Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Reply To Thread

Hate Crimes Bill signedFollow

#77REDACTED, Posted: Oct 29 2009 at 2:14 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Locked,
QuoteReply
#78 Oct 29 2009 at 2:27 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1649636418093
View User Forum
Sage
******
30,646 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Exodus,

Did you even read any of the article? Still waiting for you to show me a case where minorities attacking whites were CONVICTED OF A HATE CRIME.


Did you read the article?

From Exo's link wrote:
As the Press-Telegram reported on November 3, three white women aged 19 to 21 emerged from a “maze” walk in a house and were confronted by up to 40 black teenagers who pelted them with pumpkins and lemons. The paper said, “The taunts and jeers grew more aggressive, the victims recalled, as did the size of the crowd. Now females joined in, and everyone began saying, ‘We hate white people, f--- whites!’ ”

The bizarre case, now in its fifth week of trial, resulted in hate-crime charges against nine girls and three boys, two of whom will be tried later.




Edited, Oct 29th 2009 3:27pm by Belkira
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#79 Oct 29 2009 at 2:28 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1592341547422
Scholar
****
4,512 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
I bet I have more minority friends on my facebook page than you do.


I laughed at this and considered making a snide comment about how important this statement is to your opinion, but then I realized that no matter what I say you'll just come back with "WELL LIBERALS DO IT SO IT'S OK."

It was excellent having this conversation with you. Same time next week?
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#80 Oct 29 2009 at 2:30 PM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1681085903309
View User Forum
Scholar
******
21,720 posts
Sir Exodus wrote:
K.


Yeah I'm gonna have to call shennanigans.

Quote:
and even struck by a skateboard wielded as a weapon.


Everybody knows black people don't use skateboards. Smiley: um
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#81 Oct 29 2009 at 2:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel
View User Forum
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
publiusvarus wrote:
I bet I have more minority friends on my facebook page than you do.

I bet I'm married to more minorities than you.

I win!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#82 Oct 29 2009 at 2:38 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1592341547422
Scholar
****
4,512 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I bet I'm married to more minorities than you.

I win!


Now, now. He can't get married in Tennessee, let's play it fair here.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#83 Oct 29 2009 at 2:44 PM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1681085903309
View User Forum
Scholar
******
21,720 posts
CBD wrote:
He can't get married in Tennessee


I'm sure he has a sister or a brother.

Edited, Oct 29th 2009 3:44pm by BrownDuck
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#84 Oct 29 2009 at 2:44 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1591777427374
View User Forum
Scholar
***
2,699 posts
Ambrya wrote:
The "act" which is being punished is violence, and it would be punishable under the law regardless of the motivation. Assault, murder, vandalism, etc are crimes, full stop.


FBI Crime Statistics:

By offense types
Of the 9,006 reported hate crime offenses in 2007:

32.4 percent were destruction/damage/vandalism.
28.5 percent were intimidation.
18.7 percent were simple assault.
12.4 percent were aggravated assault.
8.1 percent were comprised of additional crimes against persons, property, and society. (Based on Table 2.)

source: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/incidents.htm

I'm not really sure what the FBI means by "intimidation". At first glance, I'm not really sure you could get anywhere with that without it being a hate crime.

pensive wrote:
The rub is in the details. If hate is to be an aggravating factor, then it should always be; it's not something to be tacked into some guilt-of-privilege induced legislation, but to be truly pervasive.


Um, then you support this bill, no?

pensive wrote:
If someone kills a white gay female out of hate for her whiteness, it's as bad to me as the hate for the gayness or for the femaleness.


"Racial bias
In 2007, law enforcement agencies reported that 4,724 single-bias hate crime offenses were racially motivated. Of these offenses:

69.3 percent were motivated by anti-black bias.
18.4 percent stemmed from anti-white bias.
6.0 percent were a result of bias against groups of individuals consisting of more than one race (anti-multiple races, group).
4.6 percent resulted from anti-Asian/Pacific Islander bias.
1.6 percent were motivated by anti-American Indian/Alaskan Native bias. (Based on Table 1.)"

same source as above.

▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#85 Oct 29 2009 at 2:44 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1657498899608
Guru
*****
12,049 posts
publiusvarus wrote:

Quote:
If you beat someone it's still assault. If you beat someone because they're gay, it's assault AND a hate crime.


Oh and you're misinterpreting mens rea and actus reus.


Yeah, you realize that wasn't an example of them, right? As I started talking about those concepts after? Your entire idea of "motivation, thoughts and feelings don't matter" is legally incorrect.
▲ Page top
#86REDACTED, Posted: Oct 29 2009 at 3:38 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Locked,
QuoteReply
#87 Oct 29 2009 at 4:10 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1649636418093
View User Forum
Sage
******
30,646 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
And i'm still waiting for someone to show me a case where minorities were CONVICTED of a hate crime against whites.


You're not looking very fucking hard, numbnuts.

I wrote:
Exo's Article wrote:
As the Press-Telegram reported on November 3, three white women aged 19 to 21 emerged from a “maze” walk in a house and were confronted by up to 40 black teenagers who pelted them with pumpkins and lemons. The paper said, “The taunts and jeers grew more aggressive, the victims recalled, as did the size of the crowd. Now females joined in, and everyone began saying, ‘We hate white people, f--- whites!’ ”

The bizarre case, now in its fifth week of trial, resulted in hate-crime charges against nine girls and three boys, two of whom will be tried later.

▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#88 Oct 29 2009 at 4:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Samira
View User Forum
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Yes, but they were just charged and tried. Doesn't say CONVICTED.

Neener-neener-neener.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#89 Oct 29 2009 at 8:06 PM Rating: Decent
ThiefX
**
739 posts
Quote:
And when their actions are done to intimate or degrade a group of people, the penalty should be more severe, right? THAT'S what hate crime legislation is about.


And who decides this? Who decides that someone's action were meant to do something else?

That is my problem with all hate crime legislation it takes an action by someone and people sit and try to determine if they were trying to do something else.

That and hate crime laws do nothing to stop crime. Murder is against the law but a bunch of ignorant @#%^s still killed an innocent person in Matthew Shepard. Hate Crime laws would have done nothing to stop it.


Quote:
FBI Crime Statistics:

By offense types
Of the 9,006 reported hate crime offenses in 2007:

32.4 percent were destruction/damage/vandalism.
28.5 percent were intimidation.
18.7 percent were simple assault.
12.4 percent were aggravated assault.
8.1 percent were comprised of additional crimes against persons, property, and society. (Based on Table 2.)

source: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/incidents.htm

I'm not really sure what the FBI means by "intimidation". At first glance, I'm not really sure you could get anywhere with that without it being a hate crime.


This is what im talking about, you have your version of a hate crime and I have another and someone else has yet another. Theses statistics give no definitions they just list them as Hate Crimes. How many of those crimes listed above are a bunch of idiot kids yelling "****" out the window of their car as they are driving by? How many of those crimes are a disagreement between 2 people of different races that resulted in someone saying or doing something stupid? How many of those crimes above are the result of some who mistook someones act as something else?

It's all subject to someone's interpretation of someone else's intent.

Edited, Oct 29th 2009 10:16pm by ThiefX

Edited, Oct 29th 2009 10:40pm by ThiefX
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#90 Oct 29 2009 at 9:56 PM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1592267273743
Scholar
*****
10,359 posts
Samira wrote:
Yes, but they were just charged and tried. Doesn't say CONVICTED.

Neener-neener-neener.



Well, when he's technically and pedantically correct, then he's technically and pedantically correct. I'd know! Smiley: schooled
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#91 Oct 30 2009 at 4:36 AM Rating: Good
Omegavegeta
View User Forum
Sage
****
8,236 posts
I like Hate Crime legislation for the simple fact that it always pisses off the GOP base & racists (like there's a real difference anyhow.).

They always, always, always, retort with cries of "reverse racism" that further take away their hopes of winning the majority of "minority" votes.




____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#92 Oct 30 2009 at 5:56 AM Rating: Good
__DEL__1599437935794
Sage
***
1,137 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
I like Hate Crime legislation for the simple fact that it always pisses off the GOP base & racists (like there's a real difference anyhow.).

They always, always, always, retort with cries of "reverse racism" that further take away their hopes of winning the majority of "minority" votes.


You know, I have always hated the term "reverse racism." Why isnt it just racism? I have been told its because of "power" issues, but really.....if thats the case then most people I would think are racists arent racist by that definition. How much real power can you hold if you have to strap on roller skates at Sonic every day - calling it your profession - and then hunt blacks at night? How can you have any power if to make money, you don your little blue Wal-mart vest with that yellow mother fúcker with the shÃt-eating-grin on your back?

And if someone like that is considered to have power, how do you judge power, and who gets to decide it? That cant be a whites-only thing, there are plenty of Indian business owners I work with every day who do much better for themselves than I do. Literally 1/2 (well, 2/4) if the managers in my engineering department are black. And we have a (half) black president. Now I know I live in a more progressive area and its not fully like that around the country, but where I live, thats the case.

Maybe the answer is the people who claim that you can only be racist if you have power are full of shÃt.

BTW- wtf is that dog doing in your avatar? Its full of awesomeness.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#93 Oct 30 2009 at 6:52 AM Rating: Good
__DEL__1657498899608
Guru
*****
12,049 posts
ManifestOfKujata wrote:
Omegavegeta wrote:
I like Hate Crime legislation for the simple fact that it always pisses off the GOP base & racists (like there's a real difference anyhow.).

They always, always, always, retort with cries of "reverse racism" that further take away their hopes of winning the majority of "minority" votes.


You know, I have always hated the term "reverse racism." Why isnt it just racism? I have been told its because of "power" issues, but really.....if thats the case then most people I would think are racists arent racist by that definition. How much real power can you hold if you have to strap on roller skates at Sonic every day - calling it your profession - and then hunt blacks at night? How can you have any power if to make money, you don your little blue Wal-mart vest with that yellow mother fúcker with the shÃt-eating-grin on your back?

And if someone like that is considered to have power, how do you judge power, and who gets to decide it? That cant be a whites-only thing, there are plenty of Indian business owners I work with every day who do much better for themselves than I do. Literally 1/2 (well, 2/4) if the managers in my engineering department are black. And we have a (half) black president. Now I know I live in a more progressive area and its not fully like that around the country, but where I live, thats the case.

Maybe the answer is the people who claim that you can only be racist if you have power are full of shÃt.

BTW- wtf is that dog doing in your avatar? Its full of awesomeness.


While I don't agree with this definition, the "power" you describe isn't individual power; it's societal power. And as a group, only white people hold power over all other groups. Hence, as some racism arguments go, only whites can be racist because minorities don't hold enough power in society.

Again, I think it's a really dumb argument, but that's the idea behind it. It's that line of thinking that got UD into a sh*tstorm back when I was going to college.

Reverse racism is the idea that everything is a zero-sum game, and giving extra benefits to one group automatically disadvantages another. In this case, if we're giving extra protection to minority groups, then white male heterosexuals are discriminated against. It's an idiotic idea to apply to hate crime legislation.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#94 Oct 30 2009 at 6:54 AM Rating: Good
__DEL__1657498899608
Guru
*****
12,049 posts
ThiefX wrote:
Quote:
And when their actions are done to intimate or degrade a group of people, the penalty should be more severe, right? THAT'S what hate crime legislation is about.


And who decides this? Who decides that someone's action were meant to do something else?


You're a f*cking idiot. The court decides, just like how they decide if a person committed the crime. If the jury doesn't agree, then they aren't charged with a hate crime. Go figure.

Moran.

