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 92
    More: Interesting, Matthew Shepard, Mckinney, LGBT rights organizations, murders, Hate Crimes Prevention Act  
•       •       •

2609 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-09-16 11:04:06 AM  
7 votes:
OK, maybe I don't get it, but this article doesn't really seem to prove that "everything we thought we knew is wrong". It just presents a different side, and shows that maybe the killer was gay himself. That doesn't mean that he didn't kill Sheppard out of his own self loathing for what he perceived as "wrong" behavior. Also, just because meth may have been involved, it also doesn't mean that the drugs weren't just the device that finally made him act.

In other words, I see nothing here that convinces me that Sheppard still wasn't killed because of his homosexuality. Drugs being a part of the equation doesn't change that. Somebody's getting paid money to tell you they're here to "set things straight", and then not doing any of that. I just can't figure out if it's the author of TFA, or the author of TFB.
2013-09-16 10:35:35 AM  
6 votes:

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

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


Yes, because those voices were pieces of human trash who were looking for anything to make the fact that they were horrible bigots not be quite so broadly exposed.
2013-09-16 10:46:06 AM  
5 votes:

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

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


After reading the article it looks like the book is based on the same nonsense that worthless wastes of flesh were trotting out at the time. So it looks like it's someone trying to sell a book.
2013-09-16 11:37:24 AM  
4 votes:

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 11:30:06 AM  
4 votes:

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


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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard#Arrests_and_trial
2013-09-16 11:00:42 AM  
4 votes:

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


We already do prosecute based on the thought.  If we didn't there would be no distinction between manslaughter and murder 1.
2013-09-16 10:45:52 AM  
4 votes:

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

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


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

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

That would still mean he was killed because he was gay. It hardly matters that the murderer might have been closeted.
2013-09-16 03:53:09 PM  
3 votes:

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


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

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


The media played that angle because this is what the killers themselves said. But you knew this.
2013-09-16 01:21:45 PM  
3 votes:

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 01:11:05 PM  
3 votes:

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


You do realize that even without hate crime laws, not all murderers are given the exact same punishment, right? Some just get a long prison sentence, some get life in prison without the possibility of parole, and some get executed. One of the biggest things that sways the sentence one way or another is the court's belief about things related entirely to the defendant's "thoughts", such as whether it was a spur-of-the-moment decision or whether it had been planned for a long time.
2013-09-16 11:49:09 AM  
3 votes:

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 11:24:41 AM  
3 votes:

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

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

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

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

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


And that's the whole point: people like Debeo want to be able to use crimes as a way of instilling fear in groups of people they don't like without any great legal repercussions.  They want to be able to say "[insert minority here] aren't really people, so it doesn't matter legally what sort of crimes we commit against them"
2013-09-16 11:11:35 AM  
3 votes:

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

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

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

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


Citing Chief Justice Rhenquist, from Wisconsin v. Mitchell: "[Hate crimes are] thought to inflict greater individual and societal harm.... bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest."
2013-09-16 10:57:56 AM  
3 votes:

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

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

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

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


And there's the problem  -- it doesn't matter if they actually are right, it only matters if them being right would piss off the libtards.
2013-09-16 10:56:08 AM  
3 votes:
 In the process, he amassed enough anecdotal evidence to build a persuasive case that Shepard's sexuality was, if not incidental, certainly less central than popular consensus has lead us to believe.

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

If he was a drug dealer, there should be hard evidence to support that, like phone records (though obviously I don't expect the family to turn those records over).
2013-09-16 10:47:21 AM  
3 votes:
I guess being beaten and left to slowly die alone is OK if meth was involved.
2013-09-16 10:35:16 AM  
3 votes:
It's farking sad that this is on the politics tab.
2013-09-16 07:52:58 PM  
2 votes:

Phinn: You're awfully


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

Honestly, it seems like your evening would be better spent if you just stopped trolling this thread and did something else instead.
2013-09-16 05:43:26 PM  
2 votes:
2013-09-16 04:17:26 PM  
2 votes:

