The Stupidity of Hate Crime legislation.
tjwilson
instance, age hate crime. I forgot what the cut off age was, but let's
say it's 60. Criminal hits a 60 year old on the head and gets 5 more
years in jail than hitting a 59 and 9 month old. Forget the hate crime
legislation and just add 5 years more on to assault offenses if you
want. Same way on the other end. What ever the child's age it makes no
sense to add on more years if there is only a few months difference.
My opinion is that Hate Crime legislation is just another left-wing plan
to pit one group against another by giving preferential treatment to
special groups. It would be OK with me if preferential treatment were
given to the law abiding over the criminals.
tjw
The OldTimer
tjwilson wrote in message <373D8A00...@hb.quik.com>...
Wait a minute! I think you've hit on something there. Old age hate crime. It
would be criminal to not keep social security in tact for us old timers.
One of the most enjoyable things about being 65 is
watching the younger generations make the same
dumb mistakes, the same stupid assumptions,
buy the same political scams and fall for the same
societal gimmicks and not having a clue as to what
is really going on. The fun is seeing that look on
their faces, when the truth finally hits them.
The OldTimer
The OldTimer
Charles Fiterman wrote in message <3740075...@geodesic.com>...
In assult cases its normal to ask about motavation. Was this self
defense? Robbery? Attempted murder?
Hate crime laws should ask "Was this an attempt to put a whole group of
people in fear?" If it was it makes sense to have extra penalties and severe
ones. Attempts to put whole groups of people in fear make everyone's lives
poorer.
It is very wrong to name which groups are covered, an attempt to put all
bald people in fear is no better than an attempt to put all black people in
fear. To see this lets look at a protected group and an unprotected group.
The protected group is gay people living in San Francisco. This group
has lots of political clout, if the police find a gay man murdered in San
Francisco experience tells them that their first suspects should be other
gay men because like most minorities this group creates most of its own
problems. Violence is directed against those you are around.
The unprotected group is gay people lving in Texas. This group has no
political clout whatever, if the police find a gay man murdered in Texas
experience tells them their first suspects should be skin heads, hate cults
and other gay bashers. Political realism tells them to give the case a very
low priority and they do.
It should be obvious that this is backward, special protection is a
tribute to political clout and indicates that special protection is not
needed. I'm for hate crime laws but opposed to naming any groups whatever.
And it sure says volumes for that "all ??? are equal under the law"
bullshit, huh?
tjwilson
>
>
> Charles Fiterman wrote:
> <snip>
Are not the gay people in Texas protected by the same laws that protect
other citizens? If not they should be. Then we would need no hate
laws.
Here's one for you.
The state of Maine does not have capital punishment. Recently a bill
was introduced in the state legislature to reinstate it. If passed it
would allow for the execution of any one convicted of murdering a state
legislator or two ordinary taxpayers.. How's that for preferential
treatment!
tjw
JWMeritt
breaking of a law?
Last I heard, there weren't any postcognative telepaths sitting on the bench,
so rulings on past intentions look like hearsay.
The Red Queen Principle: (from Beyond the Looking Glass, where the Red Queen
points out "in this place it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the
same place") Continuing development is needed just in order to maintain
(relative) fitness
JWMeritt
I find you comment more than a little odd - none of what you said was
referenced. Why did you assume it did?
>There are ways of proving motivation in certain cases.
>Such as a beating by a black man of a random white in
>which the perp is yelling "Take this Whitey!" during
>the beating.
How is evidence of this "yelling" provided? Hearsay?
David Annis
1. Vandals spray-painting a flower on my garage door
2. Vandals spray-painting a swastika on a synagogue door
Why or Why not?
******************************************************
* Dave Annis | With age comes wisdom, if you *
* Sheboygan, WI | stay awake along the way! *
******************************************************
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>Is there a difference between these two crimes:
>1. Vandals spray-painting a flower on my garage door
>2. Vandals spray-painting a swastika on a synagogue door
>Why or Why not?
No. Both caused property damage.
1). Vandal spray-painting a swastika on your garage door
2). Vandal spray-painting a swastika on a synagogue door
3). Vandal spray-painting a flower on your garage door
4). Vandal spray-painting a flower on a snyagogue door
5). Vandals painting burning a flag on the Capital
Is there a difference in those crimes?
If so, what?
JSL
The OldTimer
no-spam-...@world.std.com wrote in message ...
>>>>>> Jeffrey Scott Linder writes:
>
> Jeffrey> dan...@execpc.com (David Annis) wrote:
> >> Is there a difference between these two crimes:
>
> >> 1. Vandals spray-painting a flower on my garage door
>
> >> 2. Vandals spray-painting a swastika on a synagogue door
>
> >> Why or Why not?
