Some thngs I'll never understand.

[Tied2thetracks]

Border agent serving prison time for harboring illegals that he adopted. Sounds kind of funny huh?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56100

:mad: :mad: :mad:

[Danny]

yeeah, see i tend not to trust any site that says "laws against hate crime threaten your freedom".:bored:

[Tied2thetracks]

yeeah, see i tend not to trust any site that says "laws against hate crime threaten your freedom".:bored:

You do need to provide a link if you want to make claims.

[Danny]

the GIF picture links on the right.:bored:e of a white guy with a zipper for lips.

[Terran]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/adbanners/ad.faith2action.041707.Hate_Crimes.Fight_Back.Zipp ered_Mouth.125x200.gif


Here it is

[coma]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/adbanners/ad.faith2action.041707.Hate_Crimes.Fight_Back.Zipp ered_Mouth.125x200.gif


Here it is
That pic is (intentionally) misleading. There are no laws in America against so called hate speech. You can call anyone anything. Hate crime laws are specific to action. Such as;
"I hate White boys (or any slur) and Now Im kicking your ass for no other reason"
Its an additional charge when it can be proven that the motive for a ,usually violent, crime is racial, ethnic, etc prejudice. Hard to prove with a robbery. Easier to prove when 5 guys get out of a car screaming how they hate gays and beat a guy to death.


AS far as that case Its hard to tell what really happened even though it seems clear cut. because the site has an obvious agenda I am dubious. But I always am.:). Who ever heard of a cop going to jail for hardly anything, especially a paperwork snafu? However the world is full of injustice. It is also pretty clear he is only adopting them to loophole them into America, because they are his nieces. But that was mentioned, but not examined.

[Cody]

good read coma good read

[MissJacksonCA]

That site totally has an agenda (I totally love the tee shirt link where the shirt said gun control means never having to say I missed...lol) and I can't really say I feel any paticular about the article because they're pushing one side of the story ...did Ann Coulter write that article or was it Bill O Reilly? In any event... a person going to jail is never a good thing and often the justice goes unserved when inadequate counsel is provided... which reminds me...

why can't our justice system be more like the military justice system?

[darth los]

That pic is (intentionally) misleading. There are no laws in America against so called hate speech. You can call anyone anything. Hate crime laws are specific to action. Such as;
"I hate White boys (or any slur) and Now Im kicking your ass for no other reason"
Its an additional charge when it can be proven that the motive for a ,usually violent, crime is racial, ethnic, etc prejudice. Hard to prove with a robbery. Easier to prove when 5 guys get out of a car screaming how they hate gays and beat a guy to death.


AS far as that case Its hard to tell what really happened even though it seems clear cut. because the site has an obvious agenda I am dubious. But I always am.:). Who ever heard of a cop going to jail for hardly anything, especially a paperwork snafu? However the world is full of injustice. It is also pretty clear he is only adopting them to loophole them into America, because they are his nieces. But that was mentioned, but not examined.


as it pertains to hate crimes, i heard tucker carlson give an interesting take. He argued that they are unfair because they punish someone more severely, if that element can be determined, and is therefore giving preferential treatment to the group that the person who was attacked belonged to. I don't know if i agree with that but there is an argument to be made for that point of view. The 14th and 5th amendments garauntee equal protection under the law regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation for that matter. To punish someone more severely because the person they attacked was targeted because they belong to one of these catagories is a violation of that principle. Unfortunately human nature makes things like this necessary. It's like affirmative action, which is basically giving a group of people preferential treatment over another because of their race. This also violates that principle, but statistics show that it is necessary because without it the job market and college admissions would be severely skewed. Certain groups just need to be protected and if adding another 5 years to a sentence because of a hate crime is a deterent then i'm all for it.

[MissJacksonCA]

I dont think being punished with a hate crime is a deterrent but I also dont think they they charge people with hate crimes often enough because it can be hard to prove. I suppose an argument could be made to say affirmative action itself skews schools and workplaces but I believe in it wholeheartedly in order to better diversify places. Whats funny is how diverse schools want to be and its no longer about how you grew up in New Cannan, CT and did the requisite volunteer work that Yale wanted you to do... instead schools are often looking for people with unique life experiences in order to better diversify schools in a new direction. I think thats a step forward too.

[darth los]

Most hate crimes are proven because at the commissionof the crime the einstein who did it is spewing racist language. There's really no other way to do it. How else are you supposed to tell what was in someone's mind?

[flyboy]

Border agent serving prison time for harboring illegals that he adopted. Sounds kind of funny huh?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56100

:mad: :mad: :mad:





it says he shot at an drug smuggler? so if he did he was just doing his job. or am i on the wrong tracks???:confused:

[coma]

as it pertains to hate crimes, i heard tucker carlson give an interesting take. He argued that they are unfair because they punish someone more severely, if that element can be determined, and is therefore giving preferential treatment to the group that the person who was attacked belonged to. I don't know if i agree with that but there is an argument to be made for that point of view. The 14th and 5th amendments garauntee equal protection under the law regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation for that matter. To punish someone more severely because the person they attacked was targeted because they belong to one of these catagories is a violation of that principle. Unfortunately human nature makes things like this necessary. It's like affirmative action, which is basically giving a group of people preferential treatment over another because of their race. This also violates that principle, but statistics show that it is necessary because without it the job market and college admissions would be severely skewed. Certain groups just need to be protected and if adding another 5 years to a sentence because of a hate crime is a deterent then i'm all for it.
An argument that could be made on the converse of that is a hate crime charge helps guarantee equal protection by seeking to avoid a violent attack in the first place
Such as

"Look at that queer. Lets whip his ass. If we get caught its just a misdemeanor assault in the third degree. If he isnt maimed I may get thirty days if I am very unlucky. besides alot of people hate queers"

"Not everybody. A hate crime charge adds a felony on top of the pretty insignificant charge. So we can beat the crap out of him and get a nothing 3rd degree assault, but a hate crime/civil rights violation will lead to a fat stint in the pokey with many anal violations included"

"we sure know a lot about the law for a couple of meatheads"

"Agreed. Lets continue home and avoid this situation which I would engage in if not for the threat of a felony charge"

"Kiss me hard. I am so very horny, dude"

"Word"


In addition, as someone who has come to blows simply because of bigotry, it would lead to a greater sense of justice if the instigator would get reamed legally. It is, in fact, much more harrowing then a regular fight or robbery.

[MissJacksonCA]

I'm going to say Coma won that round. By punishing people who commit hate crimes with more ferocity it may stave off future hate crimes from being committed. Ironically our country talks a good game about equality but when people go an kill illegal immigrants I dont see them being charged in hate crimes.

[darth los]

In addition, as someone who has come to blows simply because of bigotry, it would lead to a greater sense of justice if the instigator would get reamed legally. It is, in fact, much more harrowing then a regular fight or robbery.

Yes it is more harrowing but the question is should the penalty be more extreme on the basis of what you are. If it is than that's subjective and the law is not supposed to be that. Like i said an aregument can be made either way and it is fun to debate stuff like this.

[coma]

Yes it is more harrowing but the question is should the penalty be more extreme on the basis of what you are. If it is than that's subjective and the law is not supposed to be that. Like i said an argument can be made either way and it is fun to debate stuff like this.
Or, possibly, should you be a victim because of what YOU ARE NOT. See the dichotomy? Free Speech is an issue and I am pretty libertarian on that. However, legally, intent is often a huge part of the charges and subsequent sentencing.
Robbery-Motive is getting your money. Often the beating is "incidental".

Bias Crime - motive is grievous harm and a terroristic intent. Such as "you are not welcome and I will scare you into submission with violence or any one who hears of/witnesses this crime".

Calling someone a name is still not a crime (regardless of the misdirection of some people who disagree with the laws).

Only when it is combined with violence and NO OTHER MOTIVE does it become a crime. Example; often Caucasians are perceived as "soft" so they are targets . Robbery combined with slurs are not often charged as bias crime though it is obviously so. Reason is it's hard to prove.

Sexual assault is charged as a separate crime instead of or in addition to battery because of the heinous intent of the crime. In reality it is an assault, but that is not commensurate with the terroristic intent and severe damage to the quality of life of the victim subsequent to the incident.

Discretionary sentencing is the definition of subjective. Does it shock the sensibilities? If yes, you get a harsher penalty. Perhaps the way it should be.

Having experience in situation similar, a robbery is usually (hopefully) over when you give up the dough. A bias assault continues until you are beaten ridiculous or dead.You cannot talk or reason yourself out of an unreasonable situation.

I understand the other point of view and see the Point strongly, however US history has been rife with that sort of thing and how else can you attempt to stop it? I'd bet my balls that it has eliminated many assaults by those not totally committed ideologically (if you can call it that) to bias violence.

And yes, civilized debates like this, are fun:D

[darth los]

Or, possibly, should you be a victim because of what YOU ARE NOT. See the dichotomy? Free Speech is an issue and I am pretty libertarian on that. However, legally, intent is often a huge part of the charges and subsequent sentencing.
Robbery-Motive is getting your money. Often the beating is "incidental".

Bias Crime - motive is grievous harm and a terroristic intent. Such as "you are not welcome and I will scare you into submission with violence or any one who hears of/witnesses this crime".

Calling someone a name is still not a crime (regardless of the misdirection of some people who disagree with the laws).

Only when it is combined with violence and NO OTHER MOTIVE does it become a crime. Example; often Caucasians are perceived as "soft" so they are targets . Robbery combined with slurs are not often charged as bias crime though it is obviously so. Reason is it's hard to prove.

Sexual assault is charged as a separate crime instead of or in addition to battery because of the heinous intent of the crime. In reality it is an assault, but that is not commensurate with the terroristic intent and severe damage to the quality of life of the victim subsequent to the incident.

Discretionary sentencing is the definition of subjective. Does it shock the sensibilities? If yes, you get a harsher penalty. Perhaps the way it should be.

Having experience in situation similar, a robbery is usually (hopefully) over when you give up the dough. A bias assault continues until you are beaten ridiculous or dead.You cannot talk or reason yourself out of an unreasonable situation.

I understand the other point of view and see the Point strongly, however US history has been rife with that sort of thing and how else can you attempt to stop it? I'd bet my balls that it has eliminated many assaults by those not totally committed ideologically (if you can call it that) to bias violence.

And yes, civilized debates like this, are fun:D


As my law professor says , you have won your case. very good coma. I'm impressed with the way you presented your case. The way you laid out your facts they're pretty much irrefutable. The bottom line is that You must prove intent to make a charge of that nature stick. Except in cases of strict liability crimes such as statutory rape or bigamy where intent is not a pre requisite.

[coma]

As my law professor says , you have won your case. very good coma. I'm impressed with the way you presented your case. The way you laid out your facts they're pretty much irrefutable. The bottom line is that You must prove intent to make a charge of that nature stick. Except in cases of strict liability crimes such as statutory rape or bigamy where intent is not a pre requisite.
Thanks! In another reality I am a crusading attorney out for justice and a sweet BMW:p. I have actually read case law for fun. Urf. Not that I am saying I am any kind of lawyer, just the dialectical process has always interested me. And I hope I used that word correctly.:D

I have put a lot of thought into this subject because it is not so obviously a just law. It is actually pretty radical. I also don't see how you could mitigate bias. Robbery could be "I was hungry and broke". The "gay panic" defense is the only circumstance I have heard of that had any success.

The stat rape and bigamy are interesting exceptions. DO you mean the "She told me she was 18" defense?

[darth los]

The stat rape and bigamy are interesting exceptions. DO you mean the "She told me she was 18" defense?


Exactly. That's what strict liability is. Whether you knew what you were doing was against the law or not the only thing that matters is that you did it. There are no mitigating circumstances. That's why stat rape is the textbook example. A minor cannot consent to sex under the law, period. Whether you knew or not is irrelavent. She could even say that it was consensual and it wouldn't matter. That's where the "strict" comes from.