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  
•       •       •

2605 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 214 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report