideas of hate crimes. People have the right to think whatever bigoted stupid thing they want to think. We should prosecute the crime not the thought behind the crime.

A large number of Farkers likely agree with you (have not read whole thread). I'm as libtard as they come but I don't see the sense in classifying crimes based on the target. Murder is murder, so prosecute it accordingly.


I will label you as a liberal and we will see how that goes. Just for clarity:


A) Can the state provide service better than the corporations can?


B) Is obama right left or center?


C) was the Terry Schiavo case, where she got unplugged a bad thing?;

 
2013-09-16 09:24:31 PM  

lockers: dickfreckle: comhcinc: I hate that kid died. I hate it when anyone is murdered, but I am disturbed by the ideas of hate crimes. People have the right to think whatever bigoted stupid thing they want to think. We should prosecute the crime not the thought behind the crime.

A large number of Farkers likely agree with you (have not read whole thread). I'm as libtard as they come but I don't see the sense in classifying crimes based on the target. Murder is murder, so prosecute it accordingly.

I will label you as a liberal and we will see how that goes. Just for clarity:
A) Can the state provide service better than the corporations can?
B) Is obama right left or center?
C) was the Terry Schiavo case, where she got unplugged a bad thing?;


What? OK:

The state gets the benefit of the doubt because they are largely not motivated by profit. They're not perfect, but they're not evil.

Obama is center-right. He's left on some issues only when public opinion suggests he should be. I voted for him twice because I don't feel he'll destroy the country even if he doesn't accomplish some things I'd like to see (single-payer, for example).

The Schiavo case was among dumbest things I ever saw.

Now, just because I don't dig on hate crime attachments does not mean I'm not a libtard. We're not following a cookbook here. Each of us are entitled to opinions not necessarily shared by everyone in the group. The wording of your post makes me feel that you don't get that we don't have to be in lock-step. It's not the GOP.
 
2013-09-16 09:54:50 PM  

dickfreckle: Now, just because I don't dig on hate crime attachments does not mean I'm not a libtard. We're not following a cookbook here. Each of us are entitled to opinions not necessarily shared by everyone in the group. The wording of your post makes me feel that you don't get that we don't have to be in lock-step. It's not the GOP.


Okay so you're sorta liberal but don't believe hate crime exist or has existed. So I'm gonna guess you're not part of a minority that has been persecuted. I'm in the LGBT camp myself and well keeping this somewhat on topic I always figured Matthew Shepard knew his killers and there was always rumors about some kind of drugs. The fact that the defense used "gay panic" as a reasonable defense was disgusting at the time even though I guess somewhere it was successful.And those guys weren't charged with hate crime to my understanding they didn't exist yet.

FTFA: President Obama, who signed the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, named for Shepard and James Byrd Jr., into law on October 28, 2009, credited Judy Shepard for making him "passionate" about LGBT equality.

Also you may wanna look into something that happen I believe around that time a black male being dragged by a rope or chain attached to a pick-up truck in Texas.

/I was crazy back then, it's gotten a bit better.
 
2013-09-16 10:07:48 PM  
Opp' I meant to say 'It was crazy back then" but I guuess I was a bit crazy hell I was doing coke and meth as well at the club.

Oh, and if I recall correctly Mattew Shepards funeral was one of the first big appearances for the Westboro folks. The family and other mourners wear shielded from the protest by people in angel costumes. Maybe that is where someone got the wrong idea Matthew Sheppard was some kind of saint. It was just another killing in a long line of killings that finally made national news.
 
2013-09-16 10:55:42 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: dickfreckle: Now, just because I don't dig on hate crime attachments does not mean I'm not a libtard. We're not following a cookbook here. Each of us are entitled to opinions not necessarily shared by everyone in the group. The wording of your post makes me feel that you don't get that we don't have to be in lock-step. It's not the GOP.

Okay so you're sorta liberal but don't believe hate crime exist or has existed. So I'm gonna guess you're not part of a minority that has been persecuted. I'm in the LGBT camp myself and well keeping this somewhat on topic I always figured Matthew Shepard knew his killers and there was always rumors about some kind of drugs. The fact that the defense used "gay panic" as a reasonable defense was disgusting at the time even though I guess somewhere it was successful.And those guys weren't charged with hate crime to my understanding they didn't exist yet.

FTFA: President Obama, who signed the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, named for Shepard and James Byrd Jr., into law on October 28, 2009, credited Judy Shepard for making him "passionate" about LGBT equality.

Also you may wanna look into something that happen I believe around that time a black male being dragged by a rope or chain attached to a pick-up truck in Texas.

/I was crazy back then, it's gotten a bit better.


I have to agree with spotted dick here and I think you might be misunderstanding him. I also don't agree with hate-crime laws, not because I don't agree that hate crimes don't exist--because obviously they DO, and very virulently in a variety of flavors--but because the "laws" that exist to prosecute them are so slippery and difficult to define and in many cases start stepping on first amendment rights even as they try to prevent the kind of revolting crimes you mention.

The problem with hate-crime laws is that by their nature they are extremely subjective (duh) and depend entirely on a postulated relationship between the attacker and the victim (duh, again) that has to be proven by the prosecution (because duh #3--the burden is on the prosecutor) based on things that may or may not objectively exist. Which can be problematic IF the crime was in fact motivated by hate but those things weren't there; OR if those things were there yet the crime wasn't in fact motivated by "hate."

For instance: a real case in Santa Monica. Two boys got in a scuffle in a cafeteria that was occasioned by one spilling milk on the other, and erupted into a full on brawl. In the fight, racial slurs were exchanged, since one boy was black and the other Hispanic. Hate crime? Probably not, but it was prosecuted as such, since one of those markers I mentioned is the "use of racial slurs in the course of the crime." So two teenagers fighting over a place in a lunch line is now a "hate crime."

Hypothetical: A known racist beats a black man who owes him money. He manages not to utter any racial slurs during the beating, and when caught says it's because the guy owed him $50. Hate crime? If not, why not? If so, why? Change the facts so that the attacker is a known racist who DOES utter racial slurs, but the victim does in fact owe him $50. Still a hate crime? Change the facts again so the black man is the attacker and he calls the racist victim a "dirty k*ke." Hate crime? What if he's owed the $50?

Better, in my mind, if cases are simply treated as what they are--violent personal crimes and judged accordingly. If you beat someone for no reason, it's aggravated battery. If you drag someone to death behind your pickup truck, then it's first degree murder with aggravating circumstances like torture or extreme heinousness. If you trespass on someone's property to light a burning torch--it's trespass plus arson and terroristic threats. The options exist, and we should take advantage of them instead of creating other and more difficult crimes to prosecute.
 
2013-09-16 11:24:58 PM  

someonelse: Phinn really augered this baby right into the ground, didn't he.


I'll give him credit for making a very strong effort, although he really fizzled out at the end.
 
2013-09-16 11:29:28 PM  

Gyrfalcon: tinfoil-hat maggie: dickfreckle: Now, just because I don't dig on hate crime attachments does not mean I'm not a libtard. We're not following a cookbook here. Each of us are entitled to opinions not necessarily shared by everyone in the group. The wording of your post makes me feel that you don't get that we don't have to be in lock-step. It's not the GOP.

Okay so you're sorta liberal but don't believe hate crime exist or has existed. So I'm gonna guess you're not part of a minority that has been persecuted. I'm in the LGBT camp myself and well keeping this somewhat on topic I always figured Matthew Shepard knew his killers and there was always rumors about some kind of drugs. The fact that the defense used "gay panic" as a reasonable defense was disgusting at the time even though I guess somewhere it was successful.And those guys weren't charged with hate crime to my understanding they didn't exist yet.

FTFA: President Obama, who signed the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, named for Shepard and James Byrd Jr., into law on October 28, 2009, credited Judy Shepard for making him "passionate" about LGBT equality.

Also you may wanna look into something that happen I believe around that time a black male being dragged by a rope or chain attached to a pick-up truck in Texas.

/I was crazy back then, it's gotten a bit better.

I have to agree with spotted dick here and I think you might be misunderstanding him. I also don't agree with hate-crime laws, not because I don't agree that hate crimes don't exist--because obviously they DO, and very virulently in a variety of flavors--but because the "laws" that exist to prosecute them are so slippery and difficult to define and in many cases start stepping on first amendment rights even as they try to prevent the kind of revolting crimes you mention.

The problem with hate-crime laws is that by their nature they are extremely subjective (duh) and depend entirely on a postulated relationship between the attacker and the victim (duh, ...


Those are actually good points and if the law allows the loopholes you mention it should be fixed.
 
2013-09-17 12:09:20 AM  
Oh and Gyrfalcon: at least from my POV if some guy head out onto the streets from a bar and beat's and robs someone that is the crime.Now then if it was a black or white man and they said
before they left the bar I'm gonna go rob and beat the opposite color that would be a hate crime. Same for anyone really saying they were gonna rob and beat so gay person.

Anyway this is what a jury trail is all about and I think you may need to finish criminal law. At least as far as I know the jury can declare the perp guilty of whatever but not guilty of a hate crime. If that's not the way it is then it needs to be changed.
 
2013-09-17 12:32:04 AM  

Flappyhead: someonelse: Phinn really augered this baby right into the ground, didn't he.