Edit: a continuation of how stupid you are.
Quote:
This is what im talking about, you have your version of a hate crime and I have another and someone else has yet another. Theses statistics give no definitions they just list them as Hate Crimes. How many of those crimes listed above are a bunch of idiot kids yelling "****" out the window of their car as they are driving by? How many of those crimes are a disagreement between 2 people of different races that resulted in someone saying or doing something stupid? How many of those crimes above are the result of some who mistook someones act as something else?

It's all subject to someone's interpretation of someone else's intent.


Know what it is? It's the police charging someone with a hate crime. The court decides if it actually is one. It's legal process, numbnuts. Your definition and my definition don't matter; the legal definition does. No one cares what you think. We care what the law says. Boo-freaking-hoo that you don't think something should be a crime; it still is if the courts decide it is.

Edited, Oct 30th 2009 7:56am by LockeColeMA
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#95 Oct 30 2009 at 7:16 AM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel
View User Forum
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
ThiefX wrote:
It's all subject to someone's interpretation of someone else's intent.

Yeah, hey... welcome to the criminal justice system.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#96 Oct 30 2009 at 7:28 AM Rating: Good
Elinda
View User Forum
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Ambrya wrote:
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Honestly I've never been able to get behind the hate crime ideal. Of course it has some cool practical effects, but as goes the ideal itself, I can't really mentally support it. The motivation of just a subset bothers me. Then again, motivation is kind of important in lots of already present legal distinction. Whatever.


Be still my heart. Pensive and I agree on something.

In theory, hate crime legislation should be everything I believe in. I support the rights of minorities whole-heartedly, and find violence against them abhorrent. But I also find the notion of the thought police equally abhorrent. Yes, "state of mind" is permissible in some legal cases, but heaping on extra punishment not for what someone DID but for what they believe just doesn't sit right with me.


So I guess neither of you believes in anti-discrimination law either, then.
I think I'm pro anti-discrimination, but classifying crimes 'differently' based on motive, really whether proven or not, seems to me a bit arbitrary. If you are going to treat a crime differently because it was committed because of 'hate' to a specific group - then you need to include ALL the groups, then you basically including everyone, then you no longer have a 'special' kind of crime, so why treat it differently. The law is the law - if murder is WORSE because you happen to hate the person for whatever reason you get a different punishment? Seems stupid.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#97 Oct 30 2009 at 7:36 AM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1592267273743
Scholar
*****
10,359 posts
Elinda wrote:
The law is the law - if murder is WORSE because you happen to hate the person for whatever reason you get a different punishment? Seems stupid.


Didn't read the thread did ya?

Elinda wrote:
then you no longer have a 'special' kind of crime


Course not, but you do have a different factor to consider with regards to that crime's severity. I don't know how this precisely caches out legally, but ethically, it works in the same spirit as any other time we think about intention as relevant to a crime, such as if I kill someone through delicate planning versus a drunken stupor.

Edited, Oct 30th 2009 8:41am by Pensive
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#98 Oct 30 2009 at 7:37 AM Rating: Good
Tare
YAY! Canaduhian
*****
10,293 posts
ESPN broadcaster Bob Griese has been suspended for one week for a stereotypical crack he made about NASCAR driver Juan Pablo Montoya. During a recent ESPN broadcast, a graphic appeared listing the top drivers in a NASCAR competition. When fellow analyst Chris Spielman asked where was Montoya, Griese replied he was "out having a taco."

You guys are so last week. Food racism is teh new ebil.
____________________________
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#99 Oct 30 2009 at 7:42 AM Rating: Good
__DEL__1657498899608
Guru
*****
12,049 posts
Elinda wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Ambrya wrote:
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Honestly I've never been able to get behind the hate crime ideal. Of course it has some cool practical effects, but as goes the ideal itself, I can't really mentally support it. The motivation of just a subset bothers me. Then again, motivation is kind of important in lots of already present legal distinction. Whatever.


Be still my heart. Pensive and I agree on something.

