Federal "hate crimes" definition expanded to include crimes against gays qua gays - Page 7 - Politics and Economics

Two Plus Two Forums Other Topics Politics

Federal "hate crimes" definition expanded to include crimes against gays qua gays

...

Page 7 of 8

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Page 7 of 8

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

10-26-2009 , 05:03 PM

#151

MvdB

veteran

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,562

Quote:

Originally Posted by goofyballer

The future in the US is a couple officers with nothing better to do going to bother some old lady before walking away without charging her with anything? OH NOES, HATE CRIME LAWS WILL DESTROY US ALL! HOW TERRIFYING!!11 How is this a problem with hate crime laws because a couple podunk officers scared some old lady but ultimately caused zero consequences? If some officer wants to **** with you, there's a million reasons they can pick.

I guess this is like the British version of all those links Boro posts from libertarian sites about people being accused of terrifying crimes which proves how Draconian our government is becoming. Except, of course, for the part where they're never convicted.

If nobody would ever get convicted on what the police officers wanted to charge, why would they try?

Black is fined for race slur on police insult

Quote:

A BLACK MAN, who described police officers as "white trash" after they questioned him in the street, has been convicted of the new charge of "racially aggravated harassment" in the first prosecution of its kind.

The case has prompted outrage among black community leaders who said legislation designed to protect minority ethnic communities was being distorted by the police and used against "the people it was designed to protect". Andrew Wilson, 37, was convicted at Ipswich magistrates' court and fined pounds 50. The court heard that Mr Wilson was approached by two officers in the street as he sat on a television set which he had been moving for a friend.

When they began checking, he shouted: "You white boys, you arrest black people for anything. You're white trash, you're only doing this because I'm a ******. Leave me alone, you f***ing white trash, leave my black ass alone."

10-27-2009 , 12:46 AM

#152

goofyballer

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 70,719

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marnixvdb

If nobody would ever get convicted on what the police officers wanted to charge, why would they try?

Because they don't have anything better to do. Complain about the police if that's the problem. Being like "omg hate crime laws are so overreaching DOWN WITH GOVERNMENT" isn't a valid argument since apparently the laws are being applied properly and people aren't being convicted on blatantly unconstitutional grounds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marnixvdb

Black is fined for race slur on police insult

Does Britain have their own first amendment? The major focus of that story doesn't seem to be "omg someone was arrested for saying something racist, what about teh free speechez?", it's "omg a law against saying racist **** was actually applied to a black person!"

10-27-2009 , 03:39 AM

#153

MvdB

veteran

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,562

Quote:

Originally Posted by goofyballer

It was a conviction for a hate crime in the UK, which is what mcsqr was talking about, and about what you said about it's all useless panicking as nobody ever gets convicted and it's just police wasting their time.

So I show you: it's not.

10-27-2009 , 03:44 AM

#154

UATrewqaz

banned

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 9,699

Can we extend thought crimes to all crime? Why does the concept just stop at violent crime?

Like I steal money out of the register at McDonalds to buy some DVD's I get X penalty.

But if I'm stealing money out of the register to fund my local KKK branch I get X+Y?

Isn't it the same concept really?

"What you did was illegal, but you were doing it for a really really bad reason so we're gonna super punish you"

10-27-2009 , 05:42 AM

#155

goofyballer

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 70,719

Quote:

Originally Posted by goofyballer

Being like "omg hate crime laws are so overreaching DOWN WITH GOVERNMENT" isn't a valid argument since apparently the laws are being applied properly and people aren't being convicted on blatantly unconstitutional grounds.

Again, if nothing here is blatantly against whatever equivalent Britain has to its constitution, I'm not sure what the problem is?

10-27-2009 , 06:01 AM

#156

MvdB

veteran

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,562

Quote:

Originally Posted by goofyballer

Again, if nothing here is blatantly against whatever equivalent Britain has to its constitution, I'm not sure what the problem is?

They have an odd consitutional history, there is no clear consitutional document on such things as the freedom of speech as far as I know and can find.

Also, it not being against their consitution does not make it right.

10-27-2009 , 06:57 AM

#157

FlyWf

It's the other way

Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 58,090

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayTeeMe

Curiosity. Is it a forbidden question or something?

Seems to me that as long as anyone killing a member of any group for "hate" is treated the same then there aren't "special rights for certain groups".

It's not a forbidden question, just a dumb one, given the multiple previous times people in this thread have tried to catch us tricksy liberals into admitting our anti-white, pro-gay/black/communist agenda only to run into Wisconsin v. Mitchell.

10-27-2009 , 08:38 AM

#158

General Tsao

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 30,575

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyWf

...are you guys serious with the Mitchell crap?

"I don't think this will be applied fairly"
"It is applied fairly, look at this one case!"

It would be virtually impossible for any one of you posters to demonstrate that these statutes are applied equally. You'd need a team of researchers looking at all the cases, or, a decent sized sample. Showing one example of where it was applied equally and then saying "see, its equal!" is laughable.

10-27-2009 , 09:56 AM

#159

ElliotR

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 30,029

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taso

wtf are you talking about? Mitchell is being used to answer whether it has EVER been applied to a crime against whites -- which multiple people on here have expressed doubt about. An example of a single instance is a complete rebuttal to a claim that something has never happened.