I'll give him credit for making a very strong effort, although he really fizzled out at the end.


I thought I'd finished strong. Ali does have a solipsistic tendency to believe that his preferences are all-important. He even thinks that his wish that I stop posting actually matters.

In any event, I was speaking from the heart -- he had no substantive response to my pointing out the fact that his precious FBI statistics are tainted by institutional bias because local law enforcement is PAID EXTRA to find and report "hate crimes." It must be irritating to see his tenets of faith undermined by reason. He's not the first person to react badly to watching helplessly while his sacred beliefs are revealed to be nonsense.

I would submit that the main problem with hate crime legislation (in addition to Gyrfalcon's excellent points) is that they're clearly political, and thus not designed to punish actual wrongs, but merely unpopular beliefs. No one has the right to be free from other people's unpopular beliefs.

As Justice Rhenquist said, the supposed justification for these enhanced penalties is that hate crimes supposedly cause enhanced injury to people other than the direct victims. But what does this extra injury consist of, exactly?

Let's consider the definition of an ordinary crime (murder, robbery, rape). The wrong consists of the violation of a clear, legitimate right (freedom from aggression against one's person or property).

What additional harm does a hateful battery cause, compared to a regular battery? Is it fear? That's already a separate and discrete crime, if the prosecution can show an intent to terrorize others. Fine.

What about the fact that a lot of non-black people are genuinely afraid of young black males because they commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes? If "causing fear in others" were the true rationale for enhanced criminal penalties, then that rationale would also justify a law that increased the punishment for any young black male who commits a mugging, merely because muggings committed by young black males those feed into common racist stereotypes, and increase the public's fear. Such a law would be clearly indefensible.

Let's face it -- in practice, calling an act a "hate crime" means "a crime committed with an extremely unpopular motive."
 
2013-09-17 03:12:33 AM  
Phinn

There's "trying too hard", and then there's that. I know the moderation standards on this website have taken a hit in recent months so you're probably having a bit of fun right now, but you really should tone it down if you intend to keep this up for  any extended period of time.
 
2013-09-17 03:32:01 AM  

Gyrfalcon: The problem with hate-crime laws is that by their nature they are extremely subjective (duh) and depend entirely on a postulated relationship between the attacker and the victim (duh, again) that has to be proven by the prosecution (because duh #3--the burden is on the prosecutor) based on things that may or may not objectively exist. Which can be problematic IF the crime was in fact motivated by hate but those things weren't there; OR if those things were there yet the crime wasn't in fact motivated by "hate."

For instance: a real case in Santa Monica. Two boys got in a scuffle in a cafeteria that was occasioned by one spilling milk on the other, and erupted into a full on brawl. In the fight, racial slurs were exchanged, since one boy was black and the other Hispanic. Hate crime? Probably not, but it was prosecuted as such, since one of those markers I mentioned is the "use of racial slurs in the course of the crime." So two teenagers fighting over a place in a lunch line is now a "hate crime."

Hypothetical: A known racist beats a black man who owes him money. He manages not to utter any racial slurs during the beating, and when caught says it's because the guy owed him $50. Hate crime? If not, why not? If so, why? Change the facts so that the attacker is a known racist who DOES utter racial slurs, but the victim does in fact owe him $50. Still a hate crime? Change the facts again so the black man is the attacker and he calls the racist victim a "dirty k*ke." Hate crime? What if he's owed the $50?


The kind of problem you've identified isn't unique to hate crime laws. In ordinary murder trials, for instance, premeditated murders are generally supposed to be punished more harshly than crime-of-passion murders, but since premeditation is a mental state whose final truth is known only by the defendant, any judgments you make about it will be constrained by that lack of certainty.

Which is why investigators look to other indicators, relying on details related to the killing itself as well as what the perpetrator did in the days before it in order to form an assessment about what kind of murder it was. It's of course completely true that the details might be misleading and that a murder that seems to have been a spur-of-the-moment decision might have in fact been planned for weeks, or that a murder which seemed planned might have actually been a crime of passion. But these difficulties don't negate the principle that premeditated murders should be punished more harshly, just like the difficulty in ascertaining a perpetrator's motives with 100% certainty don't negate the principle that hate crimes should be punished more harshly.
 
2013-09-17 03:35:43 AM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: Oh and Gyrfalcon: at least from my POV if some guy head out onto the streets from a bar and beat's and robs someone that is the crime.Now then if it was a black or white man and they said
before they left the bar I'm gonna go rob and beat the opposite color that would be a hate crime. Same for anyone really saying they were gonna rob and beat so gay person.

