Hate crimes legislation is a slippery slope
Leroy N. Soetoro
Are some violent crimes more heinous than others? Is killing a person
because of race, sexual orientation or religion worse, say, than
murdering someone because you were drunk or he rear ended your car?
President Barack Obama recently signed into law the Hate Crimes
Prevention Act. Well, actually he passed the 2010 National Defense
Authorization Act, slipped onto it was the hate crimes legislation.
Now, before getting into what's wrong with the law, let's talk about
what's right: Its goals are absolutely dead on. Society should protect
people who are vulnerable to harassment or violence because of who they
are or what they believe.
I applaud any movement and provision that protects all citizens from
harm. But weakening and damaging our country is not something to be
proud of. And that is exactly what this new hate crime law does.
The bill tacks on penalties to violent crimes when deemed as motivated
by gender, sexual orientation or disabilities. It's the first major
expansion of hate crimes legislation originally passed in 1968,
targeting crimes aimed at race, color, religion and national origin.
After signing this new law, President Obama celebrated it by saying that
in this nation we should "embrace our differences."
On one hand, the president is right - No one deserves to be murdered
because he is gay or she is a lesbian. This nation should be safe for
all Americans, period.
On the other hand - The First Amendment protects freedom of speech and
religion, and hate-crime laws should not erode those freedoms.
Constitutional law is not about embracing differences. It is about
providing equal and non arbitrary protection to all citizens.
Equal protection for every individual American under the law is what the
14th Amendment to our Constitution, passed after the Civil War,
guarantees. That this nation takes this guarantee seriously - that there
are no classes of individuals treated differently under the law.
What could it possibly mean that the penalty for the same act of
violence - for murder - may be different depending on what might be
perceived as the motivation?
Is it not a sign of our own pathology that we now have classified it is
worse to murder a homosexual than someone who has committed adultery,
even with your spouse, or someone who has insulted or robbed?
Isn't murder - murder?
Is it realistic to believe that someone capable of murder is less likely
to do so if the victim is a homosexual if the penalties are greater?
Clearly the hate crime law has nothing to do with improving our law but
rather with creating favored political classes.
Black on black homicides that plague our inner cities - Hate crimes?
What of the source instructing against murder and to love your neighbor
as yourself? - Banned from schools and public spaces.
What seems to becoming a Godless nation, I see a mistaken identity of
the disease and the cure.
Armand Nardi is the publisher of the Gainesville Daily Register. He can
be contacted at: ana...@ntin.net.
--
Nancy Pelosi, Democrat criminal, accessory before and after the fact to
Rangel's tax evasion.
Pat Magroyne
wrote:
> Equal protection for every individual American under the law is what the
> 14th Amendment to our Constitution
Which is why these laws are worded as they are. They refer, for
example, to "race" rather than any specific or all non-white races,
and "sexual orientation" rather than just non-heterosexual
orientations. This way, everyone's covered.
Dänk 1010011010
So please tell me when the first federal prosecution of a crime
against a heterosexual will occur.
Another problem with this legislation is that includes crimes
supposedly motivated by gender, meaning that (heterosexual) rape is
now a federal offense. Not that rape is a trivial crime, but states
are perfectly capable of prosecuting rapists on their own, as well as
any other crimes that occur solely within their borders.
This is just another attempt by the left to expand the powers of the
federal government far beyond what is permitted by the Constitution.
Leftists hate constitutions, which is why all communist countries are
tyrannical dictatorships.
JTEM
"Leroy N. Soetoro" <leroysoet...@usurper.org> wrote:
> Are some violent crimes more heinous than others?
Absolutely, and our laws have always reflected this fact.
> Is killing a person because of race, sexual orientation
You can't change your race or sexual orientation.
When you commit a hate crime, you're sending a message
to the entire race/sexual orientation/religion/ethnic group
community. The message is "Italians/gay people/Baptists
aren't allowed in this neighborhood."
Put another way: It's a violation of civil rights IN ADDITION
TO the violent crime.
JTEM
Dänk 1010011010 <dank...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> So please tell me when the first federal prosecution of a crime
> against a heterosexual will occur.
You're retarded. "Hate Crime" legislation doesn't make it a
more serious crime for victimizing a heterosexual, what it
does is make it a more serious crime for victimizing someone
for being a heterosexual.
That's not a subtle difference.
Peter Franks
> http://www.gainesvilleregister.com/editorials/local_story_314144704.html
>
> Are some violent crimes more heinous than others? Is killing a person
> because of race, sexual orientation or religion worse, say, than
> murdering someone because you were drunk or he rear ended your car?
So-called 'hate crime' legislation is unconstitutional, it violated the
principle of equal protection.
Josh Rosenbluth
How so?
Josh Rosenbluth
Peter Franks
Because it makes my rights less secure than those that belong to these
special classes.
Josh Rosenbluth
You belong to each of the special classes (you have race, sexual
orientation, religion, gender, ....). You are equally protected as
everyone else.
Josh Rosenbluth
Pat Magroyne
> >http://www.gainesvilleregister.com/editorials/local_story_314144704.html
>
> > Are some violent crimes more heinous than others? Is killing a person
> > because of race, sexual orientation or religion worse, say, than
> > murdering someone because you were drunk or he rear ended your car?
> > ...
>
> So-called 'hate crime' legislation is unconstitutional,
Nope.
> it violated the
> principle of equal protection.
Nope. Protection based on race protects members of all races,
including whites. Protection based on sexual orientation protects
heterosexuals as well as homosexuals.
Pat Magroyne
We'll assume, then, that you are a white heterosexual Christian male.
You are protected based on your race, sexual orientation, religion,
and gender. You have the same rights as a black homosexual Jewish
female.
Peter Franks
Well then there is no need for the hate crimes law, is there?
Peter Franks
> them straight?
Soon.
Peter Franks
Well then the law serves no purpose.
Peter Franks
Oh, it /you/ again? Snort.
Peter Franks
Well then what is the purpose of the law?
Pat Magroyne
If you feel they're useless, just words, a waste of paper, then just
ignore them and go about your day.
Pat Magroyne
Then it's simply a law on the books that doesn't mean anything, and
you can just ignore it.
Pat Magroyne
To protect people who are singled out because of their race, sex,
religion, or sexual orientation. (Note: religion is a choice, so
don't even TRY.)
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
news:Xns9CC872E5D4...@202.177.16.121:
> http://www.gainesvilleregister.com/editorials/local_story_314144704.html
>
> Are some violent crimes more heinous than others? Is killing a person
> because of race, sexual orientation or religion worse, say, than
> murdering someone because you were drunk or he rear ended your car?
>
> President Barack Obama recently signed into law the Hate Crimes
> Prevention Act. Well, actually he passed the 2010 National Defense
> Authorization Act, slipped onto it was the hate crimes legislation.
>
> Now, before getting into what's wrong with the law, let's talk about
> what's right: Its goals are absolutely dead on. Society should protect
> people who are vulnerable to harassment or violence because of who they
> are or what they believe.
>
> I applaud any movement and provision that protects all citizens from
> harm. But weakening and damaging our country is not something to be
> proud of. And that is exactly what this new hate crime law does.
>
> The bill tacks on penalties to violent crimes when deemed as motivated
> by gender, sexual orientation or disabilities. It's the first major
> expansion of hate crimes legislation originally passed in 1968,
> targeting crimes aimed at race, color, religion and national origin.
>
The public can stop this by using jury nullification. Refuse to convict
anyone charged under this law.
Lefty
wrote:
> http://www.gainesvilleregister.com/editorials/local_story_314144704.html
>
> Are some violent crimes more heinous than others? Is killing a person
> because of race, sexual orientation or religion worse, say, than
> murdering someone because you were drunk or he rear ended your car?
Depends on the circumstances. A drunk may have diminished capacity,
and a revenge murder in a moment of irrational rage is something
people can relate to because we've all felt that way at some time, but
didn't act on it. Now, if the rear-ended guy waited until he calmed
down and planned the killing for later, that's cold-blooded and
therefore more heinous. The courts are generally more lenient on
crimes of passion. Beating a dude to death just because he's queer
doesn't qualify as a crime of passion anymore than gassing six million
Jews did because gayness isn't something which would arouse that
degree of anger in a reasonable person.
> President Barack Obama recently signed into law the Hate Crimes
> Prevention Act. Well, actually he passed the 2010 National Defense
> Authorization Act, slipped onto it was the hate crimes legislation.
>
> Now, before getting into what's wrong with the law, let's talk about
> what's right: Its goals are absolutely dead on. Society should protect
> people who are vulnerable to harassment or violence because of who they
> are or what they believe.
>
> I applaud any movement and provision that protects all citizens from
> harm. But weakening and damaging our country is not something to be
> proud of. And that is exactly what this new hate crime law does.
He then fails to explain how. Classic sign of a bullshit artist.
> The bill tacks on penalties to violent crimes when deemed as motivated
> by gender, sexual orientation or disabilities. It's the first major
> expansion of hate crimes legislation originally passed in 1968,
> targeting crimes aimed at race, color, religion and national origin.
