Isn't a hate crime?

**higherdesire** · 07-09-2009, 01:22 PM

Originally Posted by Blome

Southpark on hate crimes:
http://www.popmodal.com/video/1040/H...es--South-Park
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/151795

Lmao: "If you want to hurt another human being, you better make damn sure they're the same color as you!"

Damn, I used to not like southpark, but that hit the nail on the head for me!

**thegodfather** · 07-09-2009, 01:24 PM

There are some liberal Democrats who believe that if you are anything but white, then it is impossible for you to be a racist. There are actually professors in university's who spew this garbage to their students as some sort of fact. Read a book by David Horowitz which unmasks much of the liberal dogma being forced upon university students now days. Their academic freedom is being severely limited.

A "Hate Crime" is a made up term. Liberals created it because it brought them a significant amount of political capital with which to campaign on. Hate crime legislation is nothing more than criminalizing political speech/ideology.

Legislation which punishes "hate crimes," says that if you are assaulted by a person because of a particular ideology that they hold, then your attacker is entitled to a stiffer sentence and higher penalties. It invariably advantages certain "groups" over other groups or individuals. It says that if you are part of X group, crimes against you deserve a stiffer punishment. While if someone assaults me, since I am not a part of that group, the person only deserves X sentence while your attacker recieves Y. We should punish crimes based on the acts, and not on the political ideology behind the attack. There is no way to dileniate which ideology's should be protected and which should be punished. What if someone assaults a person because they dont like the shape or their nose? Can we create a protected class for those people?

Our society is based on meritocracy and the autonomy of the INDIVIDUAL. The courts and government should be blind to 'group think' and should view each and every citizen as an INDIVIDUAL only, and not as someone that is a part of a group, when dealing in legal/legislative terms.

**Altoidmike** · 07-09-2009, 01:55 PM

I don't like rich people! those damn nice cars big houses and yachts.

**lola1182** · 07-09-2009, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by Chode Logan

It's a ridiculous double standard and I think it's pure horse shit, it's pathetic.

agreed!

**Tock** · 07-09-2009, 03:24 PM

As long as reasonable punishments exist for assaults, murders, etc, I don't see much need for hate crime laws. Sometimes, though, reasonable punishments don't exist.

For instance, here's a news story about an 18 year old who killed a 20 year old gay guy in South Carolina, and ended up doing less than one year in jail. Fair? Not in my humble opinion.

http://www.wyff4.com/news/13341629/detail.html
GREENVILLE COUNTY, S.C. -- What started as a parking lot fight with a punch thrown outside a bar is now a homicide investigation -- and detectives are trying to determine if the fatal assault might also be a hate crime.

Deputies said there was a fight in the parking lot of Brew's Bar early Wednesday morning. A day later, a man who was punched in the altercation died, and police are looking for whoever hit him.

Deputies said Sean William Kennedy, 20, was walking from the bar to his car when another car pulled up. Someone jumped out and punched Kennedy and then took off. Kennedy fell to the ground, and deputies said that they believe he hit his head on the parking lot pavement or a curb.

Deputies are investigating Kennedy's death as a homicide, and they said that they do have a possible suspect in mind.

Greenville County Sheriff's Lt. Shea Smith said, "We've interviewed several witnesses in the parking lot when this occurred. We've talked to other people at the bar, and we have received tips and investigators are following up on that. The investigation continues, and we hope to make an arrest."

According to Sean's profile on the MySpace.com Web site, Sean was gay. His friends said that they believe this fight was a hate crime, and the sheriff's office is looking into that possibility.

-------------
Also, from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_W._Kennedy

Sean W. Kennedy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Sean W. Kennedy (April 8, 1987, Charleston, SC – May 16, 2007, Greenville, SC) was a gay 20-year old man who was punched and subsequently died as he was leaving a bar.[1][2][3]
Contents

[hide]

<LI class=toclevel-1>1 Death <LI class=toclevel-1>2 Hate Crimes Legislation <LI class=toclevel-1>3 Pre-Trial <LI class=toclevel-1>4 Sentencing <LI class=toclevel-1>5 Legacy <LI class=toclevel-1>6 References
7 See also

[edit] Death

On May 16, 2007, at about 3:45 am, Kennedy was leaving a local bar in Greenville when a car pulled up beside him, a young man got out of the car, came around and approached Kennedy, called him a faggot and then punched him hard enough that his facial bones were broken, he then fell and hit the asphalt. This resulted in his brain separating from his brain stem and ricocheting in his skull. He was left lying there and a little while later, one of Kennedy's friends received a voicemail that said, "You tell your faggot friend when he wakes up, he owes me five hundred dollars for my broken hand."

He later died of his injuries. Stephen Andrew Moller, (age 18) was charged with Kennedy's murder. The warrant stated that the act was "a result of the defendant (Moller) not liking the sexual identity of the victim."
[edit] Hate Crimes Legislation

Kennedy was mentioned by Senator Gordon Smith in a speech on the floor of the US Senate advocating for hate crimes legislation. The case was turned over for investigation by the Greenville County Sheriff to the FBI for investigation as a hate crime, but the state of South Carolina does not currently have hate crime legislation. [4] and federal hate-crimes legislation does not include sexual orientation.[2]

[edit] Pre-Trial

In October 2007, The Greenville County Solicitors Office announced that Moller's murder charge was going to be reduced to involuntary manslaughter, since there was no malicious intent by the accused.
In November 2007, Stephen Andrew Moller was released to home detention upon paying a $25,000 bond. He is required to stay with his mother until his trial. The charge of murder was reduced to manslaughter not only because there was no conscious premeditated desire to kill Kennedy, but also because there is no middle step in South Carolina law between murder and manslaughter. Unable to secure a conviction for murder, the trial lawyers opted for manslaughter in order to get the violent activity onto Moller's record. The sentence carries a 0-5 years prison term, and Moller has since been released on July 1, 2009.[5]

[edit] Sentencing

On June 11th 2007, Stephen Andrew Moller, appeared at a plea hearing -no jury trial- where he received a five year sentence, suspended to three years, including the time he served before he was released on bond - 199 days. He was released on July 1, 2009, after serving one year in prison[6] and will be on probation for 3 years. He was also ordered to take anger management classes, 30 day community service and to have regular alcohol/drug testing and counseling.

**Tock** · 07-09-2009, 03:33 PM

And then, what do you do when a judge gives gay-hating killers a lighter sentence simply because the victims were gay and the killer was heterosexual?

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/12/17/us...pagewanted=all

Texas Judge Eases Sentence For Killer of 2 Homosexuals

A judge here has said he gave an 18-year-old murderer a more lenient sentence than prosecutors had sought because the two victims were homosexual and, the judge said, they would not have been killed ''if they hadn't been cruising the streets picking up teen-age boys.''
''I put prostitutes and gays at about the same level,'' he said, ''and I'd be hard put to give somebody life for killing a prostitute.'' He said he stood by his decision to impose a 30-year sentence rather than life in prison on the defendant, Richard Lee Bednarski. ''I did what I thought was right,'' he said.
The comments by Judge Jack Hampton of State District Court were reported on the front page of The Dallas Times Herald this morning. They quickly provoked outrage here and among gay rights groups around the country.
''These are just the kind of comments that send messages to the community that it's still open season on gay and lesbian citizens,'' said Kevin Berrill, director of the anti-violence project for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force in Washington.
This afternoon Judge Hampton said in an interview that he had received death threats and the police had advised him to leave Dallas for his safety. 'Cruising the Streets'
In explaining the Nov. 19 sentence to The Times Herald, Judge Hampton said: ''I don't care much for queers cruising the streets. I've got a teen-age boy.''
There was no conclusive evidence at the trial that the victims solicited sexual relations, although witnesses did testify that Mr. Bednarski and a group of high school friends had set out to harass homosexuals and entered the victims' car with the intent of beating them.
''It appears that we do have one law for heterosexuals and one law for homosexuals,'' said Paul Varnell, research director for the Illinois Gay and Lesbian Task Force. ''This judge should be strung up.''
Critics said the judge's comments reflected the same hatred and intolerance that led to the shooting. William W. Waybourn, president of the Dallas Gay ********, characterized the city as ''hostile'' to homosexuals, saying that many American cities had anti-discrimination ordinances that include homosexuals, but Dallas did not. Attitudes Are Deplored
Mr. Waybourn said it was common for Dallas high school students to spend evenings ''gay-bashing'' - driving in neighborhoods thought to be favored by homosexual men and harassing pedestrians. ''This is truly a sad state of affairs in Dallas,'' he said. ''One, that it could have happened because of the attitude of our youth, and two, that it was compounded by the behavior of the local judge.''
According to testimony at the trial, nine friends from North Mesquite High School drove to the Oak Lawn section of Dallas on a night in May to ''pester the homosexuals.''
Witnesses who were in that group said the boys were standing on a street corner and shouting at passers-by, and then Tommy Lee Trimble, 34, and John Lloyd Griffin, 27, drove up and invited the boys into their car. Mr. Bednarski was said to have persuaded one more friend in his group to get in the car.
After the car reached a secluded area of Reverchon Park, Mr. Bednarski is said to have ordered Mr. Trimble and Mr. Griffin to remove their clothes. On their refusal, a witness said, Mr. Bednarski drew a pistol and began firing. Mr. Trimble died immediately. Mr. Griffin died five days later. A Choice to Win Sympathy
The prosecutor had asked a life sentence. Kevin Clancy, the defense lawyer, had asked five years. A jury found Mr. Bednarski guilty, but Texas law allows the defendant to decide whether the judge or the jury will set the penalty. Mr. Clancy has said he chose the judge because he thought the judge would be more sympathetic.
Judge Hampton has said that before he decided on the sentence, he considered, among other things, that Mr. Bednarski has no criminal record, is attending college and was reared in a good home by a father who is a police officer.
Legal experts said the decision probably did not violate the limits of judicial discretion. ''I can't right off think of any part of the code that might violate,'' said Robert Flowers, executive director of the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct.
Kathleen Cuerdon-Kahn, project manager for the Chicacgo-based American Judicature Society, which seeks to improve the judicial system, said that in states like Texas where judges are elected rather than appointed, it is rare for a state commission to remove judges. Usually, she said, a judge steps down only if voted out.
Judge Hampton, a conservative Republican elected in 1980, was re-elected in 1982 after he was among those responsible for posting warnings in minority and Democratic polling places against violating election laws.
The signs, which read ''You Can Be Imprisoned'' in large red print, were said to be aimed at intimidating black voters. At the time he said: ''We have more black defendants in this courthouse than white defendants. If they steal more, I guess they could be intimidated more.''
And now, he told The Times-Herald: ''Just spell my name right. If it makes anybody mad, they'll forget it by 1990,'' when he faces re-election.
He said he regretted upsetting some groups, but he added: ''In a murder case, someone is always upset. When a white is killed, the whites are upset. When a black is killed, the blacks are upset. When a homosexual is killed of course the homosexuals are upset.''
-------------------------------

Sad to say, this fool was re-elected judge in his district.
And the killer was released after 8 years in prison.

Seems to me that inequities exist in the legal system. Not every crime that involves a minority is a hate crime, but sometimes a crime happens when it's obvious that someone got hurt or killed or etc because they were a minority, and if there's no other way to sentence a criminal to reasonable jail time, well then it's handy to have hate crime legislation to sentence a jerk to a long time in the Graybar Hotel.

JMHO.

**higherdesire** · 07-09-2009, 04:28 PM

i call bs on the quotes that a modern day judge in Dallas particularly got away with saying that ''I put prostitutes and gays at about the same level,'' he said, ''and I'd be hard put to give somebody life for killing a prostitute.'' it just did not happen period, especially he didn't get reelected if he did. This is such a slanted article that it isn't even worthy of debate.

And before I hear anything about me agreeing with the idea of killing someone because of their sexual orientation, I do not on any level condone that. I am not gay but do not care if others are.

**Tock** · 07-09-2009, 04:33 PM

Yep, it sounds pretty unbeleivable, doesn't it? But don't take my word for it. Do a Google search yourself on

Judge Jack Hampton

Lots of links to independant news sources to be found . . .

Originally Posted by higherdesire

i call bs on the quotes that a modern day judge in Dallas particularly got away with saying that ''I put prostitutes and gays at about the same level,'' he said, ''and I'd be hard put to give somebody life for killing a prostitute.'' it just did not happen period, especially he didn't get reelected if he did. This is such a slanted article that it isn't even worthy of debate.

And before I hear anything about me agreeing with the idea of killing someone because of their sexual orientation, I do not on any level condone that. I am not gay but do not care if others are.

**Matt** · 07-09-2009, 04:35 PM

Very sad...

**higherdesire** · 07-09-2009, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by Tock

Yep, it sounds pretty unbeleivable, doesn't it? But don't take my word for it. Do a Google search yourself on

Judge Jack Hampton

Lots of links to independant news sources to be found . . .

I usually would not but it is so far fetched that I will look it up. I hope you're wrong!

**higherdesire** · 07-09-2009, 04:43 PM

Well things have some a long way in the last over twenty years ago. Don't get me wrong Tock, I am still surprised that it happend then, but it was well over twenty years ago bro.

**DSM4Life** · 07-09-2009, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by Flagg

There is pretty much not a lot a straight white male can say these days that wont be seen as sexist, racist or homophobic.

...gay basher

**Tock** · 07-09-2009, 04:45 PM

Originally Posted by higherdesire

I usually would not but it is so far fetched that I will look it up. I hope you're wrong!

Ya, he made those comments in 1988, ran for re-election in 1990 and won, then ran for the next higher level of judgeship and narrowly lost. The vote was something like 49% to 51%.

Conservatism is one thing, but what we've got down here in Dallas is nuts . . .

**higherdesire** · 07-09-2009, 04:48 PM

http://www.dallasvoice.com/artman/pu...ticle_9960.php

furthermore here is another article talking about how his remarks wrecked his career.

**Tock** · 07-09-2009, 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by higherdesire

Well things have some a long way in the last over twenty years ago. Don't get me wrong Tock, I am still surprised that it happend then, but it was well over twenty years ago bro.

The only difference between Judge Hampton and other folks is that Hampton got caught red-handed. Attitudes haven't changed much since then here in North Texas.

It's the unbeleivable stuff that happens that makes hate crimes necessary.

**higherdesire** · 07-09-2009, 05:50 PM

I am in Dallas fairly regularly and my friend it is about as gay as it gets! ;-)

**Tock** · 07-09-2009, 06:47 PM

One of my favorite stories about Dallas people is the time I had
started a new job, and my mentor was showing me the ropes.
A guy I knew from church walked by, and he was somewhat effiminate, and my mentor said, "I just can't stand those queers." I asked him, "How do you know he's gay?" and while looking right at me he replied, "I can tell a fagot a mile away."

I didn't know if I should tell him he needed new glasses or what, but I didn't want to get off on the wrong foot with my mentor, so I didn't tell him for a while . . .

**DrZach** · 07-09-2009, 07:01 PM

Too many posts to reply too.

But I think everyone is missing the whole thing on what I think. I'm not for anything being a hate crime, I really don't think white on black, black on white, etc...I don't think just cause another races does something to another it should be a hate crime. Like Higher said...it's ALL hate.

My point is that we always hear about white on black hate crimes...seems these days ANYTHING a white does against a black is frowned upon not because of the action, but the fact that a white guy did something against a black guy.

Now this case pops up and it's not going to be considered a hate crime? It wasn't even on the news!

If it was a gang of white teenagers assaulting a black family and yelling "It's a white world" you better beleive it would have made national TV media. The whole Black Celebrity community would be up in arms. But look...since its a black mob victimizing a white family...doesn't seem to me that anyone even cares.

**higherdesire** · 07-09-2009, 07:17 PM

Originally Posted by DrZach

Too many posts to reply too.

Do me a favor and don;t skip over this one

Originally Posted by higherdesire

First of all I don't like your tone punk. WTF do you mean did I read the article, and that BS comment about definiton of law? Are you a frackin retarded? I have said nothing else but that it was hate, youre dumb ass is the one that can't seem to understand that I am only saying that although it is a hate issue, it is less a race issue than a hate issue.

Can you pick up what I am putting down this time? Friggin ass clown, don't try to talk down to me form the safety of your little computer.

**SMCengineer** · 07-09-2009, 07:32 PM

Originally Posted by DrZach

Too many posts to reply too.

But I think everyone is missing the whole thing on what I think. I'm not for anything being a hate crime, I really don't think white on black, black on white, etc...I don't think just cause another races does something to another it should be a hate crime. Like Higher said...it's ALL hate.

My point is that we always hear about white on black hate crimes...seems these days ANYTHING a white does against a black is frowned upon not because of the action, but the fact that a white guy did something against a black guy.

Now this case pops up and it's not going to be considered a hate crime? It wasn't even on the news!

If it was a gang of white teenagers assaulting a black family and yelling "It's a white world" you better beleive it would have made national TV media. The whole Black Celebrity community would be up in arms. But look...since its a black mob victimizing a white family...doesn't seem to me that anyone even cares.

Eric Holder on the new hate crimes bill:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnxQ7oNTwLY

**thegodfather** · 07-09-2009, 08:06 PM

There are some liberal Democrats who believe that if you are anything but white, then it is impossible for you to be a racist. There are actually professors in university's who spew this garbage to their students as some sort of fact. Read a book by David Horowitz which unmasks much of the liberal dogma being forced upon university students now days. Their academic freedom is being severely limited.

A "Hate Crime" is a made up term. Liberals created it because it brought them a significant amount of political capital with which to campaign on. Hate crime legislation is nothing more than criminalizing political speech/ideology.

Legislation which punishes "hate crimes," says that if you are assaulted by a person because of a particular ideology that they hold, then your attacker is entitled to a stiffer sentence and higher penalties. It invariably advantages certain "groups" over other groups or individuals. It says that if you are part of X group, crimes against you deserve a stiffer punishment. While if someone assaults me, since I am not a part of that group, the person only deserves X sentence while your attacker recieves Y. We should punish crimes based on the acts, and not on the political ideology behind the attack. There is no way to dileniate which ideology's should be protected and which should be punished. What if someone assaults a person because they dont like the shape or their nose? Can we create a protected class for those people?

Our society is based on meritocracy and the autonomy of the INDIVIDUAL. The courts and government should be blind to 'group think' and should view each and every citizen as an INDIVIDUAL only, and not as someone that is a part of a group, when dealing in legal/legislative terms.

**WOLFCRAFT** · 07-09-2009, 08:14 PM

I live in St. Louis and shit like this was happening a lot here for a while.
Groups of seriously 40 or more black teens would go into train stations and even malls and beat the hell out of white people for no reason.

**** this world.

**Tock** · 07-09-2009, 09:02 PM

Originally Posted by thegodfather

There are some liberal Democrats who believe that if you are anything but white, then it is impossible for you to be a racist.

Name three, along with the reasons why you beleive this is true.

**MACKATTACK** · 07-09-2009, 09:06 PM

One word answer: GENOCIDE

Cures all problems.................lol

**Bojangles69** · 07-09-2009, 09:13 PM

Originally Posted by Dont wanna be old

When a man comes home and catches wife cheating on him , shoots guy 8 times . Is that not a hate crime ?
Violence is a expression of hate .

I think cause we're speaking by definition of the law, not websters.

Hate in this instance being racially derived.

**thegodfather** · 07-09-2009, 09:28 PM

Originally Posted by Tock

Name three, along with the reasons why you beleive this is true.

I'm not talking about representatives. I was referring to many professors in university's who are members of the Democratic party, and who use their tenured professorships to spew this kind of ideological dogma at their students. If you read David Horowitz's book, you will see that there several professors who have stated just that, some of them even in their syllabi.

Tock, how can you really defend this kind of legislation? It is essentially THOUGHT CRIMES legislation. How do you justify the fact that someone who might attack you only because you are gay, is given a stiffer penalty, than someone who might attack me simply because they didn't like the shirt I was wearing? Do you believe the law should believe your rights are more important than mine, and that you should be protected more than me? These laws make absolutely no sense, and you know it. You are only supporting this because you have a vested interest in it. I support some things which are no beneficial to me, because I am principled, and do not bend my ideals to things which may or may not directly benefit me.

If oppressed groups TRUELY want to be equal, they would never support initiatives like this one which create inequities in the law.

**DrZach** · 07-09-2009, 10:23 PM

Originally Posted by higherdesire

First of all I don't like your tone punk. WTF do you mean did I read the article, and that BS comment about definiton of law? Are you a frackin retarded? I have said nothing else but that it was hate, youre dumb ass is the one that can't seem to understand that I am only saying that although it is a hate issue, it is less a race issue than a hate issue.

Can you pick up what I am putting down this time? Friggin ass clown, don't try to talk down to me form the safety of your little computer.

You just keep saying hate is hate....even without race it would still be there...

NO SHIT....are you a preschool teacher? I'm aware even if everyone affected in that article was purple...it would still be a hateful thing to do. But I've already posted what my stand on this is, and I'm not doing it again.

You're the one he seems to be a keyboard warrior here pal. Trying to start a fight off a simple discussion. "Don't like your tone." Wasn't aware you could have a tone off of text...or even aware that you were going to come to my house and beat me up if I didn't.

I'd be willing to bet you're not white. Just from the way you keep trying to ignore what happened in that article, and acting as if race wasn't a factor when it clearly was.

**JDawg1536** · 07-09-2009, 11:35 PM

Can someone give me the definition of a "like crime"? I'm just gonna commit those so I don't get in trouble and my victims won't be angry with me.

**Tock** · 07-09-2009, 11:53 PM

Originally Posted by thegodfather

I'm not talking about representatives. I was referring to many professors in university's who are members of the Democratic party, and who use their tenured professorships to spew this kind of ideological dogma at their students.

Many professors? Well, if there's a lot of 'em, you should be able to name at least three.

If you read David Horowitz's book, you will see that there several professors who have stated just that, some of them even in their syllabi.

Any fool can make any sort of unproven allegation in a book. And herds of fools can parrot any unproven allegations made in a slick media effort. That's how Hitler took over Germany. Had the German people been more inclined to ask for specifics about the behavioral lapses of members of minority groups, we probably wouldn't have had WW2.

Tock, how can you really defend this kind of legislation?

I'm not particularly comfortable with it, actually. But
I can see a limited place for hate crimes laws, mostly to allow criminal prosecution for assaults in situations where state or local governments won't enforce laws to protect minorities. I posted recently about a 20 year old gay fellow in South Carolina who was killed by an 18 year old right after he called him a faggot. The murderer was freed from jail after less than one year in jail because of some technical BS in the state law. With a federal hate crime law, the killer would serve a considerably longer time in prison (not that that would necessarily solve anything, but it would be better than allowing a legal system continue that customarily provided lighter sentences for perpetrators of heterosexual against homosexual crime).

In the best of all possible worlds, such uneven enforcement of law wouldn't happen. But given the antipathy felt towards members of certain groups over the past hundred years or so, and given the uneven protections given to some minority groups and the reluctance of some state and local governments to ensure fair treatment and equal protection under the law, I can see why there's room for the feds to step in and take up the slack.

For the past 100 years or so, there have been organized groups in the US which have attacked blacks, gays, Jews, Catholics, Hispanics, Arabs, Irish, Asians, etc. Some states and local governments have passed laws which unfairly put certain groups of people at disadvantages. Poll taxes, for instance. Poor black farmers in the south couldn't afford to pay $$$ for the luxury of voting. White folks could, and the net effect of taxing a person's right to vote was to ensure that most black people wouldn't vote, thus keeping white folks in power.
Poll taxes were not invented because of a desire for an equitable tax system; it came about because white folks in the south didn't like black folks and didn't want them to vote. So, there's a historical precedent of widespread misuse of government authority to keep one ethnic group at a disadvantage. I've seen plenty of evidence that the same animosity toward blacks exists in the white parts of east Texas. So, when I read news stories of a couple of white fellows who dragged a black fellow through Vidor, Texas, through town from the back of their pickup truck, I'm inclined to think that the crime was at least somewhat motivated by a residual element of the historical antipathy felt by whites toward blacks in that part of Texas.
I've attended virulent anti-gay rallies sponsored by TV preachers for the same sort of crowds who cheered the antics of Judge Jack Hampton (the judge who admitted he gave a killer of 2 gay men a light prison sentence because the killer was heterosexual and the victims were gay). During the height of the passionate anti-gay sermons, I'm certain that I would have been torn limb from limb had anyone else in the auditorium known I'm gay.
As I mentioned before, 20 years ago, Dallas police were decidedly anti-gay, and were more inclined to harrass patrons of gay nightclubs than they'd be to investigate crimes of violence perpetrated on them (us). I saw firsthand how white Dallas cops bad-mouthed black people when I worked for the City of Dallas. A lot of my friends and acquaintances here in Dallas were racist, including some of my gay friends. All that is to say that I have seen how entrenched and institutionalized white against black racism has been here in Texas. I have seen the attitudes of some law enforcement officers and I wouldn't be at all surprised for some to overlook white-on-black crimes, and to overzealously enforce black-on-white crimes. This attitude extends to the people who write the laws in this state. Here in Texas, gay sex is still illegal. The legislature won't delete the law because that'll get them voted out of office. Atheists still cannot hold office in this state because the State Constutitution says, "No religious test will be made of any office holder, except that he agree in the existance of a Supreme Being." (Ya, the fundamentalists here hate atheists more than gays).

etc etc etc etc . . .

My point is that sometimes state and local governments won't make or enforce laws intended to protect the safety of minorities, and that's when it would come in handy for the feds to investigate to see if someone (like me) got wasted by a bunch of fundamentalists (like that www.godhatesfags.com guy) and the local law enforcement folks were not investigating the crime.
Or if a bunch of hooded creeps from the KKK set fire to an apartment complex full of black folks for fun, and half the KKK creeps were local police and politicians.

When motivation isn't obvious, I agree, that's when a hatecrime law sucks.
For instance . . . In Arkansas, they have a law that prohibits anyone from criticizing the Bible in public. If you haven't heard my opinions regarding the Bible, you need to, and I'd like to invite you to a hearty discussion on the topic in downtown Hot Springs. While my verbal examination of the "holy scriptures" would be focus mostly on their inconsistancies, impossibilities, and other shortcomings easily proven with standard library texts, and while I'd do so with a cool head and happy disposition, the average fundamentalist passerby overhearing my conversation would probably assume that I hate God, the Bible, and all Christians, which isn't true. There is no god to hate, the Bible is just another of many horrible books, and despite their claims to moral superiority through the regeneration of the Holy Spirit, Christians are no better or worse than anyone else. So, a fundamentalist might call for a constable to arrest me for violating the Arkansas law against bad-mouthing the Bible in public. In Texas, a fundamentalist might want to see me arrested for an anti-Christian hate crime since Texas has not yet descended to the depths of routine abridgement of civil rights in which Arkansas so happily wallows.

There's a difference between being merely offended and being harmed, and it's not always obvious, and the general public does not always want to know the real story behind the story. But, for crimes where the motivation is obvious and where state or local government won't do anything about it, I'm all for letting the feds take over, to bring in some semblance of justice.

It is essentially THOUGHT CRIMES legislation. How do you justify the fact that someone who might attack you only because you are gay, is given a stiffer penalty, than someone who might attack me simply because they didn't like the shirt I was wearing?

I don't.
If someone attacks me becauce I'm gay they should be punished for attacking me. No extra penalty for my orientation. But if the state gov't or the local police won't do anything about it, then I'm all for letting the feds investigate it as a hate crime.

Do you believe the law should believe your rights are more important than mine, and that you should be protected more than me?

Of course not.

These laws make absolutely no sense, and you know it.

Now you're the one who's mindreading.

You are only supporting this because you have a vested interest in it. I support some things which are no beneficial to me, because I am principled, and do not bend my ideals to things which may or may not directly benefit me.

Of course, I could say you're only supporting your point of view because you have a vested interest in it, as well.

We're all principled, and none of us ever bend our ideals contrary to those principles. More or less, anyway.

If oppressed groups TRUELY want to be equal, they would never support initiatives like this one which create inequities in the law.

Sometimes, it's more fun to be protected from creeps than to be equal.
Ever hear of Maslow's pyramid of needs? Check it out. If a person doesn't have security, then loftier stuff like the finer points of philosophical consistancy don't really matter.

What's driving this whole mess is the unhappy fact that some groups of people just don't like other groups of people. Extremists of one group sometimes attack innocent individuals of other groups to express their frustration with life, and the attacked group takes things personally and want revenge, which only fans the flames of frustration, and things never really get any better. At this stage of civilization, probably the best we can actually expect is for global warming to fry the bast**ds in the south and for the heat to melt the polar ice caps and drown the idiots in the north, and for me and you to live in different countries.
Ya, that ought to take care of everything . . .

**vpchill** · 07-10-2009, 06:31 AM

Originally Posted by JDawg1536

Can someone give me the definition of a "like crime"? I'm just gonna commit those so I don't get in trouble and my victims won't be angry with me.

When you Rob someone, Say thank you and Please alot.. If you have to shoot them, aim for the toes.

**countrybhoy** · 07-10-2009, 09:31 AM

Originally Posted by DrZach

Too many posts to reply too.

But I think everyone is missing the whole thing on what I think. I'm not for anything being a hate crime, I really don't think white on black, black on white, etc...I don't think just cause another races does something to another it should be a hate crime. Like Higher said...it's ALL hate.

My point is that we always hear about white on black hate crimes...seems these days ANYTHING a white does against a black is frowned upon not because of the action, but the fact that a white guy did something against a black guy.

Now this case pops up and it's not going to be considered a hate crime? It wasn't even on the news!

If it was a gang of white teenagers assaulting a black family and yelling "It's a white world" you better beleive it would have made national TV media. The whole Black Celebrity community would be up in arms. But look...since its a black mob victimizing a white family...doesn't seem to me that anyone even cares.

perfect post m8
its only a hate crime if your white and the victims isnt . . .

**thegodfather** · 07-10-2009, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by Tock

Many professors? Well, if there's a lot of 'em, you should be able to name at least three.

Lewis Gordon, PhD - Temple University
Mary Frances Berry,PhD- University of Pennsylvania
Leonard Jeffries,PhD- CUNY (Look this one up yourself, he's a reallll gem...Definately the kind of person I'd want indoctrinating my kids at college.)

Any fool can make any sort of unproven allegation in a book. And herds of fools can parrot any unproven allegations made in a slick media effort. That's how Hitler took over Germany. Had the German people been more inclined to ask for specifics about the behavioral lapses of members of minority groups, we probably wouldn't have had WW2.

I'm not particularly comfortable with it, actually. But
I can see a limited place for hate crimes laws, mostly to allow criminal prosecution for assaults in situations where state or local governments won't enforce laws to protect minorities. I posted recently about a 20 year old gay fellow in South Carolina who was killed by an 18 year old right after he called him a faggot. The murderer was freed from jail after less than one year in jail because of some technical BS in the state law. With a federal hate crime law, the killer would serve a considerably longer time in prison (not that that would necessarily solve anything, but it would be better than allowing a legal system continue that customarily provided lighter sentences for perpetrators of heterosexual against homosexual crime).

It is not the Federal governments place, as layed out in the Constitution, to interfear with the internal goings on of State government. Certainly, states may enforce their laws however they please. I'm speaking ideally of course, because the Federal government has become ever more intrusive into State affairs, regrettably. If the decision in a case like you mentioned is rendered, it can be appealed to a higher court, as is done in many other cases where the Prosecutor doesn't think the sentence was enough. It's not a nice situation, but it is the path down the slippery slope, one intrusion leads to many others.

In the best of all possible worlds, such uneven enforcement of law wouldn't happen. But given the antipathy felt towards members of certain groups over the past hundred years or so, and given the uneven protections given to some minority groups and the reluctance of some state and local governments to ensure fair treatment and equal protection under the law, I can see why there's room for the feds to step in and take up the slack.

For the past 100 years or so, there have been organized groups in the US which have attacked blacks, gays, Jews, Catholics, Hispanics, Arabs, Irish, Asians, etc. Some states and local governments have passed laws which unfairly put certain groups of people at disadvantages. Poll taxes, for instance. Poor black farmers in the south couldn't afford to pay $$$ for the luxury of voting. White folks could, and the net effect of taxing a person's right to vote was to ensure that most black people wouldn't vote, thus keeping white folks in power.
Poll taxes were not invented because of a desire for an equitable tax system; it came about because white folks in the south didn't like black folks and didn't want them to vote. So, there's a historical precedent of widespread misuse of government authority to keep one ethnic group at a disadvantage. I've seen plenty of evidence that the same animosity toward blacks exists in the white parts of east Texas. So, when I read news stories of a couple of white fellows who dragged a black fellow through Vidor, Texas, through town from the back of their pickup truck, I'm inclined to think that the crime was at least somewhat motivated by a residual element of the historical antipathy felt by whites toward blacks in that part of Texas.
I've attended virulent anti-gay rallies sponsored by TV preachers for the same sort of crowds who cheered the antics of Judge Jack Hampton (the judge who admitted he gave a killer of 2 gay men a light prison sentence because the killer was heterosexual and the victims were gay). During the height of the passionate anti-gay sermons, I'm certain that I would have been torn limb from limb had anyone else in the auditorium known I'm gay.
As I mentioned before, 20 years ago, Dallas police were decidedly anti-gay, and were more inclined to harrass patrons of gay nightclubs than they'd be to investigate crimes of violence perpetrated on them (us). I saw firsthand how white Dallas cops bad-mouthed black people when I worked for the City of Dallas. A lot of my friends and acquaintances here in Dallas were racist, including some of my gay friends. All that is to say that I have seen how entrenched and institutionalized white against black racism has been here in Texas. I have seen the attitudes of some law enforcement officers and I wouldn't be at all surprised for some to overlook white-on-black crimes, and to overzealously enforce black-on-white crimes. This attitude extends to the people who write the laws in this state. Here in Texas, gay sex is still illegal. The legislature won't delete the law because that'll get them voted out of office. Atheists still cannot hold office in this state because the State Constutitution says, "No religious test will be made of any office holder, except that he agree in the existance of a Supreme Being." (Ya, the fundamentalists here hate atheists more than gays).

etc etc etc etc . . .

My point is that sometimes state and local governments won't make or enforce laws intended to protect the safety of minorities, and that's when it would come in handy for the feds to investigate to see if someone (like me) got wasted by a bunch of fundamentalists (like that www.godhatesfags.com guy) and the local law enforcement folks were not investigating the crime.
Or if a bunch of hooded creeps from the KKK set fire to an apartment complex full of black folks for fun, and half the KKK creeps were local police and politicians.

When motivation isn't obvious, I agree, that's when a hatecrime law sucks.
For instance . . . In Arkansas, they have a law that prohibits anyone from criticizing the Bible in public. If you haven't heard my opinions regarding the Bible, you need to, and I'd like to invite you to a hearty discussion on the topic in downtown Hot Springs. While my verbal examination of the "holy scriptures" would be focus mostly on their inconsistancies, impossibilities, and other shortcomings easily proven with standard library texts, and while I'd do so with a cool head and happy disposition, the average fundamentalist passerby overhearing my conversation would probably assume that I hate God, the Bible, and all Christians, which isn't true. There is no god to hate, the Bible is just another of many horrible books, and despite their claims to moral superiority through the regeneration of the Holy Spirit, Christians are no better or worse than anyone else. So, a fundamentalist might call for a constable to arrest me for violating the Arkansas law against bad-mouthing the Bible in public. In Texas, a fundamentalist might want to see me arrested for an anti-Christian hate crime since Texas has not yet descended to the depths of routine abridgement of civil rights in which Arkansas so happily wallows.

There's a difference between being merely offended and being harmed, and it's not always obvious, and the general public does not always want to know the real story behind the story. But, for crimes where the motivation is obvious and where state or local government won't do anything about it, I'm all for letting the feds take over, to bring in some semblance of justice.

I don't.
If someone attacks me becauce I'm gay they should be punished for attacking me. No extra penalty for my orientation. But if the state gov't or the local police won't do anything about it, then I'm all for letting the feds investigate it as a hate crime.

That is what this legislation does though. It will cause people who are identified with a 'motive' of hate to be sentenced to longer prison sentences for assaults than a person who didnt have these 'hateful motivations.' That is hardly fair to the victims of non-hate crimes. It is also not fair to the criminal committing the crime, because they are being punished for political thought, and not just based on the crime they committed. People should not be penalized for holding unpopular viewpoints, even if those viewpoints cause them to act on them and harm others. If that becomes the case, then the actions should be dealt with according to law, and with no consideration to what that persons political viewpoints are.

Of course not.

Now you're the one who's mindreading.

Of course, I could say you're only supporting your point of view because you have a vested interest in it, as well.

We're all principled, and none of us ever bend our ideals contrary to those principles. More or less, anyway.

Sometimes, it's more fun to be protected from creeps than to be equal.
Ever hear of Maslow's pyramid of needs? Check it out. If a person doesn't have security, then loftier stuff like the finer points of philosophical consistancy don't really matter.

What's driving this whole mess is the unhappy fact that some groups of people just don't like other groups of people. Extremists of one group sometimes attack innocent individuals of other groups to express their frustration with life, and the attacked group takes things personally and want revenge, which only fans the flames of frustration, and things never really get any better. At this stage of civilization, probably the best we can actually expect is for global warming to fry the bast**ds in the south and for the heat to melt the polar ice caps and drown the idiots in the north, and for me and you to live in different countries.
Ya, that ought to take care of everything . . .

I replied in bold. By the way, we have discussed the bible, and we agree on every single point.

**Tock** · 07-11-2009, 07:11 PM

Originally Posted by thegodfather

There are some liberal Democrats who believe that if you are anything but white, then it is impossible for you to be a racist.

Name three, along with the reasons why you beleive this is true.

Originally Posted by thegodfather

I'm not talking about representatives. I was referring to many professors in university's who are members of the Democratic party, and who use their tenured professorships to spew this kind of ideological dogma at their students.

Originally Posted by Tock

Many professors? Well, if there's a lot of 'em, you should be able to name at least three.

Originally Posted by thegodfather

Lewis Gordon, PhD - Temple University
Mary Frances Berry,PhD- University of Pennsylvania
Leonard Jeffries,PhD- CUNY (Look this one up yourself, he's a reallll gem...Definately the kind of person I'd want indoctrinating my kids at college.)

Ok, I'll check into these people. You're saying that these people are Liberal Democrats who beleive that if you are anything but white, then you cannot be a racist, correct?

**Tock** · 07-11-2009, 07:36 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Gordon
Lewis Gordon, PHD, from Temple University has this to say about race. Check out the part that I highlighted in black italics:

Racism, Gordon argues, requires the rejection of another human being’s humanity. Since the other human being is a human being, such a rejection is a contradiction of reality. A racist must, then, deny reality, and since communication is possible between a racist and the people who are the object of racial hatred, then social reality is also what is denied in racist assertions. A racist, then, attempts to avoid social reality. Gordon also argues that since people could only “appear” if embodied, then racism is also an attack on embodied realities. It is an effort to make embodied realities bodies without points of view or make points of views without bodies. Racism is also a form of the spirit of seriousness, by which Gordon means the treatment of values as material features of the world instead of expressions of human freedom and responsibility. Racism ascribes to so-called racially inferior people intrinsic values that emanate from their flesh. A result of the spirit of seriousness is racist rationality. Here, Gordon, in agreement with Frantz Fanon, argues that racists are not irrational people but instead hyper-rational expressions of racist rationality. He rejects, in other words, theories that regard racism as a function of bad emotions or passions. Such phenomena, he suggests, emerge as a consequence of racist thinking, not its cause. Affect emerges, in other words, to affect how one negotiates reality. If one is not willing to deal with time, a highly emotional response squeezes all time into a single moment, which leads to the overflow of what one prefers to believe over what one is afraid of facing.

The rest of the book analyzes a variety of issues in the study of antiblack racism, such as black antiblack racists, exoticism, racial “qualities,” and theological-ethical dimensions of racism. Gordon prefers to focus on antiblack racism instead of “white supremacy” because, he points out, that antiblack racism could exist without white supremacy. There are many people who reject white supremacy but affirm notions of black inferiority. A prime example is that there are black antiblack racists. Gordon analyzes this phenomenon through a discussion of black use of the word “******,” which he argues is bad faith effort at black self-exceptionalism—of, in the case of the user of the term, not being its object. Exoticism is the other extreme. It is a rejection of the humanity of black people under the pretense of loving black people. The exoticist valorizes black people because he or she regards black people as, like animals, incapable of valid judgment. In effect, for the exoticist, only white people function as legitimate points of view, which means that what the exoticist seeks among blacks is safety from “real” judgment. It means, in effect, that the price of the exoticist’s relationship with black people is the denial of blacks as human beings since human beings are points of view and are capable of judgment. The question of the quality of antiblack racism emerges through the semiotics of feminine and masculine. Gordon notices that the symbols along blackness are identical to those of femininity, of absence, weakness, lack. For whiteness, there is masculinity, presence, strength, fullness. It leads to notions of whites as closed beings, but paradoxically it creates a problem for meaningful notions of being white women and black men. Efforts to align these symbols lead to special forms of violence.

------------

I'm kinda busy, so I'll let you do the rest of the investigating to prove your point, that some liberal democrats beleive that "if you are anything but white, then you cannot be a racist." Right now, it seems to me that you wrote this unsubstantiated critique of Democrats in a moment of anti-liberal passion.