JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
And people wonder why some of us chose to carry.
- Thread Starter PlayboyPenguin
- Start date
- Messages
- 224
- Reactions
- 50
- Messages
- 4,996
- Reactions
- 2,279
- Thread Starter
- #23
I disagree...and who asked you anyway you big doodie head.
- Messages
- 1,254
- Reactions
- 187
Jump Wing, that's MY concern as well. Back to the Penguin's West Virginia memories, hate crime legislation would do nothing to forward a prosecution in and of itself. A man died, was murdered. End of sentence. Those responsible ought have been brought to justice. They weren't, because of corruption, inside good ol boy connexions, local standards of what is morally acceptible (murder) being different..... with hate crimes legislation in place, none of this would necessarily change. What WOULD have changed it, and should have happened, would have been some righteous person having some knowledge of the case pressing it to a higher, outside the local cesspool, authority. Present laws already give the state's Attorney General the authority to investigate, and being charges (often through a Grand Jury) against those responsible... not only for the murder, but for those who worked to keep it quiet and bury it. They are just as guilty: accessories to the crime. Even with hate crimes legislation in place, it would STILL take someone to push the matter higher up, outside the local cesspool.
Meanwhile, hate crimes legislation opens up very real possibilities (probabilities) that certain incidents will be mis-interpreted as "hate crimes" merely on the face of some "class difference" being present, never mind whether it was truly a motive in the incident.
I'm an avid road cyclist, was out once in a remote area, wearing typical close-fitting (very functional) cycling clothes, a car passing by pulled close, a guy leaned out the rightside window, hollered "effing que er" and threw a half-empty bottle of Gatorade at me. Lousy shot, he missed (came within a couple inches, though.. scary). Now, I'm not one of those, but if he'd HIT me (the attempt was almost as illegal.. some form of assault, I suspect) would hate crime legislation have given any more tools to prosecute? No... the assault should be enough. Why slap him with something else? His misperception of my "class" was simply not an issue. If he had hollered "horse", his motive would have been no different.
Another time I was riding on the outskirts of Tacoma, a car load of black youth sped by, the right front window was open, and its occupant hurled a full liter bottle of water at me... hit me squarely in the shoulder blade. THAT HURT!! I got the number plate, he sped off.... I stopped, called 911 for the sheriff. before he got there, a car pulled up, he got out, said he'd witnessed the attack, followed to get the number plate and description of the occupants. His written down n umber matched mine. Sheriff got there, took statements from both of us, but told me there's "nothing I can do". Bullpucky. Washington has a law concerning "secured loads".. anything falling off of, or coming out of, a moving vehicle is the responsibility of the driver, who is subject to a very hefty fine. Thanks, Pierce County Sheriff. Who else will these punks damage? Will they stop at merely hurling a water bottle at someone as they pass by?
OK, hate crimes. They are black, I am white, and obviously so (summer, short sleeves, lots of "real estate" showing). I COULD press the issue, as we are both in different "classes" of people. See how stupid this would be? The same cop, who had description and number plate for the perps, and refused to DO anything, could and likely would just as easily refuse to press a hate crimes violation. I've little doubt had a carload of WHITE guys thrown a bottle at a black women, oh, there'd be Aitch Eee Double Toothpicks to pay. Assault AND hate crime.
Suppose i've a house to rent, five couples applied, one of them driving a very beat up car, poor employment history, not married but living together, dressed sloppily, history of very short tenancies and poor on-time payment record. Oh, and they are, let's just say "other than white" enthicity. I choose to rent the place to a family of four, married five years, he with stable employment history going back ten years, same company, older but clean car, excellent references..... not only could the denied tenants sue under "housing discrimination" laws, but now "hate crime" as well.... all they have to do is make the accusation I "discriminated against them" on the basis of "marital status" (I chose a married couple and not they, unmarried) and "race" (I chose a white couple and not them, being "other"). Now, it falls on ME to defend myself and PROVE I did not "discriminate against them" on the basis of any of the named "categories" included in the discrimination/hate crimes legislation, a costly process even if I clear myself. The laws do not make provision for the false accusers to reimburse my legal expenses, time lost, etc. to fight off their spurious claims. If they had "reasonable cause to believe" I had "discriminated" or "hated", they are "justified" in bringing the accusation. I have known of this sort of accusation to literally cost the owners so much they were forced out of business.... could not pay the legal fees to fight it.
THIS sort of abuse is why I strongly oppose anything declaring something as ethereal and unsubstantial as "hatred" based on someone's real or perceived (in WHOSE eyes?) "class".
It was in Nazi Germany where such laws were first very seriously abused to imprison, even exterminate, huge groups of people based on "perceived" crimes. Your neighbour chuffs you? Report him as being "one of those". Whether he is or not, the SS would come round, gather him and his whole family up, and off to never never land they'd go..... we don't need that sort of thing here... or even the basis on which to accomodate it.
As I said a long time ago, let the crime stand on its own. Lynch a black guy cause he was friends with a white Lady.... a murder was committed. Anyone covering it up, refusing to discharge their lawful duty in bringing the known perpetrators to justice, giving false testimony, or refising to give accurate testimony when they have it, should also be tried. Adding hate crimes to the mix will do nothing to help when that level of corruption and evil is present.
Meanwhile, hate crimes legislation opens up very real possibilities (probabilities) that certain incidents will be mis-interpreted as "hate crimes" merely on the face of some "class difference" being present, never mind whether it was truly a motive in the incident.
I'm an avid road cyclist, was out once in a remote area, wearing typical close-fitting (very functional) cycling clothes, a car passing by pulled close, a guy leaned out the rightside window, hollered "effing que er" and threw a half-empty bottle of Gatorade at me. Lousy shot, he missed (came within a couple inches, though.. scary). Now, I'm not one of those, but if he'd HIT me (the attempt was almost as illegal.. some form of assault, I suspect) would hate crime legislation have given any more tools to prosecute? No... the assault should be enough. Why slap him with something else? His misperception of my "class" was simply not an issue. If he had hollered "horse", his motive would have been no different.
Another time I was riding on the outskirts of Tacoma, a car load of black youth sped by, the right front window was open, and its occupant hurled a full liter bottle of water at me... hit me squarely in the shoulder blade. THAT HURT!! I got the number plate, he sped off.... I stopped, called 911 for the sheriff. before he got there, a car pulled up, he got out, said he'd witnessed the attack, followed to get the number plate and description of the occupants. His written down n umber matched mine. Sheriff got there, took statements from both of us, but told me there's "nothing I can do". Bullpucky. Washington has a law concerning "secured loads".. anything falling off of, or coming out of, a moving vehicle is the responsibility of the driver, who is subject to a very hefty fine. Thanks, Pierce County Sheriff. Who else will these punks damage? Will they stop at merely hurling a water bottle at someone as they pass by?
OK, hate crimes. They are black, I am white, and obviously so (summer, short sleeves, lots of "real estate" showing). I COULD press the issue, as we are both in different "classes" of people. See how stupid this would be? The same cop, who had description and number plate for the perps, and refused to DO anything, could and likely would just as easily refuse to press a hate crimes violation. I've little doubt had a carload of WHITE guys thrown a bottle at a black women, oh, there'd be Aitch Eee Double Toothpicks to pay. Assault AND hate crime.
Suppose i've a house to rent, five couples applied, one of them driving a very beat up car, poor employment history, not married but living together, dressed sloppily, history of very short tenancies and poor on-time payment record. Oh, and they are, let's just say "other than white" enthicity. I choose to rent the place to a family of four, married five years, he with stable employment history going back ten years, same company, older but clean car, excellent references..... not only could the denied tenants sue under "housing discrimination" laws, but now "hate crime" as well.... all they have to do is make the accusation I "discriminated against them" on the basis of "marital status" (I chose a married couple and not they, unmarried) and "race" (I chose a white couple and not them, being "other"). Now, it falls on ME to defend myself and PROVE I did not "discriminate against them" on the basis of any of the named "categories" included in the discrimination/hate crimes legislation, a costly process even if I clear myself. The laws do not make provision for the false accusers to reimburse my legal expenses, time lost, etc. to fight off their spurious claims. If they had "reasonable cause to believe" I had "discriminated" or "hated", they are "justified" in bringing the accusation. I have known of this sort of accusation to literally cost the owners so much they were forced out of business.... could not pay the legal fees to fight it.
THIS sort of abuse is why I strongly oppose anything declaring something as ethereal and unsubstantial as "hatred" based on someone's real or perceived (in WHOSE eyes?) "class".
It was in Nazi Germany where such laws were first very seriously abused to imprison, even exterminate, huge groups of people based on "perceived" crimes. Your neighbour chuffs you? Report him as being "one of those". Whether he is or not, the SS would come round, gather him and his whole family up, and off to never never land they'd go..... we don't need that sort of thing here... or even the basis on which to accomodate it.
As I said a long time ago, let the crime stand on its own. Lynch a black guy cause he was friends with a white Lady.... a murder was committed. Anyone covering it up, refusing to discharge their lawful duty in bringing the known perpetrators to justice, giving false testimony, or refising to give accurate testimony when they have it, should also be tried. Adding hate crimes to the mix will do nothing to help when that level of corruption and evil is present.
- Messages
- 4,996
- Reactions
- 2,279
- Thread Starter
- #26
Actually, you need to do some research because that is exactly what hate crime legislation changes. It does not change the punishment or method of proof. It changes the way in which the crime can be prosecuted and at what level. It inceases the ability of higher jurisdictions to intercede in such cases.