10-27-2009 , 10:02 AM

#160

General Tsao

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 30,575

okay, who gives a ****? the point of those posters is that these laws are not applied equally. no one cares if it was "applied to a white victim one time!!". It's absolute nittery to think anyone would give a crap if it happened once in the history of the country.

It's also completely irrelevant if it happened 100 times. As I said, I doubt any poster itt can come up with any useful statistics.

10-27-2009 , 10:07 AM

#161

FlyWf

It's the other way

Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 58,090

And as I said before, it's completely plausible for a non-racist, educated, sincerely interested person to make the presumption that hate crime laws are being applied to disproportionately benefit politically powerless minorities and to oppress the richer politically connected majority.

10-27-2009 , 10:09 AM

#162

FlyWf

It's the other way

Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 58,090

Oh wait no that's actually ******ed.

Also, through my IMPLAUSIBLY ADVANCED RESEARCH SKILLS of typing "hate crime law statistics" into google and clicking the second result,

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

By race

Quote:

In 2007, the races of the 6,965 known hate crime offenders were as follows:

62.9 percent were white.
20.8 percent were black.
4.9 percent were groups made up of individuals of various races (multiple races, group).
1.0 percent were American Indian/Alaskan Native.
0.7 percent were Asian/Pacific Islander.
9.8 percent were unknown.

10-27-2009 , 10:14 AM

#163

General Tsao

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 30,575

ty that's what ive been saying all along?

Quote:

also lol @ not knowing what liberal white guilt is. (its especially lol that you don't know what it is)

Quote:

btw the 20.8% could be black on ____ other minority hate crime not black on white btw imo

10-27-2009 , 10:32 AM

#164

NeBlis

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 12,039

Quote:

Originally Posted by goofyballer

Again, if nothing here is blatantly against whatever equivalent Britain has to its constitution, I'm not sure what the problem is?

stupidity is the problem.

10-27-2009 , 10:33 AM

#165

mcsqr

grinder

Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 461

If blacks are committing 21% of hate crimes while only being 12% of the US population, those Hate Crimes laws must be racist. Abolish those racist laws now!!

10-27-2009 , 12:03 PM

#166

ErikTheDread

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 9,124

Sweet Jeebus, why do people here keep talking about thought crimes? Nothing in this legislation is aimed at what people think, it's aimed at what they do. Is it really so hard to see the difference?

10-27-2009 , 12:10 PM

#167

jthegreat

veteran

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 3,125

Quote:

Originally Posted by ErikTheDread

Sweet Jeebus, why do people here keep talking about thought crimes? Nothing in this legislation is aimed at what people think, it's aimed at what they do.

Obviously, not exactly. Are these laws creating crimes where none existed before or are they making penalties for existing crimes steeper?

10-27-2009 , 12:48 PM

#168

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by ErikTheDread

Killing people (you know, the "what you do" part) is already illegal.

10-27-2009 , 12:49 PM

#169

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Can someone provide an example of an action that is currently legal that would be made illegal by this type of legislation?

10-27-2009 , 02:53 PM

#170

UATrewqaz

banned

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 9,699

Quote:

Originally Posted by jthegreat

Obviously, not exactly. Are these laws creating crimes where none existed before or are they making penalties for existing crimes steeper?

Exactly.

Hate crimes don't punish the what (there are already laws for that), they punish the why.

If that's not a thought crime I don't know what is.

10-27-2009 , 03:00 PM

#171

goofyballer

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 70,719

Quote:

Originally Posted by pvn

Can someone provide an example of an action that is currently legal that would be made illegal by this type of legislation?

ERGO, THOUGHTCRIME!!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taso

btw the 20.8% could be black on ____ other minority hate crime not black on white btw imo

Taso, when it goes from "these laws are so racist they only are applied to white people" to "yeah well one case where a black person was prosecuted for committing a hate crime against a white person doesn't mean anything" to "yeah well 20% of the offenders being black doesn't mean the victims were white", pretty sure the burden is now on you to demonstrate why you still think you're right.

10-27-2009 , 03:55 PM

#172

UATrewqaz

banned

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 9,699

Quote:

Originally Posted by goofyballer

ERGO, THOUGHTCRIME!!!!

Taso, when it goes from "these laws are so racist they only are applied to white people" to "yeah well one case where a black person was prosecuted for committing a hate crime against a white person doesn't mean anything" to "yeah well 20% of the offenders being black doesn't mean the victims were white", pretty sure the burden is now on you to demonstrate why you still think you're right.

1. If it's not criminalizing actions, then what IS it criminalizing?

2. Finding out if the law is equally applied is completely irrelevant. It's punishing people for their thoughts/beliefs and blatantly unconstitutional. It being applied to 0%, 20%, or 100% minorities doesn't make the law any more just or valid. A horrible law being applied fairly across the board doesn't make it any less horrible.

10-27-2009 , 04:50 PM

#173

tubasteve

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 14,283

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyWf

Do you still think that I was trying to trick you or something? Ridiculous if you did when I just asked a simple ****ing question.

10-27-2009 , 05:10 PM

#174

goofyballer

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 70,719

Quote:

Originally Posted by UATrewqaz

2. Finding out if the law is equally applied is completely irrelevant. It's punishing people for their thoughts/beliefs and blatantly unconstitutional.

Okay, well, for that part I refer you to the rest of this thread where lawyers have explained why it isn't. Other than that, your objection is noted!