In theory, hate crime legislation should be everything I believe in. I support the rights of minorities whole-heartedly, and find violence against them abhorrent. But I also find the notion of the thought police equally abhorrent. Yes, "state of mind" is permissible in some legal cases, but heaping on extra punishment not for what someone DID but for what they believe just doesn't sit right with me.


So I guess neither of you believes in anti-discrimination law either, then.
If you are going to treat a crime differently because it was committed because of 'hate' to a specific group - then you need to include ALL the groups, then you basically including everyone, then you no longer have a 'special' kind of crime, so why treat it differently. The law is the law - if murder is WORSE because you happen to hate the person for whatever reason you get a different punishment? Seems stupid.


You jumped from one concept to another. Not all crimes are done against someone because of their affiliations. It is treated differently primarily because the crime is done for a different reason. And of course we decide based on motivation. Beating someone because they're black is different than being someone who is attacking another person.

The effect of the hate is the key component. (I know I keep going with assault as a crime, but pretty much any crime can be used). If you beat a person just because they are different than you, there is a negative effect on society as a whole, not just that individual. Murder is worse if you kill a gay man for being gay because it is harmful not just to the dead man but to society as a whole, allowing hatred against a certain type of person to exist. The increased punishment is because such motivation is deemed harmful to society. Murder is still murder. Murder simply because a person is different has a greater effect.

So goes the thinking. You might disagree.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#100 Oct 30 2009 at 8:09 AM Rating: Good
Elinda
View User Forum
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
Elinda wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Ambrya wrote:
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Honestly I've never been able to get behind the hate crime ideal. Of course it has some cool practical effects, but as goes the ideal itself, I can't really mentally support it. The motivation of just a subset bothers me. Then again, motivation is kind of important in lots of already present legal distinction. Whatever.


Be still my heart. Pensive and I agree on something.

In theory, hate crime legislation should be everything I believe in. I support the rights of minorities whole-heartedly, and find violence against them abhorrent. But I also find the notion of the thought police equally abhorrent. Yes, "state of mind" is permissible in some legal cases, but heaping on extra punishment not for what someone DID but for what they believe just doesn't sit right with me.


So I guess neither of you believes in anti-discrimination law either, then.
If you are going to treat a crime differently because it was committed because of 'hate' to a specific group - then you need to include ALL the groups, then you basically including everyone, then you no longer have a 'special' kind of crime, so why treat it differently. The law is the law - if murder is WORSE because you happen to hate the person for whatever reason you get a different punishment? Seems stupid.


You jumped from one concept to another. Not all crimes are done against someone because of their affiliations. It is treated differently primarily because the crime is done for a different reason. And of course we decide based on motivation. Beating someone because they're black is different than being someone who is attacking another person.

The effect of the hate is the key component. (I know I keep going with assault as a crime, but pretty much any crime can be used). If you beat a person just because they are different than you, there is a negative effect on society as a whole, not just that individual. Murder is worse if you kill a gay man for being gay because it is harmful not just to the dead man but to society as a whole, allowing hatred against a certain type of person to exist. The increased punishment is because such motivation is deemed harmful to society. Murder is still murder. Murder simply because a person is different has a greater effect.

So goes the thinking. You might disagree.
It just seems too exclusive a club. So much of our violence is domestic abuse - certainly driven by emotion. Why is a husband beating his wife any less detrimental to society than a homophobic beating a gay person?

We recently saw a man die to a hate crime for being a government employee, and while that particular case is already a federal crime cuz he was a federal employee it's not classified as a 'hate crime'.

Btw, here is the definition of a hate crime:
Quote:
A hate crime, also known as a bias crime, is a criminal offense committed against a person, property, or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin.



____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#101 Oct 30 2009 at 8:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Samira
View User Forum
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
I've been mulling this over, and while I don't think it's ever been argued in court I wonder whether the time will come when rape, at least male->female rape, will be considered a hate crime.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

▲ Page top
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 300 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (300)
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC