Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Trump’s America Trump’s America

01-05-2017 , 06:58 PM
Hate crime laws are institutional reverse racism.
01-05-2017 , 07:37 PM
01-05-2017 , 07:49 PM
Train wreck on all sides. Here's his article people are reacting to.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.2935825

Quote:
I speak out on injustice. What happened to this man in Chicago was terrible. It was criminal. I hate it, but guess what — justice was swift. It was miraculously swift.

Justice is always swift and easy when black folk mess up, but you know who’s not in jail right now? (insert names here)
01-05-2017 , 07:52 PM
That is an incredible article
01-05-2017 , 08:11 PM
King is right though.

These four will get decades in prison for this.

Sensationalizing it as a "hate crime" will only bring retribution.

Do we really want to see 4 white dudes from Alabama doing this to a handicapped black dude?

Last edited by awval999; 01-05-2017 at 08:15 PM. Reason: And of course King followed up his article tweeting the number of death threats. He's in the racism industry.
01-05-2017 , 08:20 PM
how does pointing out that it's a hate crime require alabama racists to do some retribution? What's the logical mechanism by which those two things are connected?
01-05-2017 , 08:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodle Wazlib
how does pointing out that it's a hate crime require alabama racists to do some retribution? What's the logical mechanism by which those two things are connected?
The contingent of the white supremacist movement in Alabama that is willing to kidnap and torture mentally handicapped folks only retaliates based on the formal charges presented.

I realize we are in a post-fact world but this is very common knowledge and you should be deeply embarrassed.
01-05-2017 , 08:22 PM
dang, how did I miss that? Thanks for opening my eyes!
01-05-2017 , 09:58 PM
Historically, hate crimes are designed to intimidate/harass a broader community of people, so there's some justification in treating them a bit more severely. If I target a gay man and beat the **** out of him, I'm implicitly threatening a larger gay community and making many people feel unsafe. By contrast, if I beat the **** out of some guy in a road rage incident that larger threat isn't present.

Essentially, all crimes matter but in some cases there's an additional layer of injustice.
01-05-2017 , 11:09 PM
There is a "thought crime" element to hate crimes that I don't care for. I'd prefer it only get used when the accused have stated someplace that they are targeting the victim because of membership in a protected class instead of having to guess at their state of mind.
01-05-2017 , 11:15 PM
Alternatively, if you don't want convicted of a hate crime, don't commit a normal crime.
01-05-2017 , 11:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerowo
There is a "thought crime" element to hate crimes that I don't care for. I'd prefer it only get used when the accused have stated someplace that they are targeting the victim because of membership in a protected class instead of having to guess at their state of mind.
This is exactly how 99% of hate crime charges are proven.
01-05-2017 , 11:21 PM
In least surprising news ever - Mexico will not be paying for the wall. So to sum up - poor people who voted for Trump out of economic anxiety - your Medicare, Social Security, Planned Parenthood, Obamacare, and who knows what else is under threat. But on the plus side - you get to pay for a boondoggle wall with your tax dollars. Which you'll be paying a higher % of - since tax breaks for the wealthy is first on the agenda. Oh yeah, Trump is also buddy-buddy with Clinton again. She's not getting locked up, and he just pulled off the greatest con of all time.
01-05-2017 , 11:22 PM
how the **** does chezlawl have a ****ing green name now, and i can't ignore/hide his ****ing aids anymore?
01-05-2017 , 11:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerowo
There is a "thought crime" element to hate crimes that I don't care for. I'd prefer it only get used when the accused have stated someplace that they are targeting the victim because of membership in a protected class instead of having to guess at their state of mind.
Not sure how that makes it a "thought crime." Motive plays a role in how charges are meted out all the time.
01-05-2017 , 11:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerowo
There is a "thought crime" element to hate crimes that I don't care for. I'd prefer it only get used when the accused have stated someplace that they are targeting the victim because of membership in a protected class instead of having to guess at their state of mind.
Thought crime sounds bad but it's not categorically different than what we do all the time trying to assess "intent" and "malice".
01-05-2017 , 11:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iron81
This is exactly how 99% of hate crime charges are proven.
That's really not enough. Hate crimes are notoriously difficult to prove short of "I am killing you now because you're xxx <of some legally cognizable characteristic>."

Even then, if there is some other plausible motive, prosecutors find it hard to prove (often they don't even try) beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime was a hate crime and not some other motive (such as parking dispute in Chapel Hill shootings).
01-05-2017 , 11:32 PM
If you have someone who has no record of being anti-lgbt and they murder some lgbt person what is required for it to be a hate crime? How much of that is actual evidence and how much of that has to be guessed at what they are thinking?
01-06-2017 , 12:35 AM
In general, bias motivating the crime has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. A prosecutor charging someone with no history of hate won't be able to prove the charge. Evidence is used to guess at what is in the criminal's mind.
01-06-2017 , 01:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerowo
If you have someone who has no record of being anti-lgbt and they murder some lgbt person what is required for it to be a hate crime? How much of that is actual evidence and how much of that has to be guessed at what they are thinking?
As described basically impossible unless the killing was somehow done in a uniquely and gruesomely anti gay way (painting ****** over corpse wont cut it).

Assaulting a stranger on video while verbally abusing him/her for being xxx without a hint of mental disturbance would do the job. A confession of motives would work.

Hate crime can be roughly understood as a plus plus malice "thought crime." It SHOULD be difficult to prove.

Last edited by grizy; 01-06-2017 at 01:26 AM.
01-06-2017 , 01:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerowo
If you have someone who has no record of being anti-lgbt and they murder some lgbt person what is required for it to be a hate crime? How much of that is actual evidence and how much of that has to be guessed at what they are thinking?
If you are actually interested in learning what evidence goes into charging and convicting someone of a hate crime, look up the murder trial of Elliot Morales in New York this past year. It is quite similar to the scenario you are raising, and includes the bonus fun bit of the defendant testifying and claiming that he was in fact gay himself and thus could not have shot a man in the face at point blank range out of hate for gay people.
01-06-2017 , 07:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lestat
...

When I hear the word welfare, I think of a system which locks people in a perpetual state of poverty and being married to the government in order to survive.
cuz right wing propaganda so fierce
01-06-2017 , 07:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson
Historically, hate crimes are designed to intimidate/harass a broader community of people, so there's some justification in treating them a bit more severely. If I target a gay man and beat the **** out of him, I'm implicitly threatening a larger gay community and making many people feel unsafe. By contrast, if I beat the **** out of some guy in a road rage incident that larger threat isn't present.

Essentially, all crimes matter but in some cases there's an additional layer of injustice.

Seems odd, it assumes that someone is doing it with a agenda while often enough this agenda is just that those people are huge fools who don't know what huge fools they are.
01-06-2017 , 05:22 PM
Republicans, fighting for the common working man as usual: https://www.thenation.com/article/wh...ult-on-unions/
01-06-2017 , 05:27 PM
Jiggy, that will have no effect on wages or jobs though. Everything is obama's fault. It can't be that most blue states are doing pretty well and most red states are enacting right to work legislation and trying to kill unions, while having worse metrics for food stamps, education and everything the GOP decries. That would be some form of irony, or something.

      
m