Hate Crime Bill passes House

[Smith]

Almost all crime is hate motivated. I've yet to see many "love" crimes. To add severity to what someone thinks some else is thinking at the time is crazy. Who gets to interpret your mind? This is all born out of an emotional knee jerk reaction to individuals not associated to the original crime. This doesn't help the victim. It is an illogical attempt to punish society for perceived injustices that instead has adverse results. It is not based on sound law, logic, or anything else of reason.

[extremescene]

We are talking about 5 guys who get together and wait outside a gay bar for a random victim. Killing them is usually not the intent, although the victim is usually beaten so badly they die. The ONLY motive in these cases is gay bashing. If you don't feel the need to punish these crimes then you are either planning on doing it yourself or you are protecting the guys who do this stuff. I feel sorry for you and our country.

The ironic thing is, gays are one of the largest growing groups of gun owners right now. I've shot next to many of gay couples at Stones River range... just yesterday, in fact. Don't worry, homosexuality doesn't rub off onto you from being too close or because they joined the sacred white male group of gun owners. You don't turn gay by touching a cartridge that a gay man fired. They don't want to hit on you, or make out with you... they probably find you disgusting as well. They are arming themselves to specifically protect themselves from those 5 guys who randomly seek them out.

Do you guys actually get happy when you hear of a crime such as this? Do you really think this is only as bad as a simple bar fight? Does it make your day to know that random victims are being chosen and beaten to death just because they are consensually attracted to another adult? It makes my stomach turn and it makes me ashamed of my fellow human beings.

Edited October 12, 2009 by extremescene

[Mark@Sea]

We are talking about 5 guys who get together and wait outside a gay bar for a random victim. If you don't feel the need to punish these crimes then you are either planning on doing it yourself or you are protecting the guys who do this stuff. I feel sorry for you and our country.

Yeah, couldn't prosecute it as assault, right? I must be planning on doing it myself? You must be lying deliberately.

I'm way past tired of the liberal tactic of saying "support my legislation or you're a racist, a criminal, etc. etc.". I'm completely done with being called intolerant by people who use this mechanism to stifle dissent and opposition to deeply flawed legislation or deeply flawed political goals.

Please know that it isn't sorrow that I feel for you as a liberal. I don't like your tactics, your political ends, or your hypocrisy. I am beginning to think the old saw is true. Liberals aren't good people with bad ideas, they are bad people with evil ideas.

Edited October 12, 2009 by Mark@Sea

[USMCJG]

We are talking about 5 guys who get together and wait outside a gay bar for a random victim. Killing them is usually not the intent, although the victim is usually beaten so badly they die. The ONLY motive in these cases is gay bashing. If you don't feel the need to punish these crimes then you are either planning on doing it yourself or you are protecting the guys who do this stuff. I feel sorry for you and our country.

The ironic thing is, gays are one of the largest growing groups of gun owners right now. I've shot next to many of gay couples at Stones River range... just yesterday, in fact. Don't worry, homosexuality doesn't rub off onto you from being too close or because they joined the sacred white male group of gun owners. You don't turn gay by touching a cartridge that a gay man fired. They don't want to hit on you, or make out with you... they probably find you disgusting as well. They are arming themselves to specifically protect themselves from those 5 guys who randomly seek them out.

Do you guys actually get happy when you hear of a crime such as this? Do you really think this is only as bad as a simple bar fight? Does it make your day to know that random victims are being chosen and beaten to death just because they are consensually attracted to another adult? It makes my stomach turn and it makes me ashamed of my fellow human beings.

You cannot be serious. I can't for the life of me understand how opposing racist, sexist legislation automatically makes you a racist or a sexist. I certainly don't condone any illegal act, regardless of the motivation. I think ALL violent offenders should get more time than they do, and I really don't care what color, religion, nationality, or sex they are. And I have not seen a single post in this thread that endorsed any illegal activities either. You have completely missed the point and are obviously unable to grasp even the most basic of concepts.

[extremescene]

You have completely missed the point and are obviously unable to grasp even the most basic of concepts.

I can grasp the basic concepts of prejudice and discrimination just fine. You can deny it all you want, but that is exactly what the above posts are preaching.

Question: Are gays even welcome on this forum? You guys sure go out of your way to make it appear that they are not. Last I checked this was TNGunOwners, not StraightWhiteMaleTNGunOwners.

Does it matter to you if I'm gay?

You call me evil because I stand up for human civil rights? I'm evil because I want to encourage everybody to be tolerant of eachother, especially for things beyond their control such as race and sexuality???

You also say that this bill is racist which totally full of S--t! Show me a news story where 5 gay guys went and targeted a random straight person coming out of a bar. Good luck with that!

[Mark@Sea]

Do you know what a straw man argument is? 'Cuz you're doing it.

Question back at you, strawman. Has anyone brought up your sexual preferences? No? Sorry, that must put a real crimp in your debate plan.

I'm calling you evil because you stand up for fascist ideals masquerading as human rights. See "Canadian Free Speech Commission".

I'm calling you evil because you have not attacked my position, you've instead chosen to attack my integrity. It appears to me that you've done this intentionally. You've discarded truth for emotionally charged attacks on the board as a whole, used flawed 'guilt-trip' accusations instead of actual debate, and attempted to crucify dissenters as evil-doers.

If it were my board, which it isn't, I'd have already banned you and your NAZI (its' called history, look it up) tactics. As it is, I will just proclaim my abhorrence for liars and add you to my ignore list. Insert personal insult of your choice here, and have a nice day.

[extremescene]

Do you know what a straw man argument is? 'Cuz you're doing it.

Question back at you, strawman. Has anyone brought up your sexual preferences? No? Sorry, that must put a real crimp in your debate plan.

I'm calling you evil because you stand up for fascist ideals masquerading as human rights. See "Canadian Free Speech Commission".

I'm calling you evil because you have not attacked my position, you've instead chosen to attack my integrity. It appears to me that you've done this intentionally. You've discarded truth for emotionally charged attacks on the board as a whole, used flawed 'guilt-trip' accusations instead of actual debate, and attempted to crucify dissenters as evil-doers.

If it were my board, which it isn't, I'd have already banned you and your NAZI (its' called history, look it up) tactics. As it is, I will just proclaim my abhorrence for liars and add you to my ignore list. Insert personal insult of your choice here, and have a nice day.

Sorry, I just want people to be treated equally and sometimes laws are required when people who think like you do wish to act on their beliefs. You can ban me now moderators if you want... as I am for gays having rights and protections.

If this is to get me banned, then I don't want anything to do with your community and I will speak loudly about the ideals conveyed in this forum and the reasons I have been banned.

[USMCJG]

I can grasp the basic concepts of prejudice and discrimination just fine. You can deny it all you want, but that is exactly what the above posts are preaching.

Apparently you cannot.

Does it matter to you if I'm gay?

I can honestly say, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that I do not care what race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation you are, or any one else is. It's none of my business. I believe everyone is equal and, as such, should be treated equally in the eyes of the law.

You call me evil because I stand up for human civil rights? I'm evil because I want to encourage everybody to be tolerant of eachother, especially for things beyond their control such as race and sexuality???

Hate crime laws do not promote tolerance. They promote differentiation.

You also say that this bill is racist which totally full of S--t! Show me a news story where 5 gay guys went and targeted a random straight person coming out of a bar. Good luck with that!

racism- discrimination or prejudice based on race. What you can't understand is that I am actually promoting equality, whereas you are fostering the idea that different people should be treated differently. Everyone must be equal in the eyes of the law. How you can dispute this is beyond me. Edited October 12, 2009 by USMCJG

[G27]

We are talking about 5 guys who get together and wait outside a gay bar for a random victim. Killing them is usually not the intent, although the victim is usually beaten so badly they die. The ONLY motive in these cases is gay bashing.

Who cares what the motive was? They committed a crime and should be punished. You really think they should receive harsher punishment because the victim was gay? That's ludicrous - it elevates the gay person who was killed above another person who may have been killed in a random act of violence.

If you don't feel the need to punish these crimes then you are either planning on doing it yourself or you are protecting the guys who do this stuff. I feel sorry for you and our country.

Wow, straw-man much?

No one has excused these men for what they did - they should be punished to the fullest extent of the aw.

But if you think they should be punished more harshly than if they killed a member of my family just because the victim was gay, then I feel sorry for you.

[G27]

Sorry, I just want people to be treated equally and sometimes laws are required when people who think like you do wish to act on their beliefs. You can ban me now moderators if you want... as I am for gays having rights and protections.

Great Odin's raven! Where has anyone stated these men shouldn't be charged for their crimes? Where has anyone said that gay people don't deserve EQUAL protection under the law?

What you're asking for is EXTRA protection under the law. Forgive us for not feeling that someone deserves EXTRA protection under the law because of who they sleep with.

If this is to get me banned, then I don't want anything to do with your community and I will speak loudly about the ideals conveyed in this forum and the reasons I have been banned.

Wow, just wow.

[Guest SUNTZU]

Did you applaud the Defense of Marriage Act that was signed into law by Bill Clinton?

[extremescene]

Did you applaud the Defense of Marriage Act that was signed into law by Bill Clinton?

I am all for gay marriage and do not feel threatened in the slightest by it... so no, the way I read that Act I am not for it, nor do I applaud it.

[Semiauto]

I'm sad for my children. They have to be exposed to vile immorality and have other citizens tell them they have to accept it without judgement.

I hope to raise them differently.

[USMCJG]

I'm sad for my children. They have to be exposed to vile immorality and have other citizens tell them they have to accept it without judgement.

I hope to raise them differently.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion and to raise your children as you see fit. And you are free to judge anyone however you want. But I know I don't like the idea of the government legislating morality. It is a very slippery slope. It might just be that some people don't want their children exposed to gun owners, who they might consider to be immoral.

[Kelemvor]

Great Odin's raven!

Lol.

Now, I think the difficulty lies in the point that there can be crimes that are identical in the eyes of the current law, but culturally/socially can be completely different in magnitude. Let describe some situations so you all can see what collinp2 is trying to get at as far as I can tell.

Case 1:

A.) You own a building in town and a kid spray paints some generic graffiti like a name or something on the side of it. Vandalism charge.

B.) You own a building in town and a black kid spray paints "Stupid inbred rednecks"(pretty racist and offensive, assuming most of you are white southerners) on the side of it. Same vandalism charge.

Case 2:

A.) You're in a long line at Wal-mart and a guy starts making small talk, you get in an argument about rival sports teams and bad words leads to the guy punching you in the jaw. Assault charge.

B.) You walk out of Wal-mart (which just so happens to be in a primarily Hispanic neighborhood) and a Hispanic individual sucker punches you in the head and calls you a "puto gringo" when you are on the ground. Same assault charge.

Logic would suggest that there are disparities between the A and B's of each case, but the law has no way of recognizing this. The important question that must be posed is, "Is our legal system capable of properly justifying the disparity, or should we leave it in the hands of the judge and jury?"

Edited October 12, 2009 by Kelemvor
schpelling

[Smith]

Lol.

Now, I think the difficulty lies in the point that there can be crimes that are identical in the eyes of the current law, but culturally/socially can be completely different in magnitude. Let describe some situations so you all can see what collinp2 is trying to get at as far as I can tell.

Case 1:

A.) You own a building in town and a kid spray paints some generic graffiti like a name or something on the side of it. Vandalism charge.

B.) You own a building in town and a black kid spray paints "Stupid inbred rednecks"(pretty racist and offensive, assuming most of you are white southerners) on the side of it. Same vandalism charge.

Case 2:

A.) You're in a long line at Wal-mart and a guy starts making small talk, you get in an argument about rival sports teams and bad words leads to the guy punching you in the jaw. Assault charge.

B.) You walk out of Wal-mart (which just so happens to be in a primarily Hispanic neighborhood) and a Hispanic individual sucker punches you in the head and calls you a "puto gringo" when you are on the ground. Same assault charge.

Logic would suggest that there are disparities between the A and B's of each case, but the law has no way of recognizing this. The important question that must be posed is, "Is our legal system capable of properly justifying the disparity, or should be leave it in the hands of the judge and jury?"

It has since it's inception. That is what the judicial system does. Why now radical redefinition?

[Kelemvor]

It has since it's inception. That is what the judicial system does. Why now radical redefinition?

Well that's where you have to ask, does the judicial system work...to which I answer, absolutely not.

Currently, I have to kill someone that breaks into my house instead of incapacitating them, because they can sue me for injury even though they were committing a crime.

We have about a million violent offenders in state prisons in the U.S. many of whom are muderers, who we spend approximately $70,000/per inmate, to maintain rather than sending them to their rightful graves.

We arrest and imprison individuals for numerous victimless crimes, but wealthy politicians and corporate executives have nothing to fear when they swindle honest Americans out of millions of hard earned dollars.

Edited October 12, 2009 by Kelemvor
I seriously need to learn to proofread.

[USMCJG]

Lol.

Now, I think the difficulty lies in the point that there can be crimes that are identical in the eyes of the current law, but culturally/socially can be completely different in magnitude. Let describe some situations so you all can see what collinp2 is trying to get at as far as I can tell.

Case 1:

A.) You own a building in town and a kid spray paints some generic graffiti like a name or something on the side of it. Vandalism charge.

B.) You own a building in town and a black kid spray paints "Stupid inbred rednecks"(pretty racist and offensive, assuming most of you are white southerners) on the side of it. Same vandalism charge.

Case 2:

A.) You're in a long line at Wal-mart and a guy starts making small talk, you get in an argument about rival sports teams and bad words leads to the guy punching you in the jaw. Assault charge.

B.) You walk out of Wal-mart (which just so happens to be in a primarily Hispanic neighborhood) and a Hispanic individual sucker punches you in the head and calls you a "puto gringo" when you are on the ground. Same assault charge.

Logic would suggest that there are disparities between the A and B's of each case, but the law has no way of recognizing this. The important question that must be posed is, "Is our legal system capable of properly justifying the disparity, or should we leave it in the hands of the judge and jury?"

I see no difference in example 1a and 1b, but maybe my skin is thicker than most.

In example 2a there was a heated exchange that led to the assault. In example 2b the attack was unprovoked. A DA would likely seek more time, and be less likely to plea bargain, for offense 2b for that reason. This is the way it should work. The justice system should determine what is right without color entering into it. Justice is SUPPOSED to be blind.

[Smith]

Well that's where you have to ask, does the judicial system work...to which I answer, absolutely not.

Currently, I have to kill someone that breaks into my house instead of incapacitating them, because they can sue me for injury even though they were committing a crime.

We have about a million violent offenders in state prisons in the U.S. many of whom are muderers, who we spend approximately $70,000/per inmate, to maintain rather than sending them to their rightful graves.

We arrest and imprison individuals for numerous victimless crimes, but wealthy politicians and corporate executives have nothing to fear when they swindle honest Americans out of millions of hard earned dollars.

So you think an even further shift to the of the same kind of judicial thinking that has broken the system in recent times will fix it?

[G27]

Logic would suggest that there are disparities between the A and B's of each case, but the law has no way of recognizing this. The important question that must be posed is, "Is our legal system capable of properly justifying the disparity, or should we leave it in the hands of the judge and jury?"

But there are no disparities in these cases, legally - nor should there be, imo. If the Hispanic guy punches me because I'm white or because I yelled at his kid - doesn't matter.

If your child was killed by being punched in a fight, thus falling and cracking his head on the ground, would you be OK with the criminal getting a lesser charge / sentence than the guy who attacked someone based on who they slept with?

Sorry, the only logic I see in your examples is of the pretzel variety.

[Kelemvor]

But there are no disparities in these cases, legally - nor should there be, imo. If the Hispanic guy punches me because I'm white or because I yelled at his kid - doesn't matter.

If your child was killed by being punched in a fight, thus falling and cracking his head on the ground, would you be OK with the criminal getting a lesser charge / sentence than the guy who attacked someone based on who they slept with?

Sorry, the only logic I see in your examples is of the pretzel variety.

I'm sorry you are misconstruing my logic as a snack food, but I believe you are missing my point.

In case 1, you have a kid painting something that may be annoying, possibly ugly, but more or less just a picture, versus the same kid painting a highly offensive racial slur that you will definitely have to get removed post haste.

In case 2, you have a guy slugging you because you said his team sucked or whatever (which likely could have been avoided) versus a dude slugging you because of your color (which could not be avoided).

I am in no way saying that murderers should be treated differently based on motive, per se. They should hang with the same rope. But in the lesser crimes, certain permutations of said crimes merit different punishment from others.

[G27]

I'm sorry you are misconstruing my logic as a snack food, but I believe you are missing my point.

Tasty snack food. You forgot tasty.

In case 1, you have a kid painting something that may be annoying, possibly ugly, but more or less just a picture, versus the same kid painting a highly offensive racial slur that you will definitely have to get removed post haste.

In case 2, you have a guy slugging you because you said his team sucked or whatever (which likely could have been avoided) versus a dude slugging you because of your color (which could not be avoided).

I am in no way saying that murderers should be treated differently based on motive, per se. They should hang with the same rope. But in the lesser crimes, certain permutations of said crimes merit different punishment from others.

My point is that in both cases the crime is the SAME. If you start basing punishment on how emotionally hurt someone is by what was spray-painted or yelled, then justice will never be served.

[Smith]

What some are arguing for is judicial relativism vs judicial absolutism. Relativism is a dangerous game that is bent more by the will of ideology than right and wrong. Of course in relativism right and wrong are aspects of absolutism that can't exist and thus creates an absolute that there can be no absolutes. That makes sense! And we wonder why the judicial system, has become so messed up.

[Guest crotalus01]

I am with Crimsonaudio on this one. Crime is crime regardless of the motivation. If I randomly kill generic person A and someone else randomly kills a queer just because they are queer, well - they are both dead. Same crime, same result, and the punishment for both crimes should be the same.

Do you really want America to end up like Australia and Canada where a preacher could go to jail for preaching that God says homosexuality is an abomination?

[Semiauto]

I'm sorry you are misconstruing my logic as a snack food, but I believe you are missing my point.

In case 1, you have a kid painting something that may be annoying, possibly ugly, but more or less just a picture, versus the same kid painting a highly offensive racial slur that you will definitely have to get removed post haste.

In case 2, you have a guy slugging you because you said his team sucked or whatever (which likely could have been avoided) versus a dude slugging you because of your color (which could not be avoided).

I am in no way saying that murderers should be treated differently based on motive, per se. They should hang with the same rope. But in the lesser crimes, certain permutations of said crimes merit different punishment from others.

I believe that you are criminalizing thought with this line of reasoning. The crime is the same, but the thought is not.

That's very Orwellian.