or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › New Federal Hate Crime Law
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New Federal Hate Crime Law

post #1 of 135
Thread Starter 
http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/t...?blog_id=27785

Quote:
The president plans to pen his name to the fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill, which includes a provision known as the Matthew Shepard & James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. The measure would make illegal hate crimes based on actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity, among other categories, and would allow the Justice Department to assist in the prosecution of such crimes.

I recently got into a debate about this bill on Facebook. I did not support the bill, whereas one man who happened to be gay did. Eventually, the discussion imploded, because my opponent engaged in ad hominem attacks, direct name calling, and cheap debate tactics. So, I thought I'd bring it up here.

My opponent's position was that that law was a needed step in "sending a message" that violence against gay persons was unacceptable. He considered it a major step in the gay rights "agenda" (for lack of a better term). He talked about there being "much hate" in America and that something like this was needed. He also made some unsupported claims about gay murders/assaults being frequently tolerated and dismissed by police/the courts.

I disagreed. I think that this law and other hate crimes laws are likely Unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. What's happening is that we're taking a crime--in other words, something that is already illegal, like assault or murder. We're then saying that if a straight person is assaulted, it's just assault. But if the person is gay and we can "prove" the crime was committed because the victim was gay, the perpetrator gets punished more severely.

The same problem applies with other hate crimes laws, where we are creating separate crimes based on the victim's race and the perpetrator's supposed state of mind. One has to ask...which minorities have protection under this law? If someone assaults a white person because he is white, is that a "hate crime" too? What if someone assaults someone that has blue eyes---and says that is one of the reasons he committed the crime...is he charged with a hate crime? Can someone who is Irish be charged with a hate crime for beating up an Italian? Or does it only apply in reality to whites assaulting blacks?

My position is that yes, there is racism, hate and discrimination in America. I fail to see, though, how this law will help that. There are constitutional problems with it, and I cannot see it being applied equally across genders, races, etc. As I told me opponent in the discussion we had, I'd rather see some sort of Equal Rights law or amendment, preventing employers (and others) from discriminating against someone based on his/her sexual orientation. Criminally speaking, murder is murder and assault is assault. Beating up someone weaker is illegal and wrong. It shouldn't be "more wrong and illegal" just because the person is gay.

Your thoughts?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #2 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Eventually, the discussion imploded, because my opponent engaged in ad hominem attacks, direct name calling, and cheap debate tactics. So, I thought I'd bring it up here.



Good thinking - that could never happen here...don't know what's happening to standards on the internets...
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #3 of 135
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post



Good thinking - that could never happen here...don't know what's happening to standards on the internets...

Hahaha...good call. I chuckled as a posted it. Believe it or not, we seem to have better discussions. When someone goes off the deep end, they get an infraction/banned and the discussion goes on.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #4 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


Your thoughts?

Well I've had many conversations with my mother about our Legal system. She's practiced Law as an attorney for over 20 years.
At this point she is astonishied with how poor our legal system has become. She not the only attorney I've talked to that has really
soured over perceived degredation of our Constitution and legal stabiltiy.

Obama was Harvard Law Review yet like the sheep before him he follows the same trend. Equal Protection doesn't mean anything anymore.
No one can make any sense out of it.

Bush was right the Consitution now is "just a GD piece of paper. "


I'm not Anti Gay, Anti Black, Anti anything but anti criminal. We have laws that come with stiff penalties for crimes that they now want to attach
"Hate" to. Just give the maximum and we wouldn't need specific legislation.

Another problem is turning Prison's into profit centers where we're locking up people that really shouldn't be in Prison long term and we're failing to keep people who should be in Prison long term there.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #5 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Hahaha...good call. I chuckled as a posted it. Believe it or not, we seem to have better discussions. When someone goes off the deep end, they get an infraction/banned and the discussion goes on.

Yes, we're a great big dysfunctional family aren't we?

Re this law; it's an interesting philosophical question...

On the one hand, imo, certain groups do need 'extra protection' if they have 'extra hassle' if you catch my drift. If society is (more or less) in a state of balance then you are right, why does a gay guy need to be subject to additional protection than the next guy.

If, oth, gangs of racist thugs are roaming the streets beating ethnic minorities to a pulp then they would need an extra law imo. Not sure this is happening in the US at the moment so maybe this law is redundant.

Conversely, I can see there might be reasons why such laws should not be enacted - exploitation by members of the groups concerned for example..this is only human nature.

Also I think it hacks off members of the public who are not given 'special' treatment and this can be a source of discrimination paradoxically.

In this case, it may even be political capital-making or pressure from groups such as the Jewish lobby. Neither of which are very noble actions from which to proceed imo....
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #6 of 135
My main point on this and any other special rights laws is, if you enforce the existing laws on the books properly, then you don't need new laws. If you cannot or will not enforce the existing laws, what is a new law going to gain you?

Is it legal to beat and murder people now? Assault? Other hateful actions?

Just enforce the laws we have now.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #7 of 135
You want the end result to be the same level of violence towards Gays as towards non-gays. If we are in a steady state where gays are targeted more, then you need a temporary law to make it really bad to attack them, and once the numbers even out you can repeal that law.

