> On Nov 3, 7:08 pm, tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > In article <x06Im.118699$Xw3.20...@en-nntp-04.dc1.easynews.com>, > > moc.rr.thgi...@5ellimd.com says...
> > > tankfixer wrote: > > > > So how does "hate crime" legislation make anyone safer ?
> > > How do laws against murder make anyone safer?
> > We have those law already, how does making it a "hate crime" help ?
> > > If a perp kills you, you're just as dead. That's not exactly "safe," is it?
> > Nope. > > Is the victim less dead with "hate crime laws" on the books ?
> > > Would you feel safe walking down a dark alley in a "bad" section of town because you know > > > that murder is illegal?
> > > Criminals are criminals because they choose to *not* obey the common niceties, not because > > > they choose to abide by them.
> > > No. Laws do not serve to provide safety. What they serve to do is remove undesirable > > > elements from the mix for a while. (Provided the jury finds sufficient cause for a > > > "guilty" verdict.)
> > > What would you propose? Removing the laws against murder since they don't *prevent* murder?
> > > What do you propose, removing the distinctions between murder, and premeditated murder, > > > since dead is dead?
> > > Come now...
> > You danced all around the question. > > How is making it a "hate crime" change any facts ?
> You ignore the purpose of the hate crime legislation which is to give > an enhanced punishment to the perpetrator of the crime. This is > nothing new we have had laws like that around for generations. For > example, commit a burglary and get caught, you might get 5 years in > prison. But if you possess a firearm while committing the burglary, > then many states require an enhancement of the sentence so instead of > five years you may receive ten years. Sell drugs out of your home > and the feds might send you away for 10 years. Have fire arms in the > house and then sentence is even worse. The purpose in both cases is > self evident, carrying a firearm increases the risk of serious injury > or death. Attack and rob some random stranger walking down the street > and get 10 years, attack and rob some senior or some child under 14 > and in some states, you will get a harsher sentence because these foks > are seen as especially vulnerable and thus the sentence is harsher. > The same purpose underlies the enhancements built into the hate crime > law. Beat me up because you tink I insulted your intellignece and you > will get one sentence. Beat me up because you hate Hispanics and you > think I am one, bingo, you get a few extra years to sit in the pen and > think about it.
Are you trying to say that hispanics are especially vulnerable ?
> On Nov 4, 7:01 am, grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost) > wrote: > > juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com> wrote in news:a4137cac-cd12-4ea2-a1e8- > > 0a066381b...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> > > You ignore the purpose of the hate crime legislation which is to give > > > an enhanced punishment to the perpetrator of the crime
> > Which is crap. It is to silence people, period. I'll expect attacks on > > churches that are opposed to homosexuality to start as early as next year.
> That is your opinion and you are of course entitled to it. It is > ignorant and biased but then again that is not unusual. Consider that > there are certain religious institutions out there which are regularly > subjected to all sorts of vitriol by some individuals. For example, > the Roman Catholics and Mormons are regularly excoriated in Chick > Publications, those little leaflets found so often in bus station bath > rooms [very handy if there is no toilet paper available]. The hate > poured out against the Jews by the various White Power and neo-Nazi > websites can be breathtaking. But they are not prosecuted criminally > for simply saying the their opinions. There are other websites which > advocate White Supremacy and strongly oppose racial minorities > accusing them of all sorts of evil. Again, no criminal prosecution for > saying they hate blacks or latinos or asians. So I seriously doubt > that some church is going to be prosecuted for say it is opposed to > homosexuality and that homosexuals are going to go to hell based upon > some interpretation of scripture.
> It is when these types of groups go beyond simply advocating their > positions and call for specific violent actions and then act upon them > that they get into trouble. It's called free speech and the Supreme > Court has made more than one decision concerning it.
Recently in my city there was a spate of vandilism against churches of various demoninations.. The authorities claimed that they didn't think they were connected nor that they were hate crimes..
In article <NvqIm.144480$Gs.61...@en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com>, moc.rr.thgi...@5ellimd.com says...
> tankfixer wrote: > > moc.rr.thgi...@5ellimd.com says... > >>tankfixer wrote: > >>>So how does "hate crime" legislation make anyone safer ? > >>How do laws against murder make anyone safer?
> > We have those law already, how does making it a "hate crime" help ?
> "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
An admirable goal to strive for. I'm sorry you don't understand it and are using it out of context.
> Return terror with terror.
Existing law already handle the crimes.
> Remember Ronald Reagan and Mutually Assured Destruction? Seems to work...
Sounds like you are in favor of citizens carrying a means of protection. Saw a firearm...
> >>What do you propose, removing the distinctions between murder, and premeditated murder, > >>since dead is dead?
> >>Come now...
> > You danced all around the question. > > How is making it a "hate crime" change any facts ?
In article <1EqIm.151489$8m4.100...@en-nntp-07.dc1.easynews.com>, moc.rr.thgi...@5ellimd.com says...
> tankfixer wrote: > > moc.rr.thgi...@5ellimd.com says... > >>tankfixer wrote: > >>>You know when many people are telling you that you are wrong it might be > >>>time to listen to them.. > >>>Just a suggestion .. > >>Provided that they're not utterly divorced from the concept of morality... > >>Yes, I'll concede that.
> > Thanks for conceding the point in the rest of my post by snipping it > > away.
> Methinks you don't get it.
Then think harder.
> When women had "everyone" telling them that they were inferior, some stood up and said FU.
> When slaves had "everyone" telling them that they were wrong to believe that the > Constitution applied to them, some stood up and... Golly, where is slavery these days?