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


And I should hope not, since racially-motivated crimes against black people far outweigh the racially-motivated crimes committed against white people. So if you're sensing that the former get more media coverage, the simple explanation would be that it's because one simply happens more often than the other, rather than there being some convoluted anti-white media conspiracy.
2013-09-16 04:11:20 PM  
2 votes:

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


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

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


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

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

Are you just pissed because there haven't been headline-grabbing hate crimes cases against black defendants for attacking Whitey?
2013-09-16 02:13:02 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:08:50 PM  
2 votes:

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 01:42:02 PM  
2 votes:

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 01:15:21 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:58:55 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:52:50 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:50:54 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:33:41 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:13:31 PM  
2 votes:

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 11:49:57 AM  
2 votes:

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 11:42:26 AM  
2 votes:

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 11:35:01 AM  
2 votes:

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 11:33:57 AM  
2 votes:

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 11:21:37 AM  
2 votes:
So Mathew Shepherd was a druggie so it's okay to kill him for being a gay man?

I thought the reason so many people thought it was a hate crime was because the two men who committed the murder when asked why told everyone they did it because he was gay. I would think they would know best why they killed him.
2013-09-16 11:08:39 AM  
2 votes:

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


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

 The idea behind 'hate crimes' laws are to prevent crimes from being focused on specific groups based on nothing more than them belonging to the groups they are a part of. The idea is that if someone is beating up Jews, for example, you have thousands of targets in a city that single people or large groups may hunt down and commit crimes against, and they could be victimized as a group. It's a rather subjective thing sometimes, but I can see why they started these laws, they needed something, they just aren't all well written.
2013-09-16 11:08:17 AM  
2 votes:
The defendant initially tried to use the Gay Panic defense; they were driven to the point of temporary insanity at the idea that Shepherd might be hitting on them and had to kill him. That's not a hate crime?
2013-09-16 11:03:39 AM  
2 votes:

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

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


I am probably to the left of you, but the original post I responded to was the definition of an axe to grind. Mathew Sheppard was a travesty regardless if this exploitative book is right or not. Even if it was true, it wouldn't for one second diminish the light shone upon the very real bigotry afflicting the LGBT community. There are plenty of examples and not enough action surrounding it.
2013-09-16 10:52:22 AM  
2 votes:

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



Well, shooting a kid who once smoked pot has been ruled legal.
2013-09-16 10:44:33 AM  
2 votes:
 In the process, he amassed enough anecdotal evidence

lol
2013-09-17 01:34:06 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:32:01 AM  
1 votes:

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 03:12:33 AM  
1 votes:
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.
2013-09-16 10:07:48 PM  
1 votes:
Opp' I meant to say 'It was crazy back then" but I guuess I was a bit crazy hell I was doing coke and meth as well at the club.

Oh, and if I recall correctly Mattew Shepards funeral was one of the first big appearances for the Westboro folks. The family and other mourners wear shielded from the protest by people in angel costumes. Maybe that is where someone got the wrong idea Matthew Sheppard was some kind of saint. It was just another killing in a long line of killings that finally made national news.
2013-09-16 09:54:50 PM  
1 votes:

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


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

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

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

/I was crazy back then, it's gotten a bit better.
2013-09-16 09:24:31 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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


What? OK:

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

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

The Schiavo case was among dumbest things I ever saw.

Now, just because I don't dig on hate crime attachments does not mean I'm not a libtard. We're not following a cookbook here. Each of us are entitled to opinions not necessarily shared by everyone in the group. The wording of your post makes me feel that you don't get that we don't have to be in lock-step. It's not the GOP.
2013-09-16 08:49:34 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


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


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


B) Is obama right left or center?


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

2013-09-16 08:33:12 PM  
1 votes:
Phinn really augered this baby right into the ground, didn't he.
2013-09-16 08:24:58 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


It's not based on the target so much as it's based on motive.  We have a long history of looking at why people commit crimes and for what reasons in the context of the crimes they commit.
2013-09-16 04:55:26 PM  
1 votes:

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


Because, if there is anything we all know, the criminal justice system is extremely biased against white people and furthermore.
2013-09-16 04:50:08 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


Now you're just stringing together buzzwords into sentences that are vaguely insulting but don't really say anything at all.
2013-09-16 04:44:53 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

It means that your statistics are unreliable.