If gays are being assaulted more, they are not receiving "equal protection". Some times you need an extra kick in the pants to get society to change. Not many black men lynched in North Carolina last year - I think that the hate crime laws worked there. Murder was illegal in 1960, but that was not enough.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #8 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

You want the end result to be the same level of violence towards Gays as towards non-gays. If we are in a steady state where gays are targeted more, then you need a temporary law to make it really bad to attack them, and once the numbers even out you can repeal that law.

If gays are being assaulted more, they are not receiving "equal protection".

The problem is not the laws, it is enforcement.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #9 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

The problem is not the laws, it is enforcement.

And sometimes even the enforcers...
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #10 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

And sometimes even the enforcers...

They are part and parcel.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #11 of 135
The ironic thing is that:


On one hand we want to establish new laws to protect gays yet where is this protection when the issue of Domestic Partnership comes up?
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #12 of 135
Affirmative action is the response to embedded, long held dysfunctions in society. When kids are taught by their peers, relatives, parents from a very young age that " 'faggots' are wicked and should be beaten up, or even die, for their own good", or "God hates gays, therefore we must", or "black people are inferior humans, such prejudice is hard to erase.

Affirmative action is a duplicity in itself, which is bad, but as of yet nobody has come up with a way of leveling a historically sloped playing field... ie addressing institutionalized prejudice and its accompanying hatreds. Looking at prominent news items, it's safe to say that many of the most violent hate crimes are committed by relatively uneducated people... but its not a rule of thumb.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

The problem is not the laws, it is enforcement.

Yes, absolutely 100% yes. An example: I live in the L.A. area and I know a number of transgendered people, (mostly "male to female"), one being longtime and very good friend. Without exception, these folk have horror stories of encounters with people bent on violence, merely on account of who they are. Many didn't daren't call police because of a similar attitude prevalent in the law enforcement community... the reaction was usually to not acknowldge any crime, or refuse to prosecute violent offenses directed against transgendered victims, sometimes even deferring to harrassment or even beatings requiring hospitalization. For the police to actually do something, the victim would have be killed or severely injured.. otherwise, forget it. Things got so bad between the LAPD/CHP and the transgendered community in the L.A. area some years back that the LAPD started an education/tolerance program in the ranks, and since then, things have improved re. security for that community.

After leaving college, I endured a few years in the "entertainment industry" and toured everywhere (especially in the US) putting up with (and observing) how men behave when in often cramped quarters n a tour bus, thousands of miles away from their girlfriends/wives etc for months on end. Even in that supposedly open-minded "progressive" work environment, the degree of (verbal as opposed to physical) hatred expressed towards gay and/or black (and later on towards Arabic or Islamic people) for example, was shocking, especially hearing such sentiments for the first time. I expected such in the southern Bible belt states for sure, but not on a tourbus where practically everyone professed to be a 'liberal' (who disagreed with the (then) recently inaugurated President Bush)... it was quite the eye-opener. Even in that situation, there was a duplicity... gay or black celebrities were totally AOK! I also wonder how much of the prejudice was more the result of "free-flowing testosterone", rather than learned patterns from dysfunctional parenting/schools or religiously inspired intolerances?

One thing for sure though.. hatred is almost always a reaction based on fear, and is almost exclusively baseless fear, encompassing xenophobia... . whether it manifests in a simple case of, say, something as commonplace as a gang of rednecks beating up on a gay or black person, all the way to officially sanctioned mass hatred, such as the current attitude prevalent in much of the nation against the Islamic community, as a direct result of what we have been taught, 24/7, about the 9/11 attacks.

I am most uncomfortable with the idea of unequal treatment under the law, but since "unequal treatment under the law" has been long traditional in this country, regarding the way society deals with maligned groups, if this law helps the situation towards something more fair and equitable, then having to swallow some nasty tasting medicine to cure society's ills may work out for the better. If there there any other ways around this intractable problem, nobody's coming up with anything.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #13 of 135
I have to agree -- "hate crime" comes across to me as "thought crime". What would be wrong with enforcing the laws we have? We have virtually ended racism in America -- at least racism, a la 1960s Georgia. We somehow managed to do that without "thought crime" laws.

I hear that "you can't legislate morality" all the time, I guess that only applies to only one particular morality?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #14 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

...If gays are being assaulted more, they are not receiving "equal protection". Some times you need an extra kick in the pants to get society to change. Not many black men lynched in North Carolina last year - I think that the hate crime laws worked there. Murder was illegal in 1960, but that was not enough.

But they're not assaulted more -- which makes the attention given to this a bit forced.

We've been through the statistics before -- strictly speaking, homosexuals are not targeted as such any more more than heterosexuals are targeted as such.* Actually if you assume that heteros are assaulted by homos the rate of violence is higher for the homosexuals. Then there is the rate of suicide to consider as well.


