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 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.
 
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