Anyway this is what a jury trail is all about and I think you may need to finish criminal law. At least as far as I know the jury can declare the perp guilty of whatever but not guilty of a hate crime. If that's not the way it is then it needs to be changed.


I have finished CrimLaw, my dear--(and all the rest of The Law) and that's why I'm quite adamantly opposed to hate crime enhancements. They're just ways for DAs to rack up plea bargains and confuse juries even more than they already are. If they were evenly applied, then that would be one thing; but like other enhancements, they exist primarily to scare clueless defendants:

"You're looking at 5-10 for the aggravated battery, loser; but since you called your victim a 'n*gger while you were beating the crap out of him, I can tack on another three years for a hate crime and with your record you'll be doing your time in a Level 4 prison. Now you can roll the dice with a jury trial....OR you can plead guilty to agg battery, I'll drop the enhancement and you take three years, no appeal, right now. Otherwise I'll spend the whole time in front of the minority jury telling them about that swastika you have tattooed on your neck."
--but I don't have a swastika tattooed on my neck.
"You're going to have to take the stand to prove that, and then you'll have to tell them about calling him n*gger, won't you?"

"Hate crimes", imo, should be like RICO crimes--there should be a clearly defined pattern of behavior established by the perpetrator before a prosecutor even thinks about invoking them. A random use of the n-word, or even brutally murdering a gay man, should not automatically be labeled "a hate crime." OTOH, someone with a habit of racist behavior would not get a pass because he managed not to use racial slurs while committing a potentially "non-hate-crime". I know that would be a lot more work for prosecutors, but it would avoid cases like RAV vs. City of St. Paul.
 
2013-09-17 03:58:19 AM  

Gyrfalcon: I have finished CrimLaw, my dear--(and all the rest of The Law) and that's why I'm quite adamantly opposed to hate crime enhancements.


Okay, oh and I apologize for getting snarky or beyond that there. I guess you have a good point but really DA's tack on all kinds of stuff. Granted I can see the potential for abuse of it, and it does seem it's already happened.

/I don't know what the answer is, I do however respect your opinion.
 
2013-09-17 05:04:54 AM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: Okay so you're sorta liberal but don't believe hate crime exist or has existed.


Oh no, I believe many crimes are motivated by bigotry. I just don't see the sense in prosecuting them differently. Particularly when someone can be railroaded by high emotions because the victim wasn't a straight white person. That lessens the victims of all other despicable violent crimes. I can't see the logic in the killing one person due to race or orientation vs. the seething hatred two straight white folks exhibit when they, you know, kill each other.
 
2013-09-17 05:05:21 AM  
FTFA:

"There are valuable reasons for telling certain stories in a certain way at pivotal times, but that doesn't mean we have to hold on to them once they've outlived their usefulness."

No. No there aren't.
 
2013-09-17 06:52:02 AM  

Gyrfalcon: The options exist, and we should take advantage of them instead of creating other and more difficult crimes to prosecute.


But without creating the other and more difficult crimes, what's going to happen to the media's essential supply of self-congratulatory press conferences to cover?
 
2013-09-17 01:16:43 PM  

Biological Ali: Phinn

There's "trying too hard", and then there's that. I know the moderation standards on this website have taken a hit in recent months so you're probably having a bit of fun right now, but you really should tone it down if you intend to keep this up for  any extended period of time.



I figured that, what with all your tough talk about me being an "idiot" and how I was talking nonsense and writing random poetry-slam sentences, you were a bit, you know, less thin-skinned.

But run along to the mods if it makes you feel better.  I'm sure they'll appreciate you taking their time with your epic tale of butthurt about how the big bad meanie Phinn criticized the reliability of your FBI statistics.  The part where I summarized the economic incentives that local police agencies are given to spot hate crimes was below the standards of human decency.

I just want to know what you think the rules are.  No one is allowed to explain your errors to you, or disagree with you in any way, is that it?
 
2013-09-17 01:34:06 PM  

Phinn: The part where I summarized the economic incentives that local police agencies are given to spot hate crimes was below the standards of human decency.


This is something that Phinn has made up out of thin air. This literally does not happen in any way, shape or form; nobody's being paid based on the number of hate crimes they report.

I suspect that most people realized this right away, since he stopped getting bites at roughly the same time as he started making this absurd claim, but I figure I'd point it out again in case somebody skimming through the thread comes across it and thinks it might actually be true.
 
2013-09-17 11:20:09 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Jackson Herring: UrukHaiGuyz: That's beautiful. Wait, do you actually fish herring? I thought it was just a silly moniker.

that is a picture of a cloud of herring semen

Well who doesn't enjoy inseminating large swaths of the landscape? I know I do.


So you jack on herring then?  To each his own.
 
Displayed 214 of 214 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report