>
> After signing this new law, President Obama celebrated it by saying that
> in this nation we should "embrace our differences."
>
> On one hand, the president is right - No one deserves to be murdered
> because he is gay or she is a lesbian. This nation should be safe for
> all Americans, period.
>
> On the other hand - The First Amendment protects freedom of speech and
> religion, and hate-crime laws should not erode those freedoms.
They don't. Violence is not a constitutionally protected form of
expression.
> Constitutional law is not about embracing differences. It is about
> providing equal and non arbitrary protection to all citizens.
>
> Equal protection for every individual American under the law is what the
> 14th Amendment to our Constitution, passed after the Civil War,
> guarantees. That this nation takes this guarantee seriously - that there
> are no classes of individuals treated differently under the law.
>
> What could it possibly mean that the penalty for the same act of
> violence - for murder - may be different depending on what might be
> perceived as the motivation?
Motivation is always a consideration in sentencing. This is nothing
new.
> Is it not a sign of our own pathology that we now have classified it is
> worse to murder a homosexual than someone who has committed adultery,
> even with your spouse, or someone who has insulted or robbed?
No, it is not. To kill in a moment of justifiable anger is at least
somewhat understandable. We all have such urges.
> Isn't murder - murder?
Of course not all murders are equal. Nobody would say a pedophile who
tortures kids for weeks before killing them deserves the same
punishment as a person who kills, for example, a rapist in revenge for
assaulting his wife.
> Is it realistic to believe that someone capable of murder is less likely
> to do so if the victim is a homosexual if the penalties are greater?
By that reasoning, we should have no laws at all since they don't
usually deter criminals.
> Clearly the hate crime law has nothing to do with improving our law but
> rather with creating favored political classes.
Unexplained and unjustified claim.
> Black on black homicides that plague our inner cities - Hate crimes?
Of course not. But they can be equally serious ~depending on
motivation and circumstances~.
> What of the source instructing against murder and to love your neighbor
> as yourself? - Banned from schools and public spaces.
This fool is actually claiming the bible deters murder? Ludicrous,
unsupported nonsense. Besides, it's not banned. Any person who wants
to carry a bible can do so in any school or public place. What he
really laments is the fact that theo-fascists can't foist it on school
kids through mandatory prayer. This hypocritical shitheel cares
nothing about freedom of expression.
> What seems to becoming a Godless nation, I see a mistaken identity of
> the disease and the cure.
The disease is poverty and injustice. The United States is a more God-
fearing country than other wealthy nations, yet the violent crime rate
is much higher. Blacks are more likely to be Christians than whites,
so why so much black on black crime?
Obviously, the God connection is bullshit. Typical of stupid fundie
Christians and their clueless nattering. They need to stick a cock in
it and STFU.
> Armand Nardi is the publisher of the Gainesville Daily Register. He can
> be contacted at: ana...@ntin.net.
Fuck him and the bible he oozed in on.
Lefty
> On Nov 19, 12:36 pm, Pat Magroyne <patmagro...@null.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 19, 2:17 pm, "Leroy N. Soetoro" <leroysoet...@usurper.org>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Equal protection for every individual American under the law is what the
> > > 14th Amendment to our Constitution
>
> > Which is why these laws are worded as they are. They refer, for
> > example, to "race" rather than any specific or all non-white races,
> > and "sexual orientation" rather than just non-heterosexual
> > orientations. This way, everyone's covered.
>
> So please tell me when the first federal prosecution of a crime
> against a heterosexual will occur.
I will if you can find a case of a homo killing a hetero just because
he's a hetero. I expect nothing but the sound of crickets, but I'm
hoping you'll shock me and actually produce.
> Another problem with this legislation is that includes crimes
> supposedly motivated by gender, meaning that (heterosexual) rape is
> now a federal offense. Not that rape is a trivial crime, but states
> are perfectly capable of prosecuting rapists on their own, as well as
> any other crimes that occur solely within their borders.
Is rape included? I would doubt it. Sexual offenses aren't usually
considered hate crimes because the motivation is often mixed. It's not
always just about misogyny. Sometimes the creep just hates the whole
world, but takes it out on women only because he's a physical coward
and is afraid to beat up on men. Sometimes the freak is a sexual
sadist and is motivated by sexual deviance. The feminist line is that
all rapes are 100% about misogyny, and that's crap. It's certainly a
big factor, but not the whole story.
Still, why would you object to rapists getting longer sentences? Who
cares if it's the feds or the states as long as they are off the
streets for a long time?
> This is just another attempt by the left to expand the powers of the
> federal government far beyond what is permitted by the Constitution.
Show the passage that forbids considering motivation for crimes when
writing criminal law.
> Leftists hate constitutions, which is why all communist countries are
> tyrannical dictatorships.
So are all fascist countries. Communism is by nature dictatorial, as
if fascism. The tyranny of the far left and of the far right. Do you
actually believe US liberals are communists? Is that what you're
saying?
If so, you have to be outrageously stupid and a crypto-fascist
yourself.
People who invoke the sacred name of the constitution to try to
justify an irrational position are so common in these waters, and such
a bore.
Lefty
Lefty
Nonsense. Nobody has the right to kill you, either. Your right to live
is intact.
Lefty
A sterling example of circular bullshit reasoning. Are you really this
stupid?
Lefty
The purpose of it is to make the statement that a particular
motivation for violence is especially heinous. We already consider
certain motivations worthy of greater punishment than others. Why is
this any different?
Lefty
The purpose of it is to make the statement that a particular
Lefty
<xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Leroy N. Soetoro" <leroysoet...@usurper.org> wrote innews:Xns9CC872E5D4...@202.177.16.121:
Only worthless, amoral assholes would do that.
ZerkonXXXX
> Constitutional law is not about embracing differences. It is about
> providing equal and non arbitrary protection to all citizens.
Originally, it was about limiting federal power which then gives
protection. Now it is used as giving power to the Federal government to
protect citizens from each other.
It is unfortunate that special classes are made the issue here, they are
not. The issue is Federal Government anointing itself with power over
determining 'hate' and by extension criminalizing a mental precondition
to crime. The slippery slope landing in criminalizing thought without the
necessity for any criminal act actually being committed. Preemptive
prosecution.
The snappy precedent used is premeditation. Since courts are justified
with determining premeditation, courts are then justified in determining
'hate', so the argument goes and so does this slippery slope.
This relatively dry issue is instead made into hot buttons of sex, race,
and gods which does nothing but divide citizens. Prosecution of this law
as with all the hate laws before this will be arbitrary given the fact
the Federal government has given itself immunity from these same hate
crimes.
Peter Franks
But it is less secure.
Josh Rosenbluth
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:17:44 +0000, Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:
> > Constitutional law is not about embracing differences. It is about
> > providing equal and non arbitrary protection to all citizens.
>
> Originally, it was about limiting federal power which then gives
> protection. Now it is used as giving power to the Federal government to
> protect citizens from each other.
>
> It is unfortunate that special classes are made the issue here, they are
> not. The issue is Federal Government anointing itself with power over
> determining 'hate' and by extension criminalizing a mental precondition
> to crime. The slippery slope landing in criminalizing thought without the
> necessity for any criminal act actually being committed. Preemptive
> prosecution.
We've been over this before. There is no determination of "hate" in
the law, and there is no sign of heading down the slope of no need for
any underlying criinal activity.
> The snappy precedent used is premeditation. Since courts are justified
> with determining premeditation, courts are then justified in determining
> 'hate', so the argument goes and so does this slippery slope.
>
> This relatively dry issue is instead made into hot buttons of sex, race,
> and gods which does nothing but divide citizens. Prosecution of this law
> as with all the hate laws before this will be arbitrary given the fact
> the Federal government has given itself immunity from these same hate
> crimes.
Where did you get that idea?
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh Rosenbluth
How so?
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh Rosenbluth
> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> > On Nov 19, 8:04 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
> >> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> >>> On Nov 19, 6:42 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
> >>>> Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:
> >>>>>http://www.gainesvilleregister.com/editorials/local_story_314144704.html
> >>>>> Are some violent crimes more heinous than others? Is killing a person
> >>>>> because of race, sexual orientation or religion worse, say, than
> >>>>> murdering someone because you were drunk or he rear ended your car?
> >>>>> ...
> >>>> So-called 'hate crime' legislation is unconstitutional, it violated the
> >>>> principle of equal protection.
> >>> How so?
> >> Because it makes my rights less secure than those that belong to these
> >> special classes.
>
> > orientation, religion, gender, ....). You are equally protected as
> > everyone else.
>
> Well then there is no need for the hate crimes law, is there?
If you want to punish certain motivations more than others (the same
way we do for pre-meditation), there is.
