someonelse: Phinn really augered this baby right into the ground, didn't he.
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, ...
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.
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?
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 saidbefore 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.
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.
tinfoil-hat maggie: Okay so you're sorta liberal but don't believe hate crime exist or has existed.
Gyrfalcon: The options exist, and we should take advantage of them instead of creating other and more difficult crimes to prosecute.
Biological Ali: PhinnThere'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.
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.
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 semenWell who doesn't enjoy inseminating large swaths of the landscape? I know I do.
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Mar 27 2017 10:04:20
Runtime: 0.410 sec (409 ms)