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


How exactly are the statistics "unreliable"? Are you suggesting that there's some slew of anti-white hate crimes that aren't being recorded, or that there's some large number of crimes that have wrongly been determined to be racially motivated when they actually aren't?
2013-09-16 04:20:55 PM  
1 votes:

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


So, despite the fact that there are there are two and a half times as many anti-gay crimes as there are anti-white crimes a year, white people are the real victims here.
2013-09-16 04:08:00 PM  
1 votes:

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


Where did you find these "actual facts"?
2013-09-16 04:00:44 PM  
1 votes:

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


Aren't you just adorable!
2013-09-16 03:39:27 PM  
1 votes:

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


That was an awfully long-winded way of saying "I don't know what hate crime laws actually are".
2013-09-16 03:31:34 PM  
1 votes:

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

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



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

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

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

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

wafb.images.worldnow.com

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

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

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

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

And the reality is that stories about gay bashing get a lot more traction than white-bashing, even when the gay bashing incident turns out to be just a bunch of drug dealers.
2013-09-16 03:17:16 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:12:33 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:51:20 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:43:54 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:43:41 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:09:11 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:04:11 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:35:00 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:33:31 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:50:36 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:43:16 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:23:29 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:21:00 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:10:35 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:09:00 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:03:16 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:57:11 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:51:09 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:49:40 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:46:55 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:45:38 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:44:03 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:30:37 AM  
1 votes:

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


Sad that an attorney considered that a better defense than "meth-fueled rage".
2013-09-16 11:20:15 AM  
1 votes:

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

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

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

But that's just me.

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


Yeah, if the killer identified himself as a "straight hustler" who turned tricks for drugs, there's probably a pretty deep well of homophobic self-loathing to draw from.
2013-09-16 11:16:53 AM  
1 votes:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Personally, I would rather the objective truth be known, then to try and hide it away and hope that no one finds out the whole reason legislation got passed was based on a lie.  After all, it's not like the law is going to be repealed.
2013-09-16 11:12:41 AM  
1 votes:

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

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

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


Likewise with hate crimes.  You can hate gay people all you want, but if you put your hatred into action, that's a crime.
2013-09-16 11:06:59 AM  
1 votes:

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

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


I am driving at that he instantly, without even bothering to read the article, tried to discredit the author by comparing him to the knuckle dragging apologists that forwarded a similar theory without research. That is axe grinding if I have ever seen it.
2013-09-16 11:05:25 AM  
1 votes:

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


Being beaten and slowly left to die isn't normal.
i2.kym-cdn.com
2013-09-16 11:02:31 AM  
1 votes:

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

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


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

But I agree - the motivation for beating a 17-year-old bloody and leaving him tied to a fence to die of his wounds/exposure makes ALL the difference.
2013-09-16 11:00:07 AM  
1 votes:

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

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

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


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

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

From a political standpoint, it can even hurt you when it comes out that you were lying, and it almost always does, eventually.
2013-09-16 10:58:50 AM  
1 votes:

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


Right about what? That maybe in this particular case they didn't kill him because he was gay? I don't understand what you're driving at.
2013-09-16 10:53:01 AM  
1 votes:

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

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

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


Certainly it is exploitive, but again, wouldn't it just really chap your ass if the farktard bigots were right?
2013-09-16 10:52:43 AM  
1 votes:

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


And you think the rights-holders to the Laramie Project don't get royalties every time some high school wants to do a production to show how thoughtful and compassionate they are and pay no mind to those 17-year-olds in their caps and gowns who can't tell their 'their' from their 'there' from their 'they're'?
2013-09-16 10:47:28 AM  
1 votes:
I had to sit through a performance of "The Laramie Project: Ten Years Later" for a class, and it was insufferable. The whole play consisted of the worst stereotype of holier-than-thou out-of-town liberal college students acting all shocked and pearl-clutchy that locals weren't all onboard with the federal "Hate Crimes Prevention Act" they were pushing.
 
Displayed 92 of 92 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report