- Messages
- 844
- Reactions
- 1,035
Actually it can/does change/add to the penalty in most jurisdictions. Here is just one example that can be easily looked up.
9.12.160 Hate crimes--Penalty.
If the court finds that the accused committed any crime under this chapter and if the court receives sufficient evidence that the acts committed leading to that finding were intentionally targeted against the victim or victims in substantial part because of the victim's or victims' race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, his/her/their mental, physical or sensory disability, or the accused's perception thereof, the court shall impose a minimum fine of not less than five hundred dollars and a minimum jail sentence of not less than five days for each such offense. Neither the mandatory minimum jail sentence nor the mandatory minimum fine shall be suspended or deferred, nor shall the jail sentence be served by alternative means. (Ord. 825 § 2 (part), 1996)
9.12.160 Hate crimes--Penalty.
<broken link removed>
- Messages
- 844
- Reactions
- 1,035
<broken link removed>
Now why would they be trying to reduce extra penalties if they did not exist?
Now why would they be trying to reduce extra penalties if they did not exist?
- Messages
- 4,996
- Reactions
- 2,279
- Thread Starter
- #29
Sawdust,
You are mistaking local legislation with national hate crime bills.
Plus, that sentence is no greater than the sentence for a similar assault. It simply makes it hard for judges or juries to reduce sentencing for crimes they feel were somehow "justified." Just as in the story I presented about the lesbian and gay man being beaten to death. If this law had existed back then they could not have had there sentence reduced or be set free simply because biased people felt their acts were justified because of "who" they assaulted. They would have been required to rule solely on the actions of the assailant and not be able to rationalize their behavior. The laws simply remove the wiggle room for biased courts to not punish certain crimes based on personal/local prejudices and allows higher authorities to intercede if they do.
You are mistaking local legislation with national hate crime bills.
Plus, that sentence is no greater than the sentence for a similar assault. It simply makes it hard for judges or juries to reduce sentencing for crimes they feel were somehow "justified." Just as in the story I presented about the lesbian and gay man being beaten to death. If this law had existed back then they could not have had there sentence reduced or be set free simply because biased people felt their acts were justified because of "who" they assaulted. They would have been required to rule solely on the actions of the assailant and not be able to rationalize their behavior. The laws simply remove the wiggle room for biased courts to not punish certain crimes based on personal/local prejudices and allows higher authorities to intercede if they do.
- Messages
- 6,779
- Reactions
- 1,275
- Messages
- 844
- Reactions
- 1,035
Hate Crime Sentencing Enhancement Act
(28 U.S.C 994) Congress enacted a federal complement to state hate crime penalty-enhancement statutes in the 1994 crime bill. This provision required the United States Sentencing Commission to increase the penalties for crimes in which the victim was selected "because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person." This measure applies, inter alia, to attacks and vandalism which occur in national parks and on federal property.
In May, 1995, the United States Sentencing Commission announced its implementation of a three-level sentencing guidelines increase for hate crimes, as directed by Congress. This amendment took effect on November 1, 1995.
<broken link removed>
That's just the first that I found quite easily. Please feel free to search these out. Now I'm off to enjoy the day with my kids.
(28 U.S.C 994) Congress enacted a federal complement to state hate crime penalty-enhancement statutes in the 1994 crime bill. This provision required the United States Sentencing Commission to increase the penalties for crimes in which the victim was selected "because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person." This measure applies, inter alia, to attacks and vandalism which occur in national parks and on federal property.
In May, 1995, the United States Sentencing Commission announced its implementation of a three-level sentencing guidelines increase for hate crimes, as directed by Congress. This amendment took effect on November 1, 1995.
<broken link removed>
That's just the first that I found quite easily. Please feel free to search these out. Now I'm off to enjoy the day with my kids.
- Messages
- 6,779
- Reactions
- 1,275
Great job putting up proof to show your claim and yes you are correct Sawdust the penalties are in fact increased.
I would also like to point out that this legislation was brought forth by two politicians that some here had named as insignificant "Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)"
the fine print:
The above is just pointing out coincidence and not as a judgement for or against hate crimes!
- Messages
- 4,996
- Reactions
- 2,279
- Thread Starter
- #33
Once again, the penalties imposed do NOT exceed the penalties that can be imposed for the same crime without the law being in existence. They simply prevent cases with the stated criteria from being plea bargained or given lighter sentences. That is the problem the bills are addressing. You are missing the point entirely. You are simply falling for a distraction tactic by the opposition. Find any covered crime in the bill and then look up the possible penalties for the same crime where gender or other covered topic is not an issue and you will find maximum penalties are not increased.
If I bash someone in the head for their wallet I can, and probably will receive a sentence of x amount of time. If I bash the same person in the head because they were a lesbian I might just get a lighter sentence because judge/jury feel that lesbians deserve such treatment. These bills simply prevent that from happening.
You guys are listening to people that are taking snipets of the law and presenting them out of context with no reference to already existing potential penalties to make them look extreme. fact is the penalties are no more severe than normal. They just make sure that crimes based on hate do not get a pass by local bigoted law enforcement.
I will go on record right now as saying I would not support any local government from imposing stricter sentencing than maximum sentencing for the same crime without the law being in affect. Any locality that would do that is in the wrong. There does not need to be stricter sentences (and the federal bills acknowledge this fact) there simply needs to not be an avenue for local governments to not prosecute certain crimes based on the victims.
- Messages
- 6,779
- Reactions
- 1,275
I think in this case semantics matter, you are saying "do not exceed" and Sawdust and I are saying "increase" in this case both are correct.
As for falling for the tactics of the opposition I don't even know where that comes from or where you're going with that.
I have personal reasons for "hating" the hate crimes laws as I have two cousins that went to prison in a mutual combat situation started by two black guys, but because they used the "N" word thought and the other guys used foul language there is no opposing word for whites to cling to as a racial slur so they went to prison and the guys that started the fight went free.
As for falling for the tactics of the opposition I don't even know where that comes from or where you're going with that.
I have personal reasons for "hating" the hate crimes laws as I have two cousins that went to prison in a mutual combat situation started by two black guys, but because they used the "N" word thought and the other guys used foul language there is no opposing word for whites to cling to as a racial slur so they went to prison and the guys that started the fight went free.
- Messages
- 4,996
- Reactions
- 2,279
- Thread Starter
- #35
Since the laws generally only effect sentencing and do not create any new illegal activity I have to assume that you cousin was found guilty of a violent crime and only received a stiff sentence because the only motivation for said crime was prejudice.
Still, I can understand that way of thinking when something like that has affected you personally. However, one or two negative examples do not invalidate a good principle. That is like saying since some bad guys have used procedural errors to escape punishment law enforcement should not be made to follow proper procedures when arresting or trying someone. Hate crime legislation more often than not prevents injustice. I know most of you on here have no point of reference as to what it is like to be a discriminated against minority, but trust me...it is not a pleasant feeling and actions like this are needed to prevent bigots and good 'ol boys from allowing their personal prejudices supercede the law.
- Messages
- 6,779
- Reactions
- 1,275
It was quite violent I witnessed it! The motive though was self defense.
Actually it does invalidate the whole principle, law in this country has always operated under the principle "better 1000 guilty men go free than 1 Innocent man go to jail.
Yes but flip that around and you have the reality of this situation.
But the fix is to change the good 'ol boys not send an "acceptable" amount of innocent people to jail with feel good but ironically discriminatory laws.
- Messages
- 4,996
- Reactions
- 2,279
- Thread Starter
- #37
All laws send some innocent people to jail. To try to invalidate a law with that logic is not logical at all. I have never seen any statment that official declares that it is the opinion or duty of the court to uphold the idea of it being better for 1000 guilty men to go free than one innocent man go to prison.
If your cousin was truly involved in an act of self defense the issue is not with the sentencing, which is when hate crime bills would come into play, but with his conviction of the initial crime.
If your cousin was truly involved in an act of self defense the issue is not with the sentencing, which is when hate crime bills would come into play, but with his conviction of the initial crime.
- Messages
- 6,779
- Reactions
- 1,275
Does this even warrant a comment?
My cousin
And if you are implying something with that highlighted text come right out and say it because as I said I was there as a non involved witness.
- Messages
- 4,996
- Reactions
- 2,279
- Thread Starter
- #39
You are missing one key piece here. If they were truly involved in an act of self defense no hate crime bill would have any effect on them since these bills only deal with sentencing. So unless they were found guilty of NOT being involved in an act of self defense, but instead an assault, the bill would not affect them. The problem if they were actually just defending themselves is that they were wrongly convicted of a crime.
Once again, hate crime legislation does not create new crimes nor do they create harsher penalties. They simply create minimum sentences for certain acts that have a history of being ignored in the past and provide for greater oversight to prevent bias based plea bargains. You have to be found guilty of a crime (assault, battery, murder, etc.) before it can even be consider whether it should be considered a hate crime in the sentencing portion of a trial.
- Messages
- 1,135
- Reactions
- 411
In Portland, being a gay man or women doesn't really make you a minority anyway... In fact, being gay is the new cool thing. When my wife was in school, it was the "cool" thing to be.
Similar threads
Upcoming Events
New Classified Ads
-
-
AERO AR15 ATLAS S-ONE M-LOK HANDGUARD (Slim)- Started by Robinhood_24
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(3) Shield Arms S15 Gen 2 15-round Mags with Steel Mag Release- Started by JBSTRD
- Replies: 1
-