> When the religious folks that founded America had "everyone" in Europe saying they were > wrong, they founded a nation that became a superpower.
> Just because some folks want to retain the status quo doesn't mean they should be listened to.
some folks see no need to create new laws when existing law covers the crimes already...
In article <nb5Im.166042$BL3.140...@en-nntp-08.dc1.easynews.com>, moc.rr.thgi...@5ellimd.com says...
> Gray Ghost wrote:
> > Based on that and the postings of many of your olk on this newsgroup, > > Conservatives should have special protections, too.
> Curiously, they seem to resist being relocated to preserves.
Curious you think they should be...
> Then again, their extinction seems to be mandated by their "End Times" philosophy. > Apparently, when the last Conservative is dead, Jesus will return...
In our last episode, <1InIm.9$ET...@newsfe17.iad>, the lovely and talented Scout broadcast on alt.gossip.celebrities:
> As far as the 80 year old, I am again going to have to ask to see your cites > for such statutes, because I am unaware of any such divisions within the > law.
Here's a reference to the Texas law, the only state I checked for
Assault is ordinarily a class C misdemeanor. It is now a class A misdemeanor if the victim is elderly or disabled.
Also simple assault becomes aggrevated assault if the victim is a government employee who is on duty (not just law enforcement officers).
So there are three classes of victims when the difference in charges is simply based on the victim belonging to the class.
(There is also a separate section of the law dealing with abuse or neglect of elderly people by relatives and caretakers, with manditory reporting requirements, etc.)
-- Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> September 5909, 1993 288 days since Rick Warren prayed over Bush's third term. Obama: No hope, no change, more of the same. Yes, he can, but no, he won't.
> Now what have we here? A sudden mastery of a newsreader after a comment regarding how I've > seen young children master it?
> Congrats!
> (Unless this was an accident...)
> Gray Ghost wrote: > > Dionisio <moc.rr.thgi...@5ellimd.com> wrote: > >>Gray Ghost wrote: > >>>Based on that and the postings of many of your olk on this newsgroup, > >>>Conservatives should have special protections, too. > >>Curiously, they seem to resist being relocated to preserves. > >>Then again, their extinction seems to be mandated by their "End Times" > >>philosophy. Apparently, when the last Conservative is dead, Jesus will > >>return...
> > First of all you bigoted dogshit brained piece of filth that can be > > considered a hate crime.
> Telling the truth is a hate crime?
In the 1930's and 40's there was a group that felt like you appear to.. That their version of the Truth was the only one and anyone who disagreed should be relocated..
> (Which raises the question of why it would worry you. The truth that is.)
> > Second of all fuck off. Not every Christian subscribes to the "End Times" > > idea.
> Nonsense.
> I've been told -- directly, and also literally to my face -- that your *opinion* regarding > that matter is flat-out false. Apparently only "pseudo Christians" have your mindset. I > know because folks who call themselves "real Christians" have said so. Should I consider > them liars? They say that God speaks through them... Wouldn't that be akin to calling God > a liar? Rumor has it that 'tis not a good idea to piss Him off...
You have more than likely also been told, to your face, that you are a complete asshole. Were they wrong ?
> > Third of all anytime you want to relocate me and my family, you just stop by > > and bring some friends. We'll see how well that goes for you.
> Friends.
> Feh. You being armed would make it merely a fair fight. And that didn't even occur to you...
> Say, what's that saying? "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or somesuch?
> Might one suggest trying being reasonable with the other? Threats are trite.
They are, stop making them and people might take some of your arguments seriously..
> At the very least have the balls to declare that you want to -- oh, I don't know -- "kill > the not-so-pansyish pansy."
> (Balls are commonly located on the lower portion of the "trunk" of the body, should you be > unfamilar with whether you might have them.)
> Did ya like receiving insults? That what floats yer boat? The simple -- and surprisingly > effective -- way of not receiving them, is to decline to give them.
In article <425Im.165940$BL3.14...@en-nntp-08.dc1.easynews.com>, moc.rr.thgi...@5ellimd.com says...
> tankfixer wrote: > > moc.rr.thgi...@5ellimd.com says... > >>tankfixer wrote: > >>>Racism isn't confined to any particular color. > >>This is true. But we are diverting ourselves from the issue. > >>You claim that I am a racist. Expand on that please.
> > You seem to think ones color is important..
> Ah, confused by my use of a common tactic to expose idiocy and sophistry, eh?
> Changed a couple words in the original poster's screed, and suddenly it's "RACISM!"
> Ask yourself, what was it before I changed a couple words to illustrate a point.
Altering what another person writes is, dishonest.. Expected from a leftist but dishonest none the less..
> On Nov 4, 6:38 am, grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost) > wrote: >> juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com> wrote in news:4955783a-e7b3-4599-9d6c- >> 7cd09dd08...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
>> >> Only a pedophile supporter would stoop this low.
>> > Nothing in this law mentions pedophilia or provides protection to >> > pedophiles. Only a cowardly liar would stoop so low as to make such a >> > claim.