Josh Rosenbluth
Scout
> On Nov 19, 6:42 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>> Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:
>>> http://www.gainesvilleregister.com/editorials/local_story_314144704.html
>>
>>> Are some violent crimes more heinous than others? Is killing a
>>> person because of race, sexual orientation or religion worse, say,
>>> than murdering someone because you were drunk or he rear ended your
>>> car? ...
>>
>> So-called 'hate crime' legislation is unconstitutional, it violated
>> the principle of equal protection.
>
> How so?
Simple, those who are the victims of violent crime due to characteristics
about them can be expected to be put into one of two classifications. Those
characterists recognized as elements for "hate crime" punative punishments,
and everyone else.
See, if someone is beat up because they are blond, or are left handed well
crimes against them aren't classified as "hate crimes" even though they be
result from the exact same drives as those against people because of race,
religion, etc.
Now, if you wish to classify hate crimes as ANY crime committed because of
some distinct characteristic of the victim, and that characteristic can be
ANYTHING from race and sex to hair style and shoes.
If you are beaten up because of your shoes.....it's a hate crime.
If you are beaten up because you're left handed.....it's a hate crime.
Fairs fair, and once you discriminate against the same crime because, well,
the characteristic of the victim isn't on your list....then the law becomes
unequal.
Scout
> On Nov 19, 8:04 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>> On Nov 19, 6:42 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>>> Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:
>>>>> http://www.gainesvilleregister.com/editorials/local_story_314144704.html
>>>>> Are some violent crimes more heinous than others? Is killing a
>>>>> person because of race, sexual orientation or religion worse,
>>>>> say, than murdering someone because you were drunk or he rear
>>>>> ended your car? ...
>>>> So-called 'hate crime' legislation is unconstitutional, it
>>>> violated the principle of equal protection.
>>
>>> How so?
>>
>> these special classes.
>
> You are protected based on your race, sexual orientation, religion,
> and gender. You have the same rights as a black homosexual Jewish
> female.
Ok, but what if the reason I was beaten up was because I have red hair, or
I'm left handed, or the type of car I drive?
Is the crime against me less worthy of punishment because the characteristic
that led to the crime wasn't considered to be *special*???
Same crime, same hate, different levels of punishment.
Oh, and when exactly has any minority been convicted of a hate crime against
a white person?
Josh Rosenbluth
Firstly, everybody is equally afforded enhanced protection because of
their race, so that no race is preferred over another. Similarly,
everybody is equally not afforded enhanced protection because of their
handedness, so that no handedness is preferred over another. Thus by
the traditionally understood equal protection classifications (who you
are), all are treated alike.
Instead, you argue that the law impermissbly classifies people not
just before the fact by who they are, but also after the fact by what
was in the mind of the perpetrator. Namely, one class of people are
those the perpetrator targeted because of their race while another
class is those the perpetrator targeted because of their handedness.
But if these were recognized equal protection classes, so too would be
people who were targeted intentionally versus people who were targeted
unintentionally. Yet, the law treats the perpetrators of intentional
crimes differently than unintentional crimes with no equal protection
issues.
Josh Rosenbluth
Jim Yanik
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:52:35 -0500, "Scout"
><me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>Now, if you wish to classify hate crimes as ANY crime committed
>>because of some distinct characteristic of the victim, and that
>>characteristic can be ANYTHING from race and sex to hair style and
>>shoes.
>
> Pretty much.
>
>
No matter what the characteristic,there still has to be a determination
that the accused actually acted(for that particular crime) based on the
claimed "hate" and not some other reason.
Not just because the victim happened to be "X".
that is where all these laws become "thoughtcrime".
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com
Scout
Why? Because someone might see that the motivation for the crime is no more
relevent than the motivation of a similar crime that doesn't carry all these
extra penalities?
A man was beaten up by another man.....
How is that crime different because of the motivation?
Scout
> On Nov 19, 8:59 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>> Pat Magroyne wrote:
>>> On Nov 19, 6:42 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>>> Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:
>>>>> http://www.gainesvilleregister.com/editorials/local_story_314144704.html
>>>>> Are some violent crimes more heinous than others? Is killing a
>>>>> person because of race, sexual orientation or religion worse,
>>>>> say, than murdering someone because you were drunk or he rear
>>>>> ended your car? ...
>>>> So-called 'hate crime' legislation is unconstitutional,
>>
>>> Nope.
>>
>>>> it violated the
>>>> principle of equal protection.
>>
>>> Nope. Protection based on race protects members of all races,
>>> including whites. Protection based on sexual orientation protects
>>> heterosexuals as well as homosexuals.
>>
>> Well then what is the purpose of the law?
>
> The purpose of it is to make the statement that a particular
> motivation for violence is especially heinous.
I see, so if they are motivated by a hatred of race, sex, religion or sexual
orientation then that is an especially heinous crime.....if however they are
motivated by some other type of hatred, then well that sort of hate isn't
important at all.
Double standard.
Some types of hate are heinous, other types of hate are not.
But the hate and the crimes are the same.
Scout
> On Nov 19, 8:59 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>> Pat Magroyne wrote:
>>> On Nov 19, 6:42 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>>> Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:
>>>>> http://www.gainesvilleregister.com/editorials/local_story_314144704.html
>>>>> Are some violent crimes more heinous than others? Is killing a
>>>>> person because of race, sexual orientation or religion worse,
>>>>> say, than murdering someone because you were drunk or he rear
>>>>> ended your car? ...
>>>> So-called 'hate crime' legislation is unconstitutional,
>>
>>> Nope.
>>
>>>> it violated the
>>>> principle of equal protection.
>>
>>> Nope. Protection based on race protects members of all races,
>>> including whites. Protection based on sexual orientation protects
>>> heterosexuals as well as homosexuals.
>>
>> Well then what is the purpose of the law?
>
> religion, or sexual orientation. (Note: religion is a choice, so
> don't even TRY.)
And all those other people who are singled out for something other than
their race, sex, religion or sexual orientation can be considered second
class citizens as crimes of hate against them aren't importent enough to
treat the same?
Pat Magroyne
If a particular group is singled out, it affects and terrorizes the
entire group.
Example: I was in Spokane, Washington, many years ago. There was a
rapist on the loose. The women of Spokane were crazy with worry,
including my grandmother, who was in her 70s. Lots of anxiety, triple-
checking windows and doors, not sleeping well, etc.
So, it wasn't just the women who were raped who were affected.
Now consider a man gets beat up, and the reason and ONLY reason he's
beat up is because he's gay. Every other gay person, or person who
might be mistaken for being gay, is affected, especially in the area
where the beating took place (which might then also affect local
businesses).
People are not beaten up for no reason. Maybe you have a couple of
men who get into an argument and get into a fight. Maybe they're
drunk. Maybe one was hitting on the other's girlfriend. There's a
REASON. But to just go up and start beating up someone because he's
gay (or is mistaken for being gay) or Jewish or Arabic or something...
those "states of being" don't provide REASON, and attacking such
people is attacking the entire group.
Pat Magroyne
What other type of hatred are you talking about?
Pat Magroyne
> > Constitutional law is not about embracing differences. It is about
> > providing equal and non arbitrary protection to all citizens.
>
> Originally, it was about limiting federal power which then gives
> protection. Now it is used as giving power to the Federal government to
> protect citizens from each other.
>
> It is unfortunate that special classes are made the issue here, they are
> not. The issue is Federal Government anointing itself with power over
> determining 'hate' and by extension criminalizing a mental precondition
> to crime. The slippery slope landing in criminalizing thought without the
> necessity for any criminal act actually being committed.
That's a VERY slippery slope there. Until such time as technology
allows us to determine people's THOUGHTS, however, we might just file
this under "science fiction", where it belongs.
> Preemptive
> prosecution.
>
> The snappy precedent used is premeditation. Since courts are justified
> with determining premeditation, courts are then justified in determining
> 'hate', so the argument goes and so does this slippery slope.
By the time a person's hatred reaches such a point that he commits
violent felonies due to the internal hatred, I think it's safe to say
that most people would think that person might need a "break" from
society, in a penitentiary somewhere.
Klaus Schadenfreude
I hate root beer. I hate asparagus, and I really, really fucking hate
Brussels sprouts.
SaPeIsMa
"Pat Magroyne" <patma...@null.net> wrote in message
news:8fb0fdf6-f647-47d7...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
# If a particular group is singled out, it affects and terrorizes the
# entire group.
#
# Example: I was in Spokane, Washington, many years ago. There was a
# rapist on the loose. The women of Spokane were crazy with worry,
# including my grandmother, who was in her 70s. Lots of anxiety, triple-
# checking windows and doors, not sleeping well, etc.
#
# So, it wasn't just the women who were raped who were affected.
#
# Now consider a man gets beat up, and the reason and ONLY reason he's
# beat up is because he's gay. Every other gay person, or person who
# might be mistaken for being gay, is affected, especially in the area
# where the beating took place (which might then also affect local
# businesses).
#
# People are not beaten up for no reason. Maybe you have a couple of
# men who get into an argument and get into a fight. Maybe they're
# drunk. Maybe one was hitting on the other's girlfriend. There's a
# REASON. But to just go up and start beating up someone because he's
# gay (or is mistaken for being gay) or Jewish or Arabic or something...
# those "states of being" don't provide REASON, and attacking such
# people is attacking the entire group.
You have some issues with consistency
1) According to you, a guy gets beaten up because he's gay, And then you
claim that beating up someone because they're gay is NOT a reason
2)) So if a guy gets beaten up then all males are being attacked, just
like (according to you) if a woman gets raped, all women are being attacked.