But then H1N1 is a "National Emergency", too.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #15 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Many didn't daren't call police because of a similar attitude prevalent in the law enforcement community...

dmz - there is absolutely no way that your statement is true in real life. Maybe this reporting issue is why.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

After leaving college, I endured a few years in the "entertainment industry"

You were a stripper?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Even in that situation, there was a duplicity... gay or black celebrities were totally AOK! I also wonder how much of the prejudice was more the result of "free-flowing testosterone", rather than learned patterns from dysfunctional parenting/schools or religiously inspired intolerances?

Classism ties into racism pretty neatly, so that upper class blacks or gays are OK.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #16 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

dmz - there is absolutely no way that your statement is true in real life. Maybe this reporting issue is why.



You were a stripper?



Classism ties into racism pretty neatly, so that upper class blacks or gays are OK.


http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/table_01.htm

\t
Anti-Male Homosexual\t772\t
Anti-Female Homosexual\t145\t
Anti-Homosexual\t304\t
Anti-Heterosexual\t22\t

~300 million people, 1.5% homosexual? (2000 census) 4,500,000 people. 295,000,000 straight.

So 1200 people out of 295 million straights decide to offend: .0004%

22 out of 4.5 million offend: .0004%

(Of course that assumes that all anti gay/hetero is perpetrated by the opposing sexual preference.)

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #17 of 135
SDW, I wonder how you are able to make a living doing as much posting here as you do. Are you independently wealthy, collecting unemployment, or too young to hold a job? I'm seriously wondering... and this comes from a guy with "only" 8,300 posts.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #18 of 135
What are the reporting rates? I have heard that violence against gays is reported as little as 20% of the time, due to gays not wanting to be "outed", further abused by police, or ignored. In what percentage of reported cases do the police do anything?

Also, how much evidence do they need to prove bias? A better measure would be total violent crime rate against gays vs total violent crime rate against non-gays, but even that would be subject to massive non-reporting error.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #19 of 135
One more thing:

Yes those numbers are concentrated on that minority. But if you think that "hate crime" legislation is going to clean up the .0004% rate of incidence -- and let's even say that only 50% or 25% of the population is at "mental risk" of committing a hate crime, then we are still talking about .0008% or .0012% incidence of offense.

The normal rate of violent crime is .46% (that is .46% of us commit violent crime every year)

Logically, if the hate crime legislation works at all, we should make ordinary murder and assault hate crimes too.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #20 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

What are the reporting rates? I have heard that violence against gays is reported as little as 20% of the time, due to gays not wanting to be "outed", further abused by police, or ignored. In what percentage of reported cases do the police do anything?

Also, how much evidence do they need to prove bias? A better measure would be total violent crime rate against gays vs total violent crime rate against non-gays, but even that would be subject to massive non-reporting error.

Oh stop it, you know and I know that is a pretty good estimate of what is going on. Certainly a good ballpark number.

And given the context -- presumably we are addressing some sort of "epidemic" or "problem" with anti-gay violence -- that demands legislation-- I'd say this is why don't hear the numbers fleshed out to any degree, with any rapidity.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #21 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

But they're not assaulted more -- which makes the attention given to this a bit forced.

We've been through the statistics before -- strictly speaking, homosexuals are not targeted as such any more more than heterosexuals are targeted as such.* Actually if you assume that heteros are assaulted by homos the rate of violence is higher for the homosexuals.

Please explain why you think G&L's aren't assaulted more than Hetero's. Even your own FBI figures show that there are far higher rates of violence per capita targeted at G&L's than Hetero's. 22 attacks on 295,000,000 = aprox 1 in 13,500,000 assaulted and 1,200 attacks on 4,500,000= aprox 1 in 3,750 assaulted. Seems to me like G&L's are 3,600 times more likely to be assaulted based on sexuality.

And blacks.... "anti white" victims- 908 out of 200,000,000 = 1 in 2,200,000 victims annually

"anti black" victims- 3,434 out of 40,000,000 = 1 in 11,650 victims annually

That's 190 times more black victims than white.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #22 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

... Seems to me like G&L's are 3,600 times more likely to be assaulted based on sexuality.

Bravo! You win a math prize!!

Now, let's make that rate even across the board. take the incidence of heteros twisting off at .0004% -- and impact that with legislation, when the rate of perpetration of forcible rape alone is at .06% -- that's not even considering the "normal" amount of guys beating up their wives and girlfriends. From the wiki article: Between 1993 and 2001, U. S. women experienced intimate partner violence almost 700% more than men.

So, let's make forcible rape and other violence against women a hate crime, too.


(This doesn't address the tone deafness to the fact that, in terms of perpetration, the mentality of both sides are roughly equally prone to violence. And if you want to stop crime, you have to look at the perpetrators.)

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #23 of 135
You see, we aren't really talking about affecting incidents of anti-gay violence. If you think that ~1200 crimes a year is "an epidemic" or "an abnormal problem" that can be meaningfully addressed then you are kidding yourself. There's no way, anymore than you than putting the "hate" tag on domestic violence is meaningful.

This is agitprop, plain and simple. Punish violent crime as such, that's all you can do.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #24 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

This is agitprop, plain and simple.

I would speculate that these laws might help the police take cases more seriously by highlighting, despite any of their own biases, that the law determines that the crime is significant.

"2000-2009
On July 3, 2000, in Grant Town, West Virginia, Arthur "J.R." Warren was punched and kicked to death by two teenage boys who reportedly believed Warren had spread a rumor that he and one of the boys, David Allen Parker, had a sexual relationship. Warren's killers ran over his body to disguise the murder as a hit-and-run. Parker pleaded guilty and was sentenced to "life in prison with mercy", making him eligible for parole after 15 years.[125] His accomplice, Jared Wilson, was sentenced to 20 years.[126]
On September 22, 2000, Ronald Gay entered a gay bar in Roanoke, Virginia and opened fire on the patrons, killing Danny Overstreet, 43 years old, and severely injuring six others. Ronald said he was angry over what his name now meant, and deeply upset that three of his sons had changed their surname. He claimed that he had been told by God to find and kill lesbians and gay men, describing himself as a "Christian Soldier working for my Lord;" Gay testified in court that "he wished he could have killed more fags," before several of the shooting victims as well as Danny Overstreet's family and friends.[127]
On June 16, 2001, Fred Martinez, a transgender and two-spirit student was bludgeoned to death near Cortez, Colorado by 18-year-old Shaun Murphy, who reportedly bragged about attacking a "fag".[128][129]
On June 12, 2002, Philip Walsted, a gay man, was fatally beaten with a baseball bat. According to prosecutors, the neo-Nazi views of Walsted's assailant's, David Higdon, led to what was originally a robbery escalating to murder. Higdon was sentenced to life in prison, plus an additional sentence for robbery.[130]
The December 2002 homicide of Nizah Morris, a trans woman in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
The killing of Gwen Araujo(1985 – 2002), a trans woman, by at least three men who were charged with committing a hate crime. Two were convicted of murder, the third manslaughter; however, the jury rejected the hate crime enhancement.
On May 11, 2003, Sakia Gunn, a 15-year-old lesbian, was murdered in a hate crime in Newark, New Jersey. While waiting for a bus, Gunn and her friends were propositioned by two men. When the girls rejected their advances, declaring themselves to be lesbians, the men attacked them. One of the men, Richard McCullough, fatally stabbed Gunn. In exchange for his pleading guilty to several lesser crimes including aggravated manslaughter, prosecutors dropped murder charges against McCullough, who was sentenced to 20 years.[131][132]
On June 17, 2003, Richie Phillips of Elizabethtown, Kentucky was killed by Joseph Cottrell. His body was later found in a suitcase in Rough River Lake. During his trial, two of Cottrell's relatives testified that he lured Phillips to his death, and killed him because he was gay.[133] Cottrell was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 20 years in prison.[134]
On July 23, 2003, Nireah Johnson and Brandie Coleman were shot to death by Paul Moore, when Moore learned after a sexual encounter that Johnson was transgender.[135] Moore then burned his victims' bodies. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to 120 years in prison.[136]
On July 31, 2003, 37-year-old Glenn Kopitske was shot and stabbed in the back by 17-year-old Gary Hirte, a straight-A student, star athlete[137] and Eagle Scout,[138] in Winnebago County, Wisconsin. Prosecutors contended that Hirte murdered Kopitske to see if he could get away with it.[139] Hirte pleaded insanity, claiming he killed Kopitske in a murderous rage after a consensual sexual encounter with the victim, because he felt a homosexual act was "worse than murder". The 'temporary insanity' mitigation plea was not upheld, he was found guilty, and received a life sentence.
On October 2, 2004, multiple assailants in Waverly, Ohio, attacked Daniel Fetty, a gay man who was hearing-impaired and homeless. Fetty was beaten, stomped, shoved nude into a garbage bin, impaled with a stick, and left for dead; he succumbed to his injuries the next day. Prosecuters alleged a hate crime. Three men received sentences ranging from seven years to life.
On January 28, 2005, Ronnie Antonio Paris, a three-year-old boy living in Tampa, Florida, died due to brain injuries inflicted by his father, Ronnie Paris, Jr. According to his mother and other relatives, Ronnie Paris, Jr., repeatedly slammed his son into walls, slapped the child's head, and "boxed" him because he was concerned the child was gay and feared his son would grow up a sissy. Paris, Jr., was sentenced to thirty years in prison.[140][141]
On February 27, 2005, in Santa Fe, New Mexico, 21-year-old James Maestas was assaulted outside a restaurant, then followed to a hotel and beaten unconscious by men who called him "faggot" during the attack. Although all of his attackers were charged with committing a hate crime, none was sentenced to prison.
On March 11, 2005, Jason Gage, an openly gay man, was murdered in his Waterloo, Iowa, apartment by an assailant, Joseph Lawrence, who claimed Gage had made sexual advance to him. Gage was bludgeoned to death with a bottle, and stabbed in the neck, probably post-mortem, with a shard of glass.[142] Lawrence was sentenced to fifty years in prison.
On February 2, 2006, 18-year-old Jacob D. Robida entered a bar in New Bedford, Massachusetts, confirmed that it was a gay bar, and then attacked patrons with a hatchet and a handgun, wounding three.[143] He fatally shot himself three days later.[144]
On June 10, 2006, Kevin Aviance, a female impressionist, musician, and fashion designer, was robbed and beaten in Manhattan by a group of men who yelled anti-gay slurs at him. Four assailants pleaded guilty and received prison sentences.[145]
On July 30, 2006, six men were attacked with baseball bats and knives after leaving the San Diego, California Gay Pride festival. One victim was injured so severely that he had to undergo extensive facial reconstructive surgery. Three men pleaded guilty in connection with the attacks and received prison sentences. A 15-year-old juvenile also pleaded guilty.[146][147]
On August 18, 2006, an altercation occurred in Manhattan between a man and seven black lesbians from Newark, New Jersey. During the altercation, the man was stabbed. The women claim that they acted in self-defense after he screamed homophobic epithets, spit on them, and pulled one of their weaves off,[148] while he has described the attack as "a hate crime against a straight man."[149]
On October 8, 2006, Michael Sandy was attacked by four young heterosexual men who lured him into meeting after chatting online, while they were looking for gay men to rob. He was struck by a car while trying to escape his attackers, and died five days later without regaining consciousness.[150][151]
On February 27, 2007 in Detroit, Michigan Andrew Anthos, a 72-year-old disabled gay man was beaten with a lead pipe by a man who was shouting anti-gay names at him. Anthos died 10 days later in the hospital.[152]
On March 15, 2007 in Wahneta, Florida, Ryan Keith Skipper, a 25 year old gay man was stabbed to death. Four suspects were arrested for the crime. The Sheriff is calling it a hate crime.[153]
On May 12, 2007, Roberto Duncanson was murdered in Brooklyn, New York. He was stabbed to death by Omar Willock, who claimed Duncanson had flirted with him.[154]
May 16, 2007, Sean William Kennedy, 20, was walking to his car from Brew's Bar in Greenville, SC when Andrew Moller, 18, got out of another car and approached Kennedy. Investigators said that Moller made a comment about Kennedy's sexual orientation, and threw a fatal punch because he didn't like the other man's sexual preference.[155]
On December 8, 2007 25 year old gay man Nathaniel Salerno was attacked by four men on a Metro train in Washington, DC. The men called him faggot while they beat him.[156]
In February 2008, Duanna Johnson, a transsexual woman, was beaten by a police officer while she was held in the Shelby County Criminal Justice Center in Tennessee. Johnson said the officers reportedly called her a “faggot” and “he-she,” before and during the incident.[157][158] In November 2008, she was found dead in the street, reportedly gunned down by three unknown individuals.[159]
On February 12, 2008, Lawrence "Larry" King, a 15 year old junior highschool student was shot by a classmate at E.O. Green School in Oxnard, California. He was taken off life support after doctors declared him brain dead on February 15.[160] According to Associated Press reports, "prosecutors have charged a 14-year-old classmate with premeditated murder with hate-crime and firearm-use enhancements".[161][162][163]
In Rochester, New York on March 16, 2008 police say Lance Neve was beaten unconscious because Neve was gay. A man attacked Neve at a bar leaving him with a fractured skull, and a broken nose.[164] Jesse Parsons was sentenced to more than five years in prison for the assault.[165][166]
In Baltimore County, Maryland on May 29, 2008 eighteen year old Steven Parrish—a member of the Young Swans subgroup of the Bloods—was murdered by Steven T. Hollis III and Juan L. Flythe after they found "gay messages" on his cell phone. They felt having a gay member would make their gang appear weak and that by killing Parrish they could prevent that perception.[167]
17 July 2008, In Colorado, 18 year old Angie Zapata, a trans woman, was beaten to death two days after meeting Allen Ray Andrade. The case was prosecuted as a hate crime, and Andrade was found guilty of first degree murder on April 22 2009.[168]
September 7, 2008 - Tony Randolph Hunter, 27, and his partner were attacked and beaten near a gay bar in Washington DC. Hunter later died from his injuries on September 18. Police are investigating it as a possible hate crime.[169][170]
September 13, 2008 in Denver, Colorado 26 year old Nima Daivari was attacked by a man who called him faggot. The police that arrived on the scene refused to make a report of the attack.[171]
September 15, 2008 - A Bourbonnais, Illinois elementary school bus driver was charged with leading a homophobic attack on a 10-year old student passenger. The boy was taunted by the driver who then encouraged other students to chase and beat the child.[172]
On November 7, 2008 in Newton, NC the home of openly gay Melvin Whistlehunt was destroyed by arsonists. Investigators found homophobic graffiti spray painted on the back of the house.[173]
On November 14, 2008, a 22 year old transgender woman, Lateisha Green, was shot and killed by Dwight DeLee in Syracuse, NY because he thought she was gay.[174] Local news media reported the incident with her legal name, Moses "Teish" Cannon.[175] DeLee was convicted of first-degree manslaughter as a hate crime on July 17, 2009 and received the maximum sentence of 25 years in state prison. This was only the second time in the nation’s history that a person was prosecuted for a hate crime against a transgender person and the first hate crime conviction in New York state.[176][177][178]
On December 7, 2008 Romel Sucuzhanya, a 31 year old straight Ecuadorean and his brother Jose, were attacked on a Brooklyn, New York street for appearing to be gay and for being Latino; they were walking arm-in-arm, which is normal for brothers in their culture. Romel later died from his injuries.[179]
On December 12, 2008 in Richmond, California a 28 year old lesbian was kidnapped and gang raped by four men who made homophobic remarks during the attack.[180]
On December 27, 2008 in Dayton, Ohio 24 year old Nathan Runkle was brutally assaulted outside a gay nightclub.[181]
On February 15, 2009 in New York City Efosa Agbontaen and Branden McGillvery-Dummett were attacked by four young men with glass bottles and box cutters who used anti-gay slurs during the attack. Agbontaen and McGillvery-Dummett both required emergency room treatment for their injuries.[182]
On February 18, 2009 two men were arrested in Stroudsburg, PA for the stabbing death of gay veteran Michael Goucher.[183]
On March 1, 2009 in Galveston, Texas three men entered Roberts Lafitte bar and attacked patrons with rocks. One of the victims, Marc Bosaw, was sent to the emergency room to have twelve staples in his head.[184]
On March 14, 2009 a gay couple leaving a concert in Newark, New Jersey were attacked by 15 teens. Josh Kehoe and Bobby Daniel Caldwell were called "faggots" and beaten. Caldwell suffered a broken jaw.[185]
On March 23, 2009 in Seaside, Oregon two gay men were attacked and left lying unconscious on a local beach. The men regained consciousness and were treated at a nearby hospital.[186]
On April 6, 2009, Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover, an 11 year old boy in Springfield, Massachusetts, hanged himself with an extension cord after being bullied all school year by his peers. His peers said he "acted feminine" and was gay.[187]
On April 11, 2009 a gay man in Gloucester, Massachusetts was attacked and beaten by as many as six people outside a bar. Justin Goodwin, 36, of Salem suffered a shattered jaw, broken eye socket, broken nose and broken cheek bone.[188]
On June 30, 2009, Seaman August Provost was found shot to death and his body burned at his guard post on Camp Pendleton. LGBT community leaders "citing military sources initially said that Provost’s death was a hate crime."[189] Provost had been harassed because of his sexual orientation.[189] Military leaders have since explained that "whatever the investigation concludes, the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy prevented Provost from seeking help."[189] Family and friends believe he was murdered because he was openly gay; the killer committed suicide a week later after admitting the murder, the Navy have not concluded if this was a hate crime.[190]"
[edit] ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violenc...st_LGBT_people
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #25 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I would speculate that these laws might help the police take cases more seriously by highlighting, despite any of their own biases, that the law determines that the crime is significant.

**quote bomb**

Well, we're all free to speculate about how to shift the incidence of crime perpetration. The reality is that you're dealing with a marginal* problem. You have a large number of people perpetrating at a tiny rate, compared to other sorts of crime -- I'm sorry the FBI numbers don't help you, but that's the reality of the situation. And were talking about something that is illegal as it is.

People who tell you they are going to magically solve this sort of marginal problem, in the face of any number of intractable crime problems, are selling something. Simple minded people and others who are ignorant of the facts will look at this legislation and reckon that the straight population at large is "out to get" the gays -- that there is an abnormal rate of perpetration, when there isn't. It's deception, pure and simple.












*(chiefly of costs or benefits) relating to or resulting from small or unit changes.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #26 of 135
Hate crimes are most often violent attacks against people, on account of who they are, defined by their race, skin color, religious affiliation, sexual orientation or gender identity. IMHO, this variety of crime represents the very bottom of the depths to which humans can descend, on a par with rape and child abuse. It was the same mentality (or lack thereof), taken to an extreme of course with a state mandate, that fueled what happened in Europe in the 1940s.

I do find it quite amazing, appalling to be honest, that anyone can weasel out of not supporting a hate crimes bill.... this type of "going soft on crime" is "beyond inappropriate" in a civilized society.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #27 of 135
There's a certain logic in crafting laws making someones intentention increase the severity of the punishment, it's a balance to the way extenuating circumstances can reduce the punishment.
post #28 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Hate crimes are most often violent attacks against people, on account of who they are...

Honestly, sammi jo, stop and think about that statement for a second.

Unbelievable.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #29 of 135
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Hate crimes are most often violent attacks against people, on account of who they are, defined by their race, skin color, religious affiliation, sexual orientation or gender identity. IMHO, this variety of crime represents the very bottom of the depths to which humans can descend, on a par with rape and child abuse. It was the same mentality (or lack thereof), taken to an extreme of course with a state mandate, that fueled what happened in Europe in the 1940s.

I do find it quite amazing, appalling to be honest, that anyone can weasel out of not supporting a hate crimes bill.... this type of "going soft on crime" is "beyond inappropriate" in a civilized society.

Sammi, that's cheap. No decent person wants hate crimes and wants to do whatever possible to prevent them. The question is, though, is the law constitutional? I don't believe it is. Granted, it does send some sort of message (hopefully). However, there are other ways for the government to do this, ones that aren't constitutional. The term "hate crime" can even be used, in everything from educational programs to public service announcements, to awareness days and the like.

What I take issue with is the law. Frankly, I don't see how someone can argue that it doesn't violate Equal Protection. I am amazed and appalled that someone can weasel out of opposing a law that clearly unconstitutional.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #30 of 135
What is this Hate Crimes Bill Really about?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...wednesday.html

Quote:
The main thrust of the bill is defense policy, including authorizing $130 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The DOD Authorization bill also strips money from the Pentagon budget for the controversial F-22 Raptor. The Pentagon and the White House wanted to stop production, but appropriators had balked at costing jobs in their states.

Awesome, use a bill supposedly designed to stop "hate crimes" as leverage to appropriate money for war. \
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #31 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/t...?blog_id=27785



I recently got into a debate about this bill on Facebook. I did not support the bill, whereas one man who happened to be gay did. Eventually, the discussion imploded, because my opponent engaged in ad hominem attacks, direct name calling, and cheap debate tactics. So, I thought I'd bring it up here.

My opponent's position was that that law was a needed step in "sending a message" that violence against gay persons was unacceptable. He considered it a major step in the gay rights "agenda" (for lack of a better term). He talked about there being "much hate" in America and that something like this was needed. He also made some unsupported claims about gay murders/assaults being frequently tolerated and dismissed by police/the courts.

I disagreed. I think that this law and other hate crimes laws are likely Unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. What's happening is that we're taking a crime--in other words, something that is already illegal, like assault or murder. We're then saying that if a straight person is assaulted, it's just assault. But if the person is gay and we can "prove" the crime was committed because the victim was gay, the perpetrator gets punished more severely.

The same problem applies with other hate crimes laws, where we are creating separate crimes based on the victim's race and the perpetrator's supposed state of mind. One has to ask...which minorities have protection under this law? If someone assaults a white person because he is white, is that a "hate crime" too? What if someone assaults someone that has blue eyes---and says that is one of the reasons he committed the crime...is he charged with a hate crime? Can someone who is Irish be charged with a hate crime for beating up an Italian? Or does it only apply in reality to whites assaulting blacks?

My position is that yes, there is racism, hate and discrimination in America. I fail to see, though, how this law will help that. There are constitutional problems with it, and I cannot see it being applied equally across genders, races, etc. As I told me opponent in the discussion we had, I'd rather see some sort of Equal Rights law or amendment, preventing employers (and others) from discriminating against someone based on his/her sexual orientation. Criminally speaking, murder is murder and assault is assault. Beating up someone weaker is illegal and wrong. It shouldn't be "more wrong and illegal" just because the person is gay.

Your thoughts?

Your opponent is correct. You, as usual, are wrong. The law would reinforce swift action against haters such as so many of the viewers of Fox News and other programs you love to watch. God forbit you yourself ever become a victim of gang violence or rape just because you watch Glen Beck. If this were to happen (again, I hope it never does) I think your opinion would do a 180-change very quickly.
post #32 of 135
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by buceta View Post

Your opponent is correct. You, as usual, are wrong. The law would reinforce swift action against haters such as so many of the viewers of Fox News and other programs you love to watch. God forbit you yourself ever become a victim of gang violence or rape just because you watch Glen Beck. If this were to happen (again, I hope it never does) I think your opinion would do a 180-change very quickly.

Your post, as usual, shows you to be a person unwilling to engage in discussion of the issues. It is nothing more than a veiled ad hominem attack. Within one sentence, you manage to go on the attack with your reference to Fox News viewers, as if the largest cable news audience is some monolithic racist, bigoted group. It's utterly laughable.

As for swift action: This is your opinion, and I'm not sure it's supportable. Even if it is, my point was related to the constitutionality of said law. You've failed to address that. Please note that something can be considered beneficial AND unconstitutional at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive. A perfect example is the line item veto. It was a great tool that I think is necessary, but it was found to be unconstitutional. Are you capable of grasping this concept? Your next post will tell.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #33 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by buceta View Post

Your opponent is correct. You, as usual, are wrong. The law would reinforce swift action against haters such as so many of the viewers of Fox News and other programs you love to watch. God forbit you yourself ever become a victim of gang violence or rape just because you watch Glen Beck. If this were to happen (again, I hope it never does) I think your opinion would do a 180-change very quickly.

Actually I'm pretty sure those things wouldn't change his mind because since SDW is not a member of any group seeking special protection, those crimes you mentioned (more like wished for) with regard to him would gain no additional action.

In fact in the wonderful world of buceta illogic, SDW could be killed by the gang member and it would be murder but if SDW killed the man back in defense it could possibly be a hate crime depending upon their skin color, sex or sexual orientation.

All hate legislation is lame. It tries to criminalize thought instead of focusing on action.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #34 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Sammi, that's cheap. No decent person wants hate crimes and wants to do whatever possible to prevent them. The question is, though, is the law constitutional? I don't believe it is. Granted, it does send some sort of message (hopefully). However, there are other ways for the government to do this, ones that aren't constitutional. The term "hate crime" can even be used, in everything from educational programs to public service announcements, to awareness days and the like.

What I take issue with is the law. Frankly, I don't see how someone can argue that it doesn't violate Equal Protection. I am amazed and appalled that someone can weasel out of opposing a law that clearly unconstitutional.

I don't like double standards any more than you do. Since punishment is doled out "multiplicitously" ie without equity, where society favors one group over another, what is the best way of righting the problem? As I mentioned, the only way anyone has come up with dealing with the basic unfairness of the system has been some form of affirmative action.

It works the other way as well: in New York (and other states), for example, the death penalty can be handed out to someone found guilty of killing, specifically, a cop. I don't agree with the death penalty, but how is the killing of a police officer a worse crime than the killing of someone who is not a police officer? I haven't seen much protest about "equal protection under the law" regarding these laws... perhaps because people don't wish to be called out for "going soft on cop-killers"?
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #35 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Oh stop it, you know and I know that is a pretty good estimate of what is going on. Certainly a good ballpark number.

No, we don't know that. I don't think it is even close - I think that violence against gays is way higher than violence against non-gays. Also - if violence against gays is such an uncommon thing, why do you care about a law that makes it punished more harshly? It won't have much effect on anything, if gay bashing is so uncommon.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #36 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

No, we don't know that. I don't think it is even close - I think that violence against gays is way higher than violence against non-gays. Also - if violence against gays is such an uncommon thing, why do you care about a law that makes it punished more harshly? It won't have much effect on anything, if gay bashing is so uncommon.

Gay bashing is not common. Most violence is male on male and also black on black with regard to race issues. Even if it is uncommon, we have a right to care about a law that violates a principle of equality for all. Also, like most issues we have the "enlightened" point and the unenlightened but ignored point. We care about rape on a college campus that almost never happens and completely ignore rape in prisons which is known to be common as an example. We take white on black violence, call it a hate group and create special task forces and laws. We take black on white crime or hispanic on black or black on hispanic and call it a gang and add nothing extra to the equation.

This is more about codifying some insane version of a perceived power structure more than anything else.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #37 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

No, we don't know that. I don't think it is even close - I think that violence against gays is way higher than violence against non-gays. Also - if violence against gays is such an uncommon thing, why do you care about a law that makes it punished more harshly? It won't have much effect on anything, if gay bashing is so uncommon.

Hate crime statistics, 2007:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/table_01.htm

Quote:
Bias motivation \tIncidents \tOffenses \tVictims1 \tKnown offenders2
Sexual Orientation: \t1,265 \t1,460 \t1,512 \t1,454
Anti-Male Homosexual\t772 \t864 \t890 \t923
Anti-Female Homosexual\t145 \t184 \t197 \t147
Anti-Homosexual \t304 \t362 \t375 \t349
Anti-Heterosexual \t22 \t27 \t27 \t19
Anti-Bisexual \t22 \t23 \t23 \t16


Violent crime statistics, 2007:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offe...ime/index.html

Quote:
Nationwide, an estimated 1,408,337 violent crimes occurred in 2007.

So, less than one out of every 1000 violent crimes are hate crimes against gays.
post #38 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

No, we don't know that. I don't think it is even close...

Oh for heavens sake, e1618978! Any one side can play the over- underreport game.


Here's something to consider: if GLAAD or any other similarly interested party had solid information to the contrary of FBI statistics, you can bet your sweet ass they'd use them.

As it stands, the pathos play here is to insinuate and imply that it is a highly perpetrated crime -- when it's not, and to expand the legislative base under false pretense; my Spidey Sense tells me that law would be easy enough to build upon somewhere down the road.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #39 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Your post, as usual, shows you to be a person unwilling to engage in discussion of the issues. It is nothing more than a veiled ad hominem attack. Within one sentence, you manage to go on the attack with your reference to Fox News viewers, as if the largest cable news audience is some monolithic racist, bigoted group. It's utterly laughable.

As for swift action: This is your opinion, and I'm not sure it's supportable. Even if it is, my point was related to the constitutionality of said law. You've failed to address that. Please note that something can be considered beneficial AND unconstitutional at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive. A perfect example is the line item veto. It was a great tool that I think is necessary, but it was found to be unconstitutional. Are you capable of grasping this concept? Your next post will tell.

Oh yes, the guy that feels smart by writing latin words. Of course it is constitutional. Little Bush did sign an executive order banning stem cell research didn't he? This, by comparison is VERY constitutional. Ad infinitum.
post #40 of 135
That law makes clear it is "any hate crime" and not just against homosexuals, transgender, etc.

Just letting you guys know what is written in the OP since most people here seems to have missed that basic fact. You know, before you go blue in the face from arguing.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › New Federal Hate Crime Law