>> > The present law expands the definition of a hate crime to include >> > sexual orientation or perceived gender. That meaqns it would protect >> > someone who is heterosexual and was attacked because the attacker was >> > motivated by that victim's perceived heterosexuality. I keep hearing >> > nonsense from know-nothings about hate crimes meaning people can be >> > prosecuted simply for hating someone for being of a particular class >> > defined in the act, eg. a Roman Catholic a woman or a republican. One >> > of the most basic core teachings of criminal law is simply expressed >> > as "actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea" which in English means >> > "an act does not make a person guilty unless (their) mind is also >> > guilty"; hence thought in some fashion is a component to criminal >> > liability in this country and has been since the founding fathers >> > signed the Declaration of Independence and even before. It makes >> > sense does it not? If Joe is standing next to a cliff and Bill >> > stumbles into him by accident and Joe falls to his death, we would not >> > prosecute Bill for murder. But if Bill went up and deliberately >> > pushed Joe over the edge because he believed Joe had been talking >> > stink about him, then we would prosecute Bill for murder.
>> > Now some may ask, if this is so then why have hate crime acts at all? >> > After all if the mens rea [guilty mind] is already a component of the >> > crime then it is redundant. However this is an oversimplification of >> > the purpose of such laws and the behaviour they are intended to >> > punish. If Bill went up and deliberately pushed Joe over the edge >> > because he believed Joe had been talking stink about him, then we >> > would prosecute Bill for murder. He would be guilty of first or >> > second degree murder depending the exact circumstances of the event. >> > If Bill decided he was going to kill Joe because he was a Jew or a >> > Roman Catholic because Bill hated Jews and Roman Catholics and not >> > because he thought Joe was talking stink about Bill, then Bill would >> > be guilty of a hate crime on top of the murder. If and this is a >> > important issue, if the prosecution could show that was Bill's >> > motivation in killing Joe. But Bill could sit here like some of the >> > unwashed heathen who troll through the internet chat groups and >> > usenet, calling people all manner of foul names based upon their >> > religion, sexual orientation, race, color or national origin and it is >> > not a crime. Bill can hate all he wishes so long as he does not >> > commit an actual physical act based upon that hatred.
>> > We as a society have decided to give enhanced penalties for certain >> > typo's of criminal behaviour. Victimizing the very young or very old >> > is one example. Killing a police officer who is on duty is another. >> > We have decided to add to that enhanced criminal penalties for those >> > who target another based upon their gender, race, color, religion and >> > certain other categories because it is our belief that you cannot go >> > around harming people simply because they are white or black or asian, >> > Buddhists or Baptists, women or men, gay or straight among other >> > categories.
>> > You do not have to like white people or blacks etc, in fact you can >> > hate them and even say it to their face but you better not harm them >> > based upon that hatred or you will pay the price. And that my dear >> > friends is a good thing.
>> I thought pedophillia was just another sexual preference.
> well then you are truly ignorant.
Hey, that's what NAMBLA claims. And our new Safe Schools czar appears to be an admirer of and enabler of the practice.
>> And you silly rants aside, no black man or homosexual has ever been >> charged under a hate crime statue. Ever.
> Can you substantiate that claim?
Well I'm not really sure where to go to fing the list of people who haven't been indicted. But I can recall many news stories where blacks clearly killed whites out of racial hatred and the 2 homosexuals that tortured and killed a young boy and they got no "hate crimes" added on to thier indictments.
Actually it would be far easier for you to provide even one such case, thereby disproving my claim.
>> New concept bucko. It's called equal protection.
> I understand equal protection quite well sweetie.
Clearly you don't. You think some people are better than others and that people who committ crimes against them should be punished more severly than when regular folks are attacked.
>> > On Nov 3, 6:14 pm, Dionisio <moc.rr.thgi...@5ellimd.com> wrote: >> >> Gray Ghost wrote: >> >> > Dionisio <moc.rr.thgi...@5ellimd.com> wrote: >> >> >>If I kill "Victim X" as opposed to "Victim Y," that is random. >> >> >>If I kill any victim of a certain characteristic... What's that >> >> >>called again? Is it a "serial killer"? >> >> >>Go ahead, tell me that we should treat serial killers the same as >> >> >>other killers. That *is* your argument, yes? >> >> >>You're uncomfortable with aggressors who act out against >> >> >>those-of-cerain-traits being called out for what they are. >> >> >>Tough.
>> >> > Much fury signifying nothing.
>> >> > So the person dead from random crime deserves less justice than the >> >> > other victims?
>> >> As I said earlier, *all* crimes deserve justice.
>> >> *All* crimes deserve to be investigated fully.
>> >> *All* crimes deserve to be met with appropriate responses.
>> >> Your scarecrow of "thought crimes" is merely straw with clothing. >> >> We're not dealing with thoughts, rather with defined actions. Yes, >> >> there were thoughts behind them. But thoughts are not a crime. Acting >> >> on them to the detriment of a person's life, property, liberty, >> >> livelihood, etc... That's where the crime comes into play.
>> >> I could think of punching you. That is not a crime. Punching you is.
>> >> If I punch you because I think you've stolen my man, that's >> >> motivation. (And if you punch me 'cause you think I've stolen your >> >> woman, that's motivation too. Laughable in each consideration, but >> >> true nonetheless.)
>> >> If I punch you because I wish to terrorize the class or group of >> >> people whom you represent, that's something else entirely.
>> >> Even you know that.
>> > So true, the fundamental basis of criminal law taught to any first >> > year law student is that for a crime there must be an actus reus >> > [guilty act] and a mens rea [guilty mind]. Grey Ghost for example >> > could hate all Lithuanians. He could even set up a web page blaming >> > Lithuanians for all the ills of the past 60 years. He could announce >> > he hates then all and wants them all sent back to Lithuania. That is >> > not a crime. But if he goes out anf firebombs a man's house because >> > he believes the man is Lithuanian then he is guilty of a crime which >> > has enhanced penalties because he chose his victim based upon his >> > national origin and wanted to kill him or scare him into returning to >> > Lithuania. It really is not rocket science at all despite the best >> > attempts of bigots and know-nothings everywhere to paint it to be >> > something different from what it truly is.
>> Enhanced penalties? Why, my motive will be used to find me guilty of the >> underlieing crime. If I'm sentenced to death for the underlieing crime >> what else will you do to me, hang me after I'm dead.
> Two different issues. Your motive will get you convicted of the crime > and it is also indicative of a second offense which then calls for an > enhanced penalty. This is not a radical concept at all. For example > X may have been motivated to rob a bank and did so, in the course of > which he exchanged shots with the police. One of the bullets strikes > a passerby and at trial he is convicted of murder as well as robbery. > His motive to commit the robbery is introduced to prove his robbery as > well as the felony murder rule under which he liable for murder. As > for hanging you, that can only be done once. However that has not > prevented courts from sentencing the same defendant to death multiple > times for different offenses. The Night Stalker is a good example. > Ted Bundy would be another.
Irrelevant.
>> New concept, equal protection. If you start punishing people >> disporportionately for the same crimes the victims of the crimes >> receiving lesser penalties might start to think that ther pain and >> suffering is soemhow less than the protected minority. Ya think that >> might tend to breed resentment making the situation worse?
> I think that a person who has been assaulted is more interested in his > assailant being punished, not comparing the types of punishments meted > out to others for other offenses.
If I was assaulted in exactly the same manner as a black man and the offender in the case of the black man was punished more severly, you bet your ass I would feel very slighted as if nmy life was worth less than the black man's life.
>> Frankly if I ever sit on a jury I would never convict a person of "hate >> crime" only whatever the underlieing crime was. Unless of course the >> offender was a protected minority, just to spread the pain.
> Then you are a prime candidate for being excused from the jury. > Congratulations on informing us you have no intention of fulfilling > your obligations as a citizen in a fair manner.
Well I'll just keep it to myself until it comes time to vote. Maybe I won't even bother to explain it. A hung jury works for me to help nullify bad law.
>>>> On Nov 3, 6:14 pm, Dionisio <moc.rr.thgi...@5ellimd.com> wrote: >>>>> Gray Ghost wrote: >>>>>> Dionisio <moc.rr.thgi...@5ellimd.com> wrote: >>>>>>> If I kill "Victim X" as opposed to "Victim Y," that is random. >>>>>>> If I kill any victim of a certain characteristic... What's that >>>>>>> called again? Is it a "serial killer"? >>>>>>> Go ahead, tell me that we should treat serial killers the same as >>>>>>> other killers. That *is* your argument, yes? >>>>>>> You're uncomfortable with aggressors who act out against >>>>>>> those-of-cerain-traits being called out for what they are. >>>>>>> Tough.
>>>>>> Much fury signifying nothing.
>>>>>> So the person dead from random crime deserves less justice than the >>>>>> other victims?
>>>>> As I said earlier, *all* crimes deserve justice.
>>>>> *All* crimes deserve to be investigated fully.
>>>>> *All* crimes deserve to be met with appropriate responses.
>>>>> Your scarecrow of "thought crimes" is merely straw with clothing. >>>>> We're not dealing with thoughts, rather with defined actions. Yes, >>>>> there were thoughts behind them. But thoughts are not a crime. >>>>> Acting on them to the detriment of a person's life, property, >>>>> liberty, livelihood, etc... That's where the crime comes into play.
>>>>> I could think of punching you. That is not a crime. Punching you is.
>>>>> If I punch you because I think you've stolen my man, that's >>>>> motivation. (And if you punch me 'cause you think I've stolen your >>>>> woman, that's motivation too. Laughable in each consideration, but >>>>> true nonetheless.)
>>>>> If I punch you because I wish to terrorize the class or group of >>>>> people whom you represent, that's something else entirely.
>>>>> Even you know that.
>>>> So true, the fundamental basis of criminal law taught to any first >>>> year law student is that for a crime there must be an actus reus >>>> [guilty act] and a mens rea [guilty mind]. Grey Ghost for example >>>> could hate all Lithuanians. He could even set up a web page blaming >>>> Lithuanians for all the ills of the past 60 years. He could announce >>>> he hates then all and wants them all sent back to Lithuania. That is >>>> not a crime. But if he goes out anf firebombs a man's house because >>>> he believes the man is Lithuanian then he is guilty of a crime which >>>> has enhanced penalties because he chose his victim based upon his >>>> national origin and wanted to kill him or scare him into returning >>>> to Lithuania. It really is not rocket science at all despite the >>>> best attempts of bigots and know-nothings everywhere to paint it to >>>> be something different from what it truly is.
>>> Enhanced penalties? Why, my motive will be used to find me guilty of >>> the underlieing crime. If I'm sentenced to death for the underlieing >>> crime what >>> else will you do to me, hang me after I'm dead.
>> Two different issues. Your motive will get you convicted of the crime >> and it is also indicative of a second offense which then calls for an >> enhanced penalty.
> Except you have yet to explain WHY this enhanced penalty should even > exist.
> So far the only reasons you seem to have provided is 'because' or 'they > are special'.
> Which doesn't address the point he's attempting to make by asking you to > define WHY this offense is worthy of enhanced penality.
> So tell me, why is it if I murder someone because he's black I deserve > greater punishment than if I murder them because they wear a red hat?
> My act is the same, my basic drive is the same, the hate is the same, yet > one crime is *special* and the other isn't.
> So why the enhanced penalty for one crime but not the other?
1) to rub our noses in thier specialness. 2) To lay the foundation for prosecuting people who offend the special cases. Meaning Talk Radio hosts and churches that don't adhere to the liberal line and have the temerity to exercise thier 1st Amendment rights to free expression.
> On Nov 4, 7:01 am, grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost) > wrote: >> juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com> wrote in news:a4137cac-cd12-4ea2-a1e8- >> 0a066381b...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>> > You ignore the purpose of the hate crime legislation which is to give >> > an enhanced punishment to the perpetrator of the crime
>> Which is crap. It is to silence people, period. I'll expect attacks on >> churches that are opposed to homosexuality to start as early as next year.
> That is your opinion and you are of course entitled to it. It is > ignorant and biased but then again that is not unusual. Consider that > there are certain religious institutions out there which are regularly > subjected to all sorts of vitriol by some individuals. For example, > the Roman Catholics and Mormons are regularly excoriated in Chick > Publications, those little leaflets found so often in bus station bath > rooms [very handy if there is no toilet paper available]. The hate > poured out against the Jews by the various White Power and neo-Nazi > websites can be breathtaking. But they are not prosecuted criminally > for simply saying the their opinions. There are other websites which > advocate White Supremacy and strongly oppose racial minorities > accusing them of all sorts of evil. Again, no criminal prosecution for > saying they hate blacks or latinos or asians. So I seriously doubt > that some church is going to be prosecuted for say it is opposed to > homosexuality and that homosexuals are going to go to hell based upon > some interpretation of scripture.
> It is when these types of groups go beyond simply advocating their > positions and call for specific violent actions and then act upon them > that they get into trouble. It's called free speech and the Supreme > Court has made more than one decision concerning it.
Well not until it's politically expedinet anyway. You see the left has a history of claiming one thing and the effects being pretty much what the critics said they would be.
> In article <f6c73137-7948-4a63-b9f7-60061f74f656 > @f1g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, jonpe...@mindspring.com says...
>> On Nov 4, 7:01 am, grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost) >> wrote: >> > juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com> wrote in >> > news:a4137cac-cd12-4ea2-a1e8- >> > 0a066381b...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>> > > You ignore the purpose of the hate crime legislation which is to >> > > give an enhanced punishment to the perpetrator of the crime
>> > Which is crap. It is to silence people, period. I'll expect attacks on >> > churches that are opposed to homosexuality to start as early as next >> > year.
>> That is your opinion and you are of course entitled to it. It is >> ignorant and biased but then again that is not unusual. Consider that >> there are certain religious institutions out there which are regularly >> subjected to all sorts of vitriol by some individuals. For example, >> the Roman Catholics and Mormons are regularly excoriated in Chick >> Publications, those little leaflets found so often in bus station bath >> rooms [very handy if there is no toilet paper available]. The hate >> poured out against the Jews by the various White Power and neo-Nazi >> websites can be breathtaking. But they are not prosecuted criminally >> for simply saying the their opinions. There are other websites which >> advocate White Supremacy and strongly oppose racial minorities >> accusing them of all sorts of evil. Again, no criminal prosecution for >> saying they hate blacks or latinos or asians. So I seriously doubt >> that some church is going to be prosecuted for say it is opposed to >> homosexuality and that homosexuals are going to go to hell based upon >> some interpretation of scripture.
>> It is when these types of groups go beyond simply advocating their >> positions and call for specific violent actions and then act upon them >> that they get into trouble. It's called free speech and the Supreme >> Court has made more than one decision concerning it.
> Recently in my city there was a spate of vandilism against churches of > various demoninations.. > The authorities claimed that they didn't think they were connected nor > that they were hate crimes..
Of course not, it's socially acceptable to hate churches, all that moralizing and "thou shalt not" crap.
> On Nov 4, 7:08 am, grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost) > wrote: >> juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com> wrote in news:b94705c8-8075-4559-a3ea- >> 057bd73b4...@d5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>> > That would be your moral failing.
>> Gee and I thought we couldn't legislate morality. I guess we can, if >> it's the "right" kind of morality.
> Nice of you to edit the response to make it appear different from what > it is addressing and then comment on your misdirection. You said:
>> I fail to see how one offense is any more or less deserving of >> punishment than the other.
> And I replied:
> That would be your moral failing. We as a society have at different > times decided that the motivation of an act or the status of a victim > merits a harsher punishment. For example, if you beat up some guy > your age ihn a bar, you might get one sentence. Beat up a 75 year old > man in the same bar and in many states, you will get a harsher > sentence because the elderly are considered as more vulnerable. Rape > a 21 year old woman and you will get one sentence. Rape a 13 year old > woman or an 80 year old and the sentence will be far harsher in most > states. Kill a cop who is acting in the line of duty and in many > states, assuming you make it to trial, the punishment is far harsher > than if you killed someone else. We as a society have decided you > cannot target people for crimes motivated by certain defined factors > which include their gender, national origin, religion or race among > others. If you do then your punishment will be harsher than if you > simply randomly chose someone.
My moral failing? And you are claiming I changed the subject.
You are just a bitter hetero hater, aren;t you? You just can't wait to get even with all those evil breeders.
Fuck off. You are dishonest and frankly you are pissing on the Constitution and there is only one response for that.
> On Nov 4, 6:38 am, grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost) > wrote:
>> I thought pedophillia was just another sexual preference.
> well then you are truly ignorant.
Truly ignorant is queers thinking marriage means something as it pertains to them.
>> And you silly rants aside, no black man or homosexual has ever been >> charged under a hate crime statue. Ever.
> Can you substantiate that claim?
Let's see you disprove it.
>> New concept bucko. It's called equal protection.
> I understand equal protection quite well sweetie.
All you queers are trying to do is stick America with the costs of your fraud of a lifestyle. That has nothing to do with equal protection. It's fraud and extortion.
> On Nov 3, 7:08 pm, tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> You danced all around the question. >> How is making it a "hate crime" change any facts ?
> You ignore the purpose of the hate crime legislation which is to give > an enhanced punishment to the perpetrator of the crime.
Fuck that. Fags should be punished for stealing good air. That is a crime.
>> well then you are truly ignorant. > Hey, that's what NAMBLA claims.
So NAMBLA gets the last word on everything in your book?
> And our new Safe Schools czar appears to be an admirer of and enabler of > the practice.
A contemptable slander.
>>> And you silly rants aside, no black man or homosexual has ever been >>> charged under a hate crime statue. Ever.
>> Can you substantiate that claim? > Well I'm not really sure where to go to fing the list of people who > haven't been indicted. But I can recall many news stories where blacks > clearly killed whites out of racial hatred
Knowing some cases that haven't been charged is not the same thing as "no black man or homosexual has ever been charged under a hate crime statue. Ever."
In 508 US 476 (1993) aka "Wisconsin v. Mitchell" a *unanimous* US Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Todd Mitchell, an African American, for aggrevated battery of a white person, and in particular upheld his enhanced sentence of 7 years in prison under Wisconsin's hate crimes law (Wisconsin Statute 939.645).
This is the principal case upholding the principle of hate crimes laws and denying that hate crimes law infringe on First Amendment rights or 14th Amendment equal protection.
The *unanimous* Supreme Court at that time included: White, Souter, Thomas, Scalia, Rehnquist, Blackmun, Stevens, Kennedy, and O'Conner. Although the makeup of the court has changed since, it seems pretty clear that today's court would uphold hate crimes laws again by at least a majority.
> and the 2 homosexuals that tortured and killed a young boy and they got no > "hate crimes" added on to thier indictments.
Arkansas had no hate crimes law under which they could be charge. Whether sex crimes can be charged under hate crimes which had "gender" provisions is an interesting question, but obviously a hate crime cannot be charged under any circumstances when no hate crimes law exists.
Johsua Brown and David Carpenter drugged, bound and gagged, and repeatedly rape Jesse Dirkhising aka Jesse Yates who subsequently died from an overdose of the drugs in combination with the way he was gagged. The defense argued that they should only have been charged with rape and manslaughter because they had not intended to kill Dirkhising. Nonetheless they were convicted of rape and murder and were both sentenced to life in prison.
The FBI has been gathering statistics on offenses that appear to be hate-based for a number of years:
> Actually it would be far easier for you to provide even one such case, > thereby disproving my claim.
508 US 476.
-- Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> September 5910, 1993 288 days since Rick Warren prayed over Bush's third term. Obama: No hope, no change, more of the same. Yes, he can, but no, he won't.
>> On Nov 4, 7:01 am, grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost) >> wrote: >> > juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com> wrote in news:a4137cac-cd12-4ea2-a1e8- >> > 0a066381b...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>> > > You ignore the purpose of the hate crime legislation which is to give >> > > an enhanced punishment to the perpetrator of the crime
>> > Which is crap. It is to silence people, period. I'll expect attacks on >> > churches that are opposed to homosexuality to start as early as next year.
>> That is your opinion and you are of course entitled to it. It is >> ignorant and biased but then again that is not unusual. Consider that >> there are certain religious institutions out there which are regularly >> subjected to all sorts of vitriol by some individuals. For example, >> the Roman Catholics and Mormons are regularly excoriated in Chick >> Publications, those little leaflets found so often in bus station bath >> rooms [very handy if there is no toilet paper available]. The hate >> poured out against the Jews by the various White Power and neo-Nazi >> websites can be breathtaking. But they are not prosecuted criminally >> for simply saying the their opinions. There are other websites which >> advocate White Supremacy and strongly oppose racial minorities >> accusing them of all sorts of evil. Again, no criminal prosecution for >> saying they hate blacks or latinos or asians. So I seriously doubt >> that some church is going to be prosecuted for say it is opposed to >> homosexuality and that homosexuals are going to go to hell based upon >> some interpretation of scripture.
>> It is when these types of groups go beyond simply advocating their >> positions and call for specific violent actions and then act upon them >> that they get into trouble. It's called free speech and the Supreme >> Court has made more than one decision concerning it.
>Recently in my city there was a spate of vandilism against churches of >various demoninations.. >The authorities claimed that they didn't think they were connected nor >that they were hate crimes..
Obviously we need a spate of new laws protecting churches and making it a "hate crime" to vandalize them.
Also I would like to see some protection for
o dog-catchers o Wal-Mart greeters o cab drivers o people with no sense of humor o waiters and waitresses o the hearing impaired o The guy who removes the french fries from the oil and gives it a shake o natural blondes o people who have to have jokes explained to them
I don't think we should be waiting until one of these people are murdered before we do something.
>>> On Nov 4, 7:01 am, grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost) >>> wrote: >>> > juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com> wrote in >>> > news:a4137cac-cd12-4ea2-a1e8- >>> > 0a066381b...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>>> > > You ignore the purpose of the hate crime legislation which is to >>> > > give an enhanced punishment to the perpetrator of the crime
>>> > Which is crap. It is to silence people, period. I'll expect attacks >>> > on churches that are opposed to homosexuality to start as early as >>> > next year.
>>> That is your opinion and you are of course entitled to it. It is >>> ignorant and biased but then again that is not unusual. Consider that >>> there are certain religious institutions out there which are regularly >>> subjected to all sorts of vitriol by some individuals. For example, >>> the Roman Catholics and Mormons are regularly excoriated in Chick >>> Publications, those little leaflets found so often in bus station bath >>> rooms [very handy if there is no toilet paper available]. The hate >>> poured out against the Jews by the various White Power and neo-Nazi >>> websites can be breathtaking. But they are not prosecuted criminally >>> for simply saying the their opinions. There are other websites which >>> advocate White Supremacy and strongly oppose racial minorities >>> accusing them of all sorts of evil. Again, no criminal prosecution for >>> saying they hate blacks or latinos or asians. So I seriously doubt >>> that some church is going to be prosecuted for say it is opposed to >>> homosexuality and that homosexuals are going to go to hell based upon >>> some interpretation of scripture.
>>> It is when these types of groups go beyond simply advocating their >>> positions and call for specific violent actions and then act upon them >>> that they get into trouble. It's called free speech and the Supreme >>> Court has made more than one decision concerning it.
>>Recently in my city there was a spate of vandilism against churches of >>various demoninations.. >>The authorities claimed that they didn't think they were connected nor >>that they were hate crimes..
> Obviously we need a spate of new laws protecting churches and making > it a "hate crime" to vandalize them.
> Also I would like to see some protection for
> o dog-catchers > o Wal-Mart greeters > o cab drivers > o people with no sense of humor > o waiters and waitresses > o the hearing impaired > o The guy who removes the french fries from the oil and gives it a > shake > o natural blondes > o people who have to have jokes explained to them
> I don't think we should be waiting until one of these people are > murdered before we do something.
How about people opposed to gay "marriage" on the grounds that mariage is the joining of a man and a woman and who think the gay community can do what it likes but it can't call it "maariage" becuase it isn't be called "homophobes"?
I am terribly offended by that term, mainly because I don't find homosexuals terribly scary, just self absorbed and irritating.
>> And our new Safe Schools czar appears to be an admirer of and enabler of >> the practice.
> A contemptable slander.
Not when it's true. Did he not tell a 15 yo boy who was being violated by an adult male to wear a condom and neglect to notify the police or the boy's parents?
Indeed he did. He has admitted it. So apparently prominent homosexual advocates are sympathetic to the notion of adult/child sexual contact.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/30/obamas-safe-schools-czar-a... poorly-handled-underage-sex-case/ Kevin Jennings, the founder of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, was teaching high school in Concord, Mass., in 1988 when the boy, a sophomore, confessed an involvement with a man he had met in a bus station bathroom in Boston. Jennings has written that he told the boy, "I hope you knew to use a condom."
**** "met in a bus station bathroom", actually that alone is so disgusting as to reject your entire lifestyle on aesthetic grounds. What normal adult person trolls for dates in a bus station bathroom and then picks up a juvenile? ****
In a statement issued Wednesday, Jennings said: "Twenty one years later I can see how I should have handled this situation differently. I should have asked for more information and consulted legal or medical authorities."
Yes accuse me of telling vicious truthes. In an earlier time the excerable Mr Jennings would not have been allowed around a school for his actions let alone be made responsible for all schools in the country.
So Lars, you are a liar or a fool. Or you've been fucked in the ass so often you have brain damage. Which is it?
-- “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy, its inherent value is the equal sharing of misery.” Winston Churchill
> Not when it's true. Did he not tell a 15 yo boy who was being violated by an > adult male to wear a condom and neglect to notify the police or the boy's > parents?
> Indeed he did. He has admitted it. So apparently prominent homosexual > advocates are sympathetic to the notion of adult/child sexual contact. > http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/30/obamas-safe-schools-czar-a... > poorly-handled-underage-sex-case/ > Kevin Jennings, the founder of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education > Network, was teaching high school in Concord, Mass., in 1988 when the boy, a > sophomore, confessed an involvement with a man he had met in a bus station > bathroom in Boston. Jennings has written that he told the boy, "I hope you > knew to use a condom." > **** > "met in a bus station bathroom", actually that alone is so disgusting as to > reject your entire lifestyle on aesthetic grounds. What normal adult person > trolls for dates in a bus station bathroom and then picks up a juvenile? > **** > In a statement issued Wednesday, Jennings said: "Twenty one years later I can > see how I should have handled this situation differently. I should have asked > for more information and consulted legal or medical authorities." > Yes accuse me of telling vicious truthes. In an earlier time the excerable Mr > Jennings would not have been allowed around a school for his actions let > alone be made responsible for all schools in the country. > So Lars, you are a liar or a fool. Or you've been fucked in the ass so often > you have brain damage. Which is it?
You are the liar. No such incident involving a 15-year-old boy happened.
-- Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> September 5910, 1993 288 days since Rick Warren prayed over Bush's third term. Obama: No hope, no change, more of the same. Yes, he can, but no, he won't.
> In our last episode, ><Xns9CBA674FC8071Wereofftoseethewi...@216.196.97.142>, > the lovely and talented Gray Ghost > broadcast on alt.gossip.celebrities:
>>>> And our new Safe Schools czar appears to be an admirer of and enabler >>>> of the practice.
>>> A contemptable slander.
>> Not when it's true. Did he not tell a 15 yo boy who was being violated >> by an adult male to wear a condom and neglect to notify the police or >> the boy's parents?
> No. He did not. You are a liar.
>> Indeed he did. He has admitted it. So apparently prominent homosexual >> advocates are sympathetic to the notion of adult/child sexual contact.
>> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/30/obamas-safe-schools-czar-a... >> s- poorly-handled-underage-sex-case/ Kevin Jennings, the founder of the >> Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, was teaching high school >> in Concord, Mass., in 1988 when the boy, a sophomore, confessed an >> involvement with a man he had met in a bus station bathroom in Boston. >> Jennings has written that he told the boy, "I hope you knew to use a >> condom."
>> **** >> "met in a bus station bathroom", actually that alone is so disgusting as >> to reject your entire lifestyle on aesthetic grounds. What normal adult >> person trolls for dates in a bus station bathroom and then picks up a >> juvenile? ****
>> In a statement issued Wednesday, Jennings said: "Twenty one years later >> I can see how I should have handled this situation differently. I should >> have asked for more information and consulted legal or medical >> authorities."
>> Yes accuse me of telling vicious truthes. In an earlier time the >> excerable Mr Jennings would not have been allowed around a school for >> his actions let alone be made responsible for all schools in the >> country.
>> So Lars, you are a liar or a fool. Or you've been fucked in the ass so >> often you have brain damage. Which is it?
> You are the liar. No such incident involving a 15-year-old boy happened.
Yes I saw the correction, the kid said he was 16 at the time. The fact that you are hanging on this tiny little fact shows just how worthless a human being you are.
A homo trolling in a bus station bathroom seduced a 16 yo boy and Jennings did nothing after finding out. I beleive failing to report sexual abuse is, if not an actual crime, is a morally disqualifying failure. As in disqualifying for any job around or about kids and with the government.
You OTOH, probably can't wait to get your lips around his dick.
-- “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy, its inherent value is the equal sharing of misery.” Winston Churchill
> Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote in > news:slrnhf5s67.btq.usenet@debranded.larseighner.com: >> In our last episode, >><Xns9CBA674FC8071Wereofftoseethewi...@216.196.97.142>, >> the lovely and talented Gray Ghost >> broadcast on alt.gossip.celebrities:
>>>>> And our new Safe Schools czar appears to be an admirer of and enabler >>>>> of the practice.
>>>> A contemptable slander.
>>> Not when it's true. Did he not tell a 15 yo boy who was being violated >>> by an adult male to wear a condom and neglect to notify the police or >>> the boy's parents?
>> No. He did not. You are a liar.
>>> Indeed he did. He has admitted it. So apparently prominent homosexual >>> advocates are sympathetic to the notion of adult/child sexual contact.
>>> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/30/obamas-safe-schools-czar-a... >>> s- poorly-handled-underage-sex-case/ Kevin Jennings, the founder of the >>> Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, was teaching high school >>> in Concord, Mass., in 1988 when the boy, a sophomore, confessed an >>> involvement with a man he had met in a bus station bathroom in Boston. >>> Jennings has written that he told the boy, "I hope you knew to use a >>> condom."
>>> **** >>> "met in a bus station bathroom", actually that alone is so disgusting as >>> to reject your entire lifestyle on aesthetic grounds. What normal adult >>> person trolls for dates in a bus station bathroom and then picks up a >>> juvenile? ****
>>> In a statement issued Wednesday, Jennings said: "Twenty one years later >>> I can see how I should have handled this situation differently. I should >>> have asked for more information and consulted legal or medical >>> authorities."
>>> Yes accuse me of telling vicious truthes. In an earlier time the >>> excerable Mr Jennings would not have been allowed around a school for >>> his actions let alone be made responsible for all schools in the >>> country.
>>> So Lars, you are a liar or a fool. Or you've been fucked in the ass so >>> often you have brain damage. Which is it?
>> You are the liar. No such incident involving a 15-year-old boy happened.
> Yes I saw the correction, the kid said he was 16 at the time. The fact that > you are hanging on this tiny little fact shows just how worthless a human > being you are.
The distinction was created by the legislature. Sixteen was the age of consent.
> A homo trolling in a bus station bathroom seduced a 16 yo boy and Jennings > did nothing after finding out.
Jennings had no obligation to second-guess the legislature. If you don't like the age of consent in your jurisdiction, take it up with your legislators.
> I beleive failing to report sexual abuse
No sexual abuse occurred and Jennings had no reason to suspect any had. You may think the age of consent was set too low. Others may think is was set too high. But the law was the law.
If you do not think people who believe that the age of consent is too high should be allowed to substitute their judgment for what the law prescribes, why should people who think the age consent is too low be allow to substitute their judgment for the law?
> is, if not an actual crime,
It it not a crime to fail to report the non-occurrence of a crime.
Try calling 911 the next time something that is perfectly legal but you don't approve of happens. See how far you get.
> is a morally disqualifying failure. As in disqualifying for any job > around or about kids and with the government.
We have a government of laws. The law said a 16-year-could consent to have sex. There was nothing to report.
> You OTOH, probably can't wait to get your lips around his dick.
I don't know. What does Jennings look like?
-- Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> September 5910, 1993 289 days since Rick Warren prayed over Bush's third term. Obama: No hope, no change, more of the same. Yes, he can, but no, he won't.
Lars Eighner wrote: > In our last episode, <Xns9CBABCFEEBF3Wereofftoseethewi...@216.196.97.142>, > the lovely and talented Gray Ghost broadcast on alt.gossip.celebrities:
|