Your logic has a big enough hole to drive a big rig through it
SaPeIsMa
# What other type of hatred are you talking about?
You're the one claiming that one type of hatred has more "gravitas" than
some other kind of hatred
A guy hates straight women and beats them up counts for less than a guy
who beats up lesbians because they're lesbians
A guy beats up other guys because they're straight, counts for less than
a guy who beats up guys because they're gay
That's called a double standard NO MATTER how you try to weasel around
Pat Magroyne
wrote:
Canned asparagus sucks.
> and I really, really fucking hate
> Brussels sprouts.
If you assault the sprouts, just don't tell them you hate them, and
you won't be charged with a hate crime.
Pat Magroyne
> "Pat Magroyne" <patmagro...@null.net> wrote in message
Correct. The gay person, by simply being gay, has done nothing to
invite an attack, other than simply being gay (which isn't an "act").
He hasn't gotten into an argument with someone, hasn't cut someone off
in traffic, hasn't hit anyone, hasn't tried to pick up someone else's
girlfriend... simply by being what he is, he is attacked. And that's
not a reason to hit someone, any more than hating pigtails is a reason
to assault a girl who wears them.
>
> 2)) So if a guy gets beaten up then all males are being attacked,
If the guy gets beaten up FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN THAT HE IS MALE,
yeah.
> just
> like (according to you) if a woman gets raped, all women are being attacked.
Rape isn't actually, generally, considered a "hate crime". There are
other things involved in rape besides a hatred of women.
But my point illustrates what happens to a community of women when
women in that community are raped.
> Your logic has a big enough hole to drive a big rig through it
Says the person who doesn't show us how this might be so. So me the
flaws in my logic. Your time starts....
NOW.
:o)
Pat Magroyne
> "Pat Magroyne" <patmagro...@null.net> wrote in message
Well, I didn't actually claim that.
> A guy hates straight women and beats them up counts for less than a guy
> who beats up lesbians because they're lesbians
Nope. Straight women and lesbians are both protected equally.
> A guy beats up other guys because they're straight, counts for less than
> a guy who beats up guys because they're gay
Nope. Straight men and gay men are both protected equally.
> That's called a double standard NO MATTER how you try to weasel around
Nope. "Sexual orientation" covers straights AND gays.
Klaus Schadenfreude
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the
poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal
bread."
Josh
I don't follow how straights are targeted by the hate crimes law in the
same manner that the poor are clearly targeted by the laws in your analogy.
Josh Rosenbluth
Klaus Schadenfreude
The law that exists protects everyone equally. It doesn't matter what
their situation is.
A "hate" law isn't going to keep gays from getting bashed, nor serve
to better punish them that do.
Josh
Maybe, maybe not. But even accepting that opinion, it has nothing at
all to do with your claim about straights being like the poor in your
analogy.
Josh Rosenbluth
Dänk 1010011010
> "Leroy N. Soetoro" <leroysoet...@usurper.org> wrote:
> > I applaud any movement and provision that protects all citizens from
> > harm. But weakening and damaging our country is not something to be
> > proud of. And that is exactly what this new hate crime law does.
>
The law damages our country by federalizing a crime that should be the
sole jurisdiction of the state it occurred in. America is a
federation of sovereign states, with a central government whose
function is to provide for the national defense and regulate
interstate commerce. Assault and battery has nothing to do with
interstate commerce, therefore it is the jurisdiction of states.
Also, the law seems to be unnecessary because nobody has provided an
example of any state refusing to prosecute an assault against a
homosexual victim. If there was evidence of deliberate inaction, then
perhaps federal intervention might be necessary, but this law seems
purely political in nature, designed to pander to a special interest
group, with the rationale that the federal government can do a better
job of prosecuting crime - that state governments are incompetent.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Good, because I wasn't making that analogy.
Let's assume state "A" has a law which forbids hitting someone. Being
found guilty of hitting someone is punishable by a year in jail. the
only way you can hit someone and NOT be found guilty is if it's in
self defense.
In the police station of the capital city of state "A," five thugs are
brought in separately. They all stand accused of hitting someone,
unprovoked.
Criminal 1 confesses, "I hit him because he's a faggot."
Criminal 2 confesses, "I hit him because he's Jewish."
Criminal 3 confesses, "I hit him because he was blocking the sun and I
was trying to get a tan."
Criminal 4 confesses, "I hit him because he looked at me funny."
Criminal 5 confesses, "I hit him because he cut in front of me."
It's an open and shut case for each one- we have eyewitnesses and
video tape showing all five hit their victim without provocation.
Which one(s) will not be punished according to the law?
Josh
> In talk.politics.guns Josh <us...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's called a double standard NO MATTER how you try to weasel around
>>>>>> Nope. "Sexual orientation" covers straights AND gays.
>>>>> "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the
>>>>> poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal
>>>>> bread."
>>>> I don't follow how straights are targeted by the hate crimes law in the
>>>> same manner that the poor are clearly targeted by the laws in your analogy.
>>> The law that exists protects everyone equally. It doesn't matter what
>>> their situation is.
>>>
>>> A "hate" law isn't going to keep gays from getting bashed, nor serve
>>> to better punish them that do.
>> Maybe, maybe not. But even accepting that opinion, it has nothing at
>> all to do with your claim about straights being like the poor in your
>> analogy.
>
> Good, because I wasn't making that analogy.
Then what was this exchange supposed to mean:
You: That's called a double standard NO MATTER how you try to weasel around
Magroyne: Nope. "Sexual orientation" covers straights AND gays.
You: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as
the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal
bread."
> Let's assume state "A" has a law which forbids hitting someone. Being
> found guilty of hitting someone is punishable by a year in jail. the
> only way you can hit someone and NOT be found guilty is if it's in
> self defense.
>
> In the police station of the capital city of state "A," five thugs are
> brought in separately. They all stand accused of hitting someone,
> unprovoked.
>
> Criminal 1 confesses, "I hit him because he's a faggot."
> Criminal 2 confesses, "I hit him because he's Jewish."
> Criminal 3 confesses, "I hit him because he was blocking the sun and I
> was trying to get a tan."
> Criminal 4 confesses, "I hit him because he looked at me funny."
> Criminal 5 confesses, "I hit him because he cut in front of me."
>
> It's an open and shut case for each one- we have eyewitnesses and
> video tape showing all five hit their victim without provocation.
>
> Which one(s) will not be punished according to the law?
All will be found guilty of assault and battery. If state "A" has a
hate crimes law, Criminals 1 and 2 will be found guilty of the higher
charge of assault and battery motivated by the victim's perceived
sexuality and religion respectively - and will server longer sentences.
Josh Rosenbluth
Klaus Schadenfreude
>Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> In talk.politics.guns Josh <us...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's called a double standard NO MATTER how you try to weasel around
>>>>>>> Nope. "Sexual orientation" covers straights AND gays.
>>>>>> "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the
>>>>>> poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal
>>>>>> bread."
>>>>> I don't follow how straights are targeted by the hate crimes law in the
>>>>> same manner that the poor are clearly targeted by the laws in your analogy.
>>>> The law that exists protects everyone equally. It doesn't matter what
>>>> their situation is.
>>>>
>>>> A "hate" law isn't going to keep gays from getting bashed, nor serve
>>>> to better punish them that do.
>>> Maybe, maybe not. But even accepting that opinion, it has nothing at
>>> all to do with your claim about straights being like the poor in your
>>> analogy.
>>
>> Good, because I wasn't making that analogy.
>
>Then what was this exchange supposed to mean:
>
>You: That's called a double standard NO MATTER how you try to weasel around
>
>Magroyne: Nope. "Sexual orientation" covers straights AND gays.
>
>You: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as
>the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal
>bread."
Don't look so hard. It's fairly straightforward.
>> Let's assume state "A" has a law which forbids hitting someone. Being
>> found guilty of hitting someone is punishable by a year in jail. the
>> only way you can hit someone and NOT be found guilty is if it's in
>> self defense.
>>
>> In the police station of the capital city of state "A," five thugs are
>> brought in separately. They all stand accused of hitting someone,
>> unprovoked.
>>
>> Criminal 1 confesses, "I hit him because he's a faggot."
>> Criminal 2 confesses, "I hit him because he's Jewish."
>> Criminal 3 confesses, "I hit him because he was blocking the sun and I
>> was trying to get a tan."
>> Criminal 4 confesses, "I hit him because he looked at me funny."
>> Criminal 5 confesses, "I hit him because he cut in front of me."
>>
>> It's an open and shut case for each one- we have eyewitnesses and
>> video tape showing all five hit their victim without provocation.
>>
>> Which one(s) will not be punished according to the law?
>
>All will be found guilty of assault and battery. If state "A" has a
>hate crimes law, Criminals 1 and 2 will be found guilty of the higher
>charge of assault and battery motivated by the victim's perceived
>sexuality and religion respectively - and will server longer sentences.
There are no hate crimes laws in State "A." It's a progressive state,
not taken in by the gay agenda of creating a special class of persons.
The person who was blocking the sun doesn't deserve less protecting
than the Jew.
Peter Franks
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:57:32 -0800, Peter Franks
> <no...@none.com> wrote:
>
>>> You belong to each of the special classes (you have race, sexual
>>> orientation, religion, gender, ....). You are equally protected as
>>> everyone else.
>> Well then there is no need for the hate crimes law, is there?
>
> Yes, and the tons of justification are CLEAR to anyone
> not wearing a tin-hat.
Presuming you aren't a tin-hat wearer, you will have no problem at all
elaborating on the justification now:
Take ALL the space you need............
Peter Franks
> On Nov 19, 8:57 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>> On Nov 19, 8:04 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>>> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 19, 6:42 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:
>>>>>>> http://www.gainesvilleregister.com/editorials/local_story_314144704.html
>>>>>>> Are some violent crimes more heinous than others? Is killing a person
>>>>>>> because of race, sexual orientation or religion worse, say, than
>>>>>>> murdering someone because you were drunk or he rear ended your car?
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> principle of equal protection.
>>>>> How so?
>>>> Because it makes my rights less secure than those that belong to these
>>>> special classes.
>>> orientation, religion, gender, ....). You are equally protected as
>>> everyone else.
>> Well then there is no need for the hate crimes law, is there?
>
> way we do for pre-meditation), there is.
Motivations based on /what/? Someone's supposed whim?
What's the motivation here to protect gays more than straights?
Josh
I agree in part, and disagree in part.
I agree the law is largely to pander to a special interest group and has
little practical effect.
I disagree that the law is redundant because many states do not have
hate crimes laws that cover sexuality.
I also disagree that the law damages federalism because to be convicted
a jury must be convinced that not only was the crime committed because
of the victim's perceived sexuality, they must also find that interstate
commerce was implicated.
Josh Rosenbluth
Peter Franks
> Pat Magroyne wrote:
>> On Nov 19, 8:04 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>> On Nov 19, 6:42 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>>>> Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.gainesvilleregister.com/editorials/local_story_314144704.html
>>>>>> Are some violent crimes more heinous than others? Is killing a
>>>>>> person because of race, sexual orientation or religion worse,
>>>>>> say, than murdering someone because you were drunk or he rear
>>>>>> ended your car? ...
>>>>> So-called 'hate crime' legislation is unconstitutional, it
>>>>> violated the principle of equal protection.
>>>> How so?
>>> Because it makes my rights less secure than those that belong to
>>> these special classes.
>> You are protected based on your race, sexual orientation, religion,
>> and gender. You have the same rights as a black homosexual Jewish
>> female.
>
> Ok, but what if the reason I was beaten up was because I have red hair, or
> I'm left handed, or the type of car I drive?
>
> Is the crime against me less worthy of punishment because the characteristic
> that led to the crime wasn't considered to be *special*???
>
> Same crime, same hate, different levels of punishment.
>
> Oh, and when exactly has any minority been convicted of a hate crime against
> a white person?
That's called reparations.
Peter Franks
> On Nov 20, 8:47 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>> Lefty wrote:
>>> On Nov 19, 8:04 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>>> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 19, 6:42 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:
>>>>>>> http://www.gainesvilleregister.com/editorials/local_story_314144704.html
>>>>>>> Are some violent crimes more heinous than others? Is killing a person
>>>>>>> because of race, sexual orientation or religion worse, say, than
>>>>>>> murdering someone because you were drunk or he rear ended your car?
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> So-called 'hate crime' legislation is unconstitutional, it violated the
>>>>>> principle of equal protection.
>>>>> How so?
>>>> Because it makes my rights less secure than those that belong to these
>>>> special classes.
>>> is intact.
>> But it is less secure.
>
> How so?
Because I don't fall into one of these special classes.
Josh
Sorry, not it isn't.
>>> Let's assume state "A" has a law which forbids hitting someone. Being
>>> found guilty of hitting someone is punishable by a year in jail. the
>>> only way you can hit someone and NOT be found guilty is if it's in
>>> self defense.
>>>
>>> In the police station of the capital city of state "A," five thugs are
>>> brought in separately. They all stand accused of hitting someone,
>>> unprovoked.
>>>
>>> Criminal 1 confesses, "I hit him because he's a faggot."
>>> Criminal 2 confesses, "I hit him because he's Jewish."
>>> Criminal 3 confesses, "I hit him because he was blocking the sun and I
>>> was trying to get a tan."
>>> Criminal 4 confesses, "I hit him because he looked at me funny."
>>> Criminal 5 confesses, "I hit him because he cut in front of me."
>>>
>>> It's an open and shut case for each one- we have eyewitnesses and
>>> video tape showing all five hit their victim without provocation.
>>>
>>> Which one(s) will not be punished according to the law?
>> All will be found guilty of assault and battery. If state "A" has a
>> hate crimes law, Criminals 1 and 2 will be found guilty of the higher
>> charge of assault and battery motivated by the victim's perceived
>> sexuality and religion respectively - and will server longer sentences.
>
> There are no hate crimes laws in State "A." It's a progressive state,
> not taken in by the gay agenda of creating a special class of persons.
> The person who was blocking the sun doesn't deserve less protecting
> than the Jew.
OK, that's your opinion - and still has nothing to do with your
accusation of a double standard.
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh
You have been told repeatedly that the law provides the same protection
to gays and straights. Stop lying about the law.
Josh Rosenbluth
Peter Franks
> On Nov 19, 8:59 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>> Pat Magroyne wrote:
>>> On Nov 19, 6:42 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>>> Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:
>>>>> http://www.gainesvilleregister.com/editorials/local_story_314144704.html
>>>>> Are some violent crimes more heinous than others? Is killing a person
>>>>> because of race, sexual orientation or religion worse, say, than
>>>>> murdering someone because you were drunk or he rear ended your car?
>>>>> ...
>>>> So-called 'hate crime' legislation is unconstitutional,
>>>> it violated the
>>>> principle of equal protection.
>>> including whites. Protection based on sexual orientation protects
>>> heterosexuals as well as homosexuals.
>> Well then what is the purpose of the law?
>
> The purpose of it is to make the statement that a particular
> certain motivations worthy of greater punishment than others. Why is
> this any different?
Yes, WHY is this any different?
It isn't.
Josh
There you go again. Yes, you do. Stop lying about the law.
Josh Rosenbluth
Klaus Schadenfreude
[sigh] OK, I'll explain it to you.
The law is there for everybody, whether they are directly affected or
not.
Uh, sure it does. Why do gays get more protection than me? What makes
them more special than Siamese cat lovers or people who like Brussels
sprouts?
Josh
What's that got to do with a double standard?
You get the same protection as gays. Straight Siamese cat lovers get
the same protection as gay Siamese cat lovers. Straights who like
Brussels sprouts get the same protection as gays who like Brussels sprouts.
True, a person who is targeted because they are gay or straight gets
more protection than a person who is targeted because they are a Siamese
cat lover. But, that is after the fact based on the motive of the
perpetrator, in the same manner that after the fact a person who is
intentionally targeted gets greater protection than a person who is not
intentionally targeted (first degree versus second degree crimes).
Most of us don't call after the fact distinctions based on the
perpetrators motives a double standard.
Josh Rosenbluth
Pat Magroyne
wrote:
#1 and #2 above don't involve behavior against the assailant, while
#3, #4, and #5 do. In other words, a behavior is the "reason" for
hitting in the last 3, while simply a state of being is the "reason"
in 1 and 2.
Pat Magroyne
Example: first-degree murder vs. unintentional manslaughter.
> What's the motivation here to protect gays more than straights?
The straights are covered by precisely the same law.
Pat Magroyne
> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> > On Nov 20, 8:47 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
> >> Lefty wrote:
> >>> On Nov 19, 8:04 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
> >>>> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> >>>>> On Nov 19, 6:42 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:
> >>>>>>>http://www.gainesvilleregister.com/editorials/local_story_314144704.html
> >>>>>>> Are some violent crimes more heinous than others? Is killing a person
> >>>>>>> because of race, sexual orientation or religion worse, say, than
> >>>>>>> murdering someone because you were drunk or he rear ended your car?
> >>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>> So-called 'hate crime' legislation is unconstitutional, it violated the
> >>>>>> principle of equal protection.
> >>>>> How so?
> >>>> Because it makes my rights less secure than those that belong to these
> >>>> special classes.
> >>> Nonsense. Nobody has the right to kill you, either. Your right to live
> >>> is intact.
> >> But it is less secure.
>
> > How so?
>
> Because I don't fall into one of these special classes.
You don't have a race, gender, and sexual orientation?
Pat Magroyne
wrote:
They don't. If you're attacked based on your sexual orientation, you
are covered as well as the gays.
Jim Sumner
I'm waiting to see how the internet keyboard warrior Fox News
fanboy faggots find a way to incorporate the term "Nazi" into hate
crimes legislations such as "Obama proves he's a Nazi by protecting
Blacks and homosexuals". These Fox fan faggots don't seem to grasp
that Nazi is an actual ideology not a synonym for any government
policy they don't agree with. In other words, a Black president can't
be a fucking Nazi, you idiots.
anonymous
>
> Lefty wrote:
> > On Nov 19, 9:46 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"> >> innews:Xns9CC872E5D4...@202.177.16.121:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> http://www.gainesvilleregister.com/editorials/local_story_314144704.html
> >>
> >>> Are some violent crimes more heinous than others? Is killing a
> >>> person because of race, sexual orientation or religion worse, say,
> >>> than murdering someone because you were drunk or he rear ended your
> >>> car?
than others.
First of all, if a spouse is refusing another spouse the right to have
sex within
a marriage or common-law relationship for no other reason than having
the right and power to do so and their spouse angerly gets violent
towards their spouse and in some extreme cases kills their spouse, the
crime is such that the violence or killing is isolated to the victim or
deceased only and the purpertrator is not likely to have hate or act
violently towards anyone else whereas a person who speaks of hate of a
specific group of people like women, people of specific colour or all
people of colour or of a specific sexual orientation, then the
seriousness or the violence spoken about to acted upon any victim is
more serious because the purpertrator hold views that are not held but
the majority of people of that culture and the purpetrator is at risk of
setting precedent in society of a conduct that is inappropriate within
the culture that there arises a need to ensure that such a person
receive treatment, counseling or appropriate punishement to prevent or
deter others in society from following in his foot steps.
> >>
> >>> President Barack Obama recently signed into law the Hate Crimes
> >>> Prevention Act. Well, actually he passed the 2010 National Defense
> >>> Authorization Act, slipped onto it was the hate crimes legislation.
> >>
Sadly, without the poster printing the sections of hte Hate Crimes
Prevention Act, it is useless to comment because everyone concerned is
speaking in a vacuum.
> >>> Now, before getting into what's wrong with the law, let's talk about
> >>> what's right: Its goals are absolutely dead on. Society should
> >>> protect people who are vulnerable to harassment or violence because
> >>> of who they are or what they believe.
> >>
> >>> I applaud any movement and provision that protects all citizens from
> >>> harm. But weakening and damaging our country is not something to be
> >>> proud of. And that is exactly what this new hate crime law does.
> >>
> >>> The bill tacks on penalties to violent crimes when deemed as
> >>> motivated by gender, sexual orientation or disabilities. It's the
> >>> first major expansion of hate crimes legislation originally passed
> >>> in 1968, targeting crimes aimed at race, color, religion and
> >>> national origin.
> >>
> >> The public can stop this by using jury nullification. Refuse to
> >> convict
> >> anyone charged under this law.
> >
> > Only worthless, amoral assholes would do that.
>
Awsome post but sadly lacking substance because the poster has failed to
tell us in detail as readers what jury nullification is and how it works
in the particular question
they are speaking of.
> Why? Because someone might see that the motivation for the crime is no more
> relevent than the motivation of a similar crime that doesn't carry all these
> extra penalities?
>
> A man was beaten up by another man.....
>
> How is that crime different because of the motivation?
Well, the awesome part of the sentence "A man was beaten up by another
man....." doesn't tell anybody anything. Brillant example. You see,
no person be it man, woman or child is permitted to touch another
purpose for any purpose without the other person's consent. That is the
law in most countries on the planet. Any man, woman or child is
permitted under most laws of most countries on the planet of using what
is called sufficient force to protect themselves from harm, injury or
attact by another person be they a man, woman, or child. Almost no
person under most laws of most countries on the planet are permitted to
use what is deemed by any judge or any peers excessive force to proctect
themselves.
An example of that is that if a woman was being raped she would be
permitted to kick a man in the groin, stab a rapist with a knife a
sufficient number of times that the rapiest stopped or was stopped from
continually raping her. It is possible that her judgment and actions
would be impaired by the events and at the moment of the raping act that
death might result to the purpertrator as a result of the attempts at
defense of the rape victim to survive or attempt stopage of such a
terrible act of rape, but at no time under the law would a man who
inappropriately grabbed a woman's breast or attempted an indecent
assault would be able to be killed by the woman with a gun or excessive
stabbing to justify her self-defence actions because they would be
deemed excessive in view of the raptist's acttivities up to that point.
ZerkonXXXX
> That's a VERY slippery slope there. Until such time as technology
> allows us to determine people's THOUGHTS, however, we might just file
> this under "science fiction", where it belongs.
Agree but I am too techno-cynical. There has been way too many "fictions"
recently that are suggesting this be seen as not so fictitious. Where
'intent' becomes the crime with no need for the criminal act to establish
guilt. Whatever the flaws are to keep criminality centered on the
criminal act are minuscule compared to giving the state such power over
the interpretation of thought. Technology or no.
Technology, as you know, does not just spring forth infallible. By nature
it provides exclusive information which then is disseminated 'as is'. The
fact is, people's thoughts would have to be determined by other peoples
thoughts, the people who design, program, operate and read this
technology.
>
>> Preemptive
>> prosecution.
>>
>> The snappy precedent used is premeditation. Since courts are justified
>> with determining premeditation, courts are then justified in
>> determining 'hate', so the argument goes and so does this slippery
>> slope.
>
> By the time a person's hatred reaches such a point that he commits
> violent felonies due to the internal hatred, I think it's safe to say
> that most people would think that person might need a "break" from
> society, in a penitentiary somewhere.
Safe to say, yes. Safe to do? I do not think so.
Klaus Schadenfreude
So you just contradicted yourself. Why do they deserve more protection
than, say my grandmother who was beaten because she was old and
feeble?
> But, that is after the fact based on the motive of the
>perpetrator, in the same manner that after the fact a person who is
>intentionally targeted gets greater protection than a person who is not
>intentionally targeted (first degree versus second degree crimes).
The motive doesn't make the beating any more or less severe.
>Most of us don't call after the fact distinctions based on the
>perpetrators motives a double standard.
Normal people do. If I'm stealing a TV set to watch it myself or to
fence it and use the money to give to the poor, WTF difference does it
make? It's still theft.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Gays are covered NOW. Thanks for admitting special "hate laws" aren't
required."
ZerkonXXXX
>> Originally, it was about limiting federal power which then gives
>> protection. Now it is used as giving power to the Federal government to
>> protect citizens from each other.
>>
>> It is unfortunate that special classes are made the issue here, they
>> are not. The issue is Federal Government anointing itself with power
>> over determining 'hate' and by extension criminalizing a mental
>> precondition to crime. The slippery slope landing in criminalizing
>> thought without the necessity for any criminal act actually being
>> committed. Preemptive prosecution.
>
> We've been over this before. There is no determination of "hate" in the
> law, and there is no sign of heading down the slope of no need for any
> underlying criinal activity.
The 'we' here has changed and the past 'we' did not settle in agreement.
You may want to take these laws literally, so if the word 'hate' does not
appear in the body, hate is not really a issue even though the word is
used now as a legal classification ("hate crimes"). This is the sign of
the slippery slope.
>> The snappy precedent used is premeditation. Since courts are justified
>> with determining premeditation, courts are then justified in
>> determining 'hate', so the argument goes and so does this slippery
>> slope.
>>
>> This relatively dry issue is instead made into hot buttons of sex,
>> race, and gods which does nothing but divide citizens. Prosecution of
>> this law as with all the hate laws before this will be arbitrary given
>> the fact the Federal government has given itself immunity from these
>> same hate crimes.
>
> Where did you get that idea?
Which idea is that? Immunity from International law or seeing this as
only about sex, religion and race?
Klaus Schadenfreude
[chuckle]
Yet they ALL got beat. I noticed you snipped out the relevant part.
Let's put it back and examine your response.
>> Which one(s) will not be punished according to the law?
You failed to answer that. The correct answer is: All of them will be
punished.
So the problem that will be solved by having "hate crimes" is, um,
what, exactly?
Josh
And yet we punish intentional crimes more than we punish unintentional ones.
>> Most of us don't call after the fact distinctions based on the
>> perpetrators motives a double standard.
>
> Normal people do. If I'm stealing a TV set to watch it myself or to
> fence it and use the money to give to the poor, WTF difference does it
> make? It's still theft.
Then I guess the majority is not normal (a contradiction by definition).
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:49:55 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>
>>> Originally, it was about limiting federal power which then gives
>>> protection. Now it is used as giving power to the Federal government to
>>> protect citizens from each other.
>>>
>>> It is unfortunate that special classes are made the issue here, they
>>> are not. The issue is Federal Government anointing itself with power
>>> over determining 'hate' and by extension criminalizing a mental
>>> precondition to crime. The slippery slope landing in criminalizing
>>> thought without the necessity for any criminal act actually being
>>> committed. Preemptive prosecution.
>> We've been over this before. There is no determination of "hate" in the
>> law, and there is no sign of heading down the slope of no need for any
>> underlying criinal activity.
>
> The 'we' here has changed and the past 'we' did not settle in agreement.
> You may want to take these laws literally, so if the word 'hate' does not
> appear in the body, hate is not really a issue even though the word is
> used now as a legal classification ("hate crimes"). This is the sign of
> the slippery slope.
Since you are making a claim that we are heading down a slope, we should
be able to set up some objective measures to see if you turn out to be
correct. For instance, what's the next step down the slope and when
will it occur?
>>> The snappy precedent used is premeditation. Since courts are justified
>>> with determining premeditation, courts are then justified in
>>> determining 'hate', so the argument goes and so does this slippery
>>> slope.
>>>
>>> This relatively dry issue is instead made into hot buttons of sex,
>>> race, and gods which does nothing but divide citizens. Prosecution of
>>> this law as with all the hate laws before this will be arbitrary given
>>> the fact the Federal government has given itself immunity from these
>>> same hate crimes.
>> Where did you get that idea?
>
> Which idea is that? Immunity from International law or seeing this as
> only about sex, religion and race?
The part about the Federal government given itself immunity.
Josh Rosenbluth
Klaus Schadenfreude
Duh. The examples given were ALL intentional.
>>> Most of us don't call after the fact distinctions based on the
>>> perpetrators motives a double standard.
>>
>> Normal people do. If I'm stealing a TV set to watch it myself or to
>> fence it and use the money to give to the poor, WTF difference does it
>> make? It's still theft.
>
>Then I guess the majority is not normal (a contradiction by definition).
By definition the majority *is* normal.
Josh
You missed my point which goes beyond your examples. Add a sixth
example where the person says, "I hit him accidently when I was showing
off to my girlfriend how powerful my punch is". That guy gets a lesser
penalty, based solely on his motive. If we accept your viewpoint, then
we must punish him the same as the other five guys.
>>>> Most of us don't call after the fact distinctions based on the
>>>> perpetrators motives a double standard.
>>> Normal people do. If I'm stealing a TV set to watch it myself or to
>>> fence it and use the money to give to the poor, WTF difference does it
>>> make? It's still theft.
>> Then I guess the majority is not normal (a contradiction by definition).
>
> By definition the majority *is* normal.
Yes, exactly my point. You claim "normal people do" think it is a
double standard when punishment is based on the perpetrator's motive.
Yet, the majority disagree with you (see the intentional motive
example). Therefore, either the majority are not normal (my sarcastic
reply, which of course is by definition not correct) or you are wrong
(the truth).
Josh Rosenbluth
Klaus Schadenfreude
That's like the difference between murder and manslaughter. Already
covered under the present legal system.
>>>>> Most of us don't call after the fact distinctions based on the
>>>>> perpetrators motives a double standard.
>>>> Normal people do. If I'm stealing a TV set to watch it myself or to
>>>> fence it and use the money to give to the poor, WTF difference does it
>>>> make? It's still theft.
>>> Then I guess the majority is not normal (a contradiction by definition).
>>
>> By definition the majority *is* normal.
>
>Yes, exactly my point. You claim "normal people do" think it is a
>double standard when punishment is based on the perpetrator's motive.
>Yet, the majority disagree with you (see the intentional motive
>example). Therefore, either the majority are not normal (my sarcastic
>reply, which of course is by definition not correct) or you are wrong
>(the truth).
Your goal post move is noted. We are, of course, discussing
intentional criminal acts.
RD (The Sandman)
news:8fb0fdf6-f647-47d7...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 20, 5:47�pm, "Scout"
> <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>> Lefty wrote:
>> > On Nov 19, 9:46 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
>> > <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> "Leroy N. Soetoro" <leroysoet...@usurper.org> wrote
>> >> innews:Xns9CC872E5D4...@202.177.16.121:
>>
>> >>>http://www.gainesvilleregister.com/editorials/local_story_314144704
>> >>>.ht
> ml
>>
>> >>> Are some violent crimes more heinous than others? Is killing a
>> >>> person because of race, sexual orientation or religion worse,
>> >>> say, than murdering someone because you were drunk or he rear
>> >>> ended your car?
>>
>> >>> President Barack Obama recently signed into law the Hate Crimes
>> >>> Prevention Act. Well, actually he passed the 2010 National
>> >>> Defense Authorization Act, slipped onto it was the hate crimes
>> >>> legislation.
>>
>> >>> Now, before getting into what's wrong with the law, let's talk
>> >>> about what's right: Its goals are absolutely dead on. Society
>> >>> should protect people who are vulnerable to harassment or
>> >>> violence because of who they are or what they believe.
>>
>> >>> I applaud any movement and provision that protects all citizens
>> >>> from harm. But weakening and damaging our country is not
>> >>> something to be proud of. And that is exactly what this new hate
>> >>> crime law does.
>>
>> >>> The bill tacks on penalties to violent crimes when deemed as
>> >>> motivated by gender, sexual orientation or disabilities. It's the
>> >>> first major expansion of hate crimes legislation originally
>> >>> passed in 1968, targeting crimes aimed at race, color, religion
>> >>> and national origin.
>>
>> >> The public can stop this by using jury nullification. Refuse to
>> >> convict
>> >> anyone charged under this law.
>>
>> > Only worthless, amoral assholes would do that.
>>
>> Why? Because someone might see that the motivation for the crime is
>> no mo
> re
>> relevent than the motivation of a similar crime that doesn't carry
>> all th
> ese
>> extra penalities?
>>
>> A man was beaten up by another man.....
>>
>> How is that crime different because of the motivation?
>
> If a particular group is singled out, it affects and terrorizes the
> entire group.
>
> Example: I was in Spokane, Washington, many years ago. There was a
> rapist on the loose. The women of Spokane were crazy with worry,
> including my grandmother, who was in her 70s. Lots of anxiety,
> triple- checking windows and doors, not sleeping well, etc.
>
> So, it wasn't just the women who were raped who were affected.
>
> Now consider a man gets beat up, and the reason and ONLY reason he's
> beat up is because he's gay.
Perhaps he was beaten up because he ran his mouth to the wrong person, or
was skinny, or was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Do you
honestly think that those should be treated differently? How about if he
was killed for those reasons?
Every other gay person, or person who
> might be mistaken for being gay, is affected, especially in the area
> where the beating took place (which might then also affect local
> businesses).
>
> People are not beaten up for no reason.
Sometimes they are. They simply happened to be in the wrong place at the
wrong time.
> Maybe you have a couple of
> men who get into an argument and get into a fight. Maybe they're
> drunk. Maybe one was hitting on the other's girlfriend. There's a
> REASON. But to just go up and start beating up someone because he's
> gay (or is mistaken for being gay) or Jewish or Arabic or something...
> those "states of being" don't provide REASON, and attacking such
> people is attacking the entire group.
Do you think that if they got killed that they would be deader because
they may be gay? Is killing a gay anymore heinous than killing a woman?
Is beating someone to death who happens to be gay any more heinous than
using a hatchet to dismember someone who made a pass at your girlfriend?
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass
a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand
it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who
hasn't read it, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn't
pay his taxes because he didn't understand TurboTax, overseen by an obese
Surgeon General and financed by a country that's nearly broke.
What could possibly go wrong?
Josh
Yep, you are getting it. Our current system provides differing
punishments based on perpetrator motive with no issues regarding double
standards or equal protection. The hate crimes laws too do nothing more
then provide an enhanced degree of a crime based on perpetrator motive.
>>>>>> Most of us don't call after the fact distinctions based on the
>>>>>> perpetrators motives a double standard.
>>>>> Normal people do. If I'm stealing a TV set to watch it myself or to
>>>>> fence it and use the money to give to the poor, WTF difference does it
>>>>> make? It's still theft.
>>>> Then I guess the majority is not normal (a contradiction by definition).
>>> By definition the majority *is* normal.
>> Yes, exactly my point. You claim "normal people do" think it is a
>> double standard when punishment is based on the perpetrator's motive.
>> Yet, the majority disagree with you (see the intentional motive
>> example). Therefore, either the majority are not normal (my sarcastic
>> reply, which of course is by definition not correct) or you are wrong
>> (the truth).
>
> Your goal post move is noted. We are, of course, discussing
> intentional criminal acts.
I'm not moving the goalposts. I'm demonstrating there is an analogy
between current law and the hate crimes laws (different perpetrator
motives gets different degrees of crimes and punishments).
Josh Rosenbluth
Wayne
"Jim Yanik" <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote in message
news:Xns9CCA841B8E7j...@216.168.3.44...
> s...@above.com wrote in news:527gg5hr34ljnkemq...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:52:35 -0500, "Scout"
>><me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Now, if you wish to classify hate crimes as ANY crime committed
>>>because of some distinct characteristic of the victim, and that
>>>characteristic can be ANYTHING from race and sex to hair style and
>>>shoes.
>>
>> Pretty much.
>>
>>
>
> No matter what the characteristic,there still has to be a determination
> that the accused actually acted(for that particular crime) based on the
> claimed "hate" and not some other reason.
> Not just because the victim happened to be "X".
>
> that is where all these laws become "thoughtcrime".
>
> --
> Jim Yanik
-
Yep. But, another function of hate crime is to provide a mechanism to put
the perp in double jeopardy. The feds like to do this if they believe the
state laws didn't go far enough. They can hit the perp with a stiffer
prosecution. That has been done in the deep south.
With the new hate crimes law, the feds are given a way to "supervise" the
outcomes of high profile politically correct cases.
RD (The Sandman)
> On Nov 21, 7:20�pm, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeI...@HotMail.com> wrote:
>> "Pat Magroyne" <patmagro...@null.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:8fb0fdf6-f647-47d7...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com
>> ... On Nov 20, 5:47 pm, "Scout"
>> #
>> # If a particular group is singled out, it affects and terrorizes the
>> # entire group.
>> #
>> # Example: �I was in Spokane, Washington, many years ago. �There was
> a
>> # rapist on the loose. �The women of Spokane were crazy with worry,
>> # including my grandmother, who was in her 70s. �Lots of anxiety,
>> tripl
> e-
>> # checking windows and doors, not sleeping well, etc.
>> #
>> # So, it wasn't just the women who were raped who were affected.
>> #
>> # Now consider a man gets beat up, and the reason and ONLY reason
>> he's # beat up is because he's gay. �Every other gay person, or
>> person who # might be mistaken for being gay, is affected, especially
>> in the area # where the beating took place (which might then also
>> affect local # businesses).
>> #
>> # People are not beaten up for no reason. �Maybe you have a couple of
>> # men who get into an argument and get into a fight. �Maybe they're
>> # drunk. �Maybe one was hitting on the other's girlfriend. �There's a
>> # REASON. �But to just go up and start beating up someone because
>> he's # gay (or is mistaken for being gay) or Jewish or Arabic or
>> something... # those "states of being" don't provide REASON, and
>> attacking such # people is attacking the entire group.
>>
>> You have some issues with consistency
>> 1) � �According to you, a guy gets beaten up because he's gay, And th
> en you
>> claim that beating up someone because they're gay is NOT a reason
>
> Correct. The gay person, by simply being gay, has done nothing to
> invite an attack, other than simply being gay (which isn't an "act").
> He hasn't gotten into an argument with someone, hasn't cut someone off
> in traffic, hasn't hit anyone, hasn't tried to pick up someone else's
> girlfriend... simply by being what he is, he is attacked. And that's
> not a reason to hit someone, any more than hating pigtails is a reason
> to assault a girl who wears them.
>
>>
>> 2)) � �So if a guy gets beaten up then all males are being attacked,
>
> If the guy gets beaten up FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN THAT HE IS MALE,
> yeah.
>
>> just
>> like (according to you) if a woman gets raped, all women are being
>> attack
> ed.
>
> Rape isn't actually, generally, considered a "hate crime". There are
> other things involved in rape besides a hatred of women.
It isn't a sex crime either. It is usually a "power" crime.
> But my point illustrates what happens to a community of women when
> women in that community are raped.
>
>> Your logic has a big enough hole to drive a big rig through it
>
> Says the person who doesn't show us how this might be so. So me the
> flaws in my logic. Your time starts....
OK. You stated that a woman was raped.....that is a crime that affects
all women. You also stated that a gay man was killed. He may have been
killed for many reasons....ONE of which is that he was gay or Jewish or
Arabic or something.. He was also a male. Why do you think that would
not affect other males?
You had stated that he was attacked (or killed) simply because he was
gay. How would you know that?
RD (The Sandman)
> On Nov 20, 5:47�pm, "Scout"
> <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>> Lefty wrote:
>> > On Nov 19, 8:59 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>> >> Pat Magroyne wrote:
>> >>> On Nov 19, 6:42 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>> >>>> Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:
>> >>>>>http://www.gainesvilleregister.com/editorials/local_story_3141447
>> >>>>>04.
> html
>> >>>>> Are some violent crimes more heinous than others? Is killing a
>> >>>>> person because of race, sexual orientation or religion worse,
>> >>>>> say, than murdering someone because you were drunk or he rear
>> >>>>> ended your car? ...
>> >>>> So-called 'hate crime' legislation is unconstitutional,
>>
>> >>> Nope.
>>
>> >>>> it violated the
>> >>>> principle of equal protection.
>>
>> >>> Nope. Protection based on race protects members of all races,
>> >>> including whites. Protection based on sexual orientation protects
>> >>> heterosexuals as well as homosexuals.
>>
>> >> Well then what is the purpose of the law?
>>
>> > The purpose of it is to make the statement that a particular
>> > motivation for violence is especially heinous.
>>
>> I see, so if they are motivated by a hatred of race, sex, religion or
>> sex
> ual
>> orientation then that is an especially heinous crime.....if however
>> they
> are
>> motivated by some other type of hatred, then well that sort of hate
>> isn't important at all.
>
>
>> Double standard.
>>
>> Some types of hate are heinous, other types of hate are not.
>>
>> But the hate and the crimes are the same.
>
> What other type of hatred are you talking about?
>
He already mentioned redheads. How about if the attacker simply hates
people with Down's Syndrome? Or tall people? Or men in brown coats?
RD (The Sandman)
> On Nov 21, 7:22�pm, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeI...@HotMail.com> wrote:
>> "Pat Magroyne" <patmagro...@null.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:91f2aed7-ed14-4476...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com
>> ... On Nov 20, 5:47 pm, "Scout"
>> #
>> # What other type of hatred are you talking about?
>>
>> You're the one claiming that one type of hatred has more "gravitas"
>> than some other kind of hatred
>
> Well, I didn't actually claim that.
Not in so many words.....
>> � � A guy hates straight women and beats them up counts for less than
> a guy who beats up lesbians because they're lesbians
>
> Nope. Straight women and lesbians are both protected equally.
Are they? Or are lesbians looked at as gays for the purpose of hate
crime legislation......because they are.
>> � � A guy beats up other guys because they're straight, counts for le
> ss than
>> a guy who beats up guys because they're gay
>
> Nope. Straight men and gay men are both protected equally.
Not if beating up a gay man (or attacking a gay woman) is treated as a
hate crime and the other isn't.
>> That's called a double standard NO MATTER how you try to weasel
>> around
>
> Nope. "Sexual orientation" covers straights AND gays.
However, you won't find someone who beat up a straight guy charged with a
hate crime, will you.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Hey, you're finally getting it! Every one is ALREADY equally protected
by the law, no matter what their persuasion. Therefore, no need to
create special classes of people like homos or poodle owners who get
more protection.
> The hate crimes laws too do nothing more
>then provide an enhanced degree of a crime based on perpetrator motive.
They provide an "enhanced degree of crime?" WTF is that? I was just
attacked and got a chipped tooth and a swollen lip, and the homo
across town got a chipped tooth and a swollen lip. We were both
attacked purposefully- why should the guy that attacked the home get a
stiffer sentence? What makes hitting a homo so special?
>
>>>>>>> Most of us don't call after the fact distinctions based on the
>>>>>>> perpetrators motives a double standard.
>>>>>> Normal people do. If I'm stealing a TV set to watch it myself or to
>>>>>> fence it and use the money to give to the poor, WTF difference does it
>>>>>> make? It's still theft.
>>>>> Then I guess the majority is not normal (a contradiction by definition).
>>>> By definition the majority *is* normal.
>>> Yes, exactly my point. You claim "normal people do" think it is a
>>> double standard when punishment is based on the perpetrator's motive.
>>> Yet, the majority disagree with you (see the intentional motive
>>> example). Therefore, either the majority are not normal (my sarcastic
>>> reply, which of course is by definition not correct) or you are wrong
>>> (the truth).
>>
>> Your goal post move is noted. We are, of course, discussing
>> intentional criminal acts.
>
>I'm not moving the goalposts. I'm demonstrating there is an analogy
>between current law and the hate crimes laws (different perpetrator
>motives gets different degrees of crimes and punishments).
You've not only moved goal posts, you're not even on same playing
field. Everyone is protected by the law equally. If you hit ANYONE on
purpose you get penalty A. If you hit ANYONE by accident you get
lesser penalty B.
Hitting is already a crime.
Now, address my statement directly.
If I'm stealing a TV set to watch it myself or to
fence it and use the money to give to the poor, WTF difference does it
make? It's still theft.
If I attack a homo because he's a homo, or an old lady because she's
weak and frail, WTF difference does it make? It's still a crime that
needs to be punished.