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  
•       •       •

2610 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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 14 of 214 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and 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