>
>
> Jeffrey> 1). Vandal spray-painting a swastika on your garage door
> Jeffrey> 2). Vandal spray-painting a swastika on a synagogue door
> Jeffrey> 3). Vandal spray-painting a flower on your garage door
> Jeffrey> 4). Vandal spray-painting a flower on a snyagogue door
> Jeffrey> 5). Vandals painting burning a flag on the Capital
>
> Jeffrey> Is there a difference in those crimes?
>
> Jeffrey> If so, what?
>
>1 and 2 are likely to be perceived as threats of violence.
>
And be careful if you charge someone with illegal perception because they
can come back and charge you with a hate crime because they perceived you as
being violent against whatever special word they wish to be called by on
that given day.
David Annis
Linder) wrote:
>dan...@execpc.com (David Annis) wrote:
>
>>Is there a difference between these two crimes:
>
>>1. Vandals spray-painting a flower on my garage door
>
>>2. Vandals spray-painting a swastika on a synagogue door
>
>>Why or Why not?
>
>No. Both caused property damage.
>
>1). Vandal spray-painting a swastika on your garage door
>2). Vandal spray-painting a swastika on a synagogue door
>3). Vandal spray-painting a flower on your garage door
>4). Vandal spray-painting a flower on a snyagogue door
>5). Vandals painting burning a flag on the Capital
>
>Is there a difference in those crimes?
>
>If so, what?
>
>JSL
Your answer did clarify a point I was confused about. You consider the
painting of a swastika on a synagogue door to be property damage and
nothing more. If you do not recognize any impact on the community as a
whole in this specific act of vandalism, then you will certainly not
understand the point of any "hate crime" legislation.
What does the word "community" mean to you?
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>>>>>> Jeffrey Scott Linder writes:
> Jeffrey> dan...@execpc.com (David Annis) wrote:
> >> Is there a difference between these two crimes:
> >> 1. Vandals spray-painting a flower on my garage door
> >> 2. Vandals spray-painting a swastika on a synagogue door
> >> Why or Why not?
> Jeffrey> No. Both caused property damage.
> Jeffrey> 1). Vandal spray-painting a swastika on your garage door
> Jeffrey> 2). Vandal spray-painting a swastika on a synagogue door
> Jeffrey> 3). Vandal spray-painting a flower on your garage door
> Jeffrey> 4). Vandal spray-painting a flower on a snyagogue door
> Jeffrey> 5). Vandals painting burning a flag on the Capital
> Jeffrey> Is there a difference in those crimes?
> Jeffrey> If so, what?
>1 and 2 are likely to be perceived as threats of violence.
I perceive all 5 as threats of violence.
JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>On Tue, 18 May 1999 15:11:43 GMT, linde...@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott
>Linder) wrote:
>>dan...@execpc.com (David Annis) wrote:
>>
>>>Is there a difference between these two crimes:
>>
>>>1. Vandals spray-painting a flower on my garage door
>>
>>>2. Vandals spray-painting a swastika on a synagogue door
>>
>>>Why or Why not?
>>
>>No. Both caused property damage.
>>
>>1). Vandal spray-painting a swastika on your garage door
>>2). Vandal spray-painting a swastika on a synagogue door
>>3). Vandal spray-painting a flower on your garage door
>>4). Vandal spray-painting a flower on a snyagogue door
>>5). Vandals painting burning a flag on the Capital
>>
>>Is there a difference in those crimes?
>>
>>If so, what?
>>
>>JSL
>Your answer did clarify a point I was confused about. You consider the
>painting of a swastika on a synagogue door to be property damage and
>nothing more.
Oh no, its a "politcal statement", no matter how vile you might
perceive it to be.
>If you do not recognize any impact on the community as a
>whole in this specific act of vandalism, then you will certainly not
>understand the point of any "hate crime" legislation.
BINGO!
>What does the word "community" mean to you?
Nothing special.
What about #5? Would you consider that to be a hate crime since it
has an impact on the "community"?
JSL
tjwilson
a Hate Crime?
tjw
RHA
<no-spam-...@world.std.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Jeffrey Scott Linder writes:
>
> >> no-spam-...@world.std.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Jeffrey Scott Linder writes:
>
> >> >> Is there a difference between these two crimes:
>
> >> >> 1. Vandals spray-painting a flower on my garage door
>
> >> >> 2. Vandals spray-painting a swastika on a synagogue door
>
> >> >> Why or Why not?
>
>
> Jeffrey> 1). Vandal spray-painting a swastika on your garage door
> Jeffrey> 2). Vandal spray-painting a swastika on a synagogue door
> Jeffrey> 3). Vandal spray-painting a flower on your garage door
> Jeffrey> 4). Vandal spray-painting a flower on a snyagogue door
> Jeffrey> 5). Vandals painting burning a flag on the Capital
>
> Jeffrey> Is there a difference in those crimes?
>
> Jeffrey> If so, what?
>
> >> 1 and 2 are likely to be perceived as threats of violence.
>
>
>I do not.
Hmmm, Mr. Linder calls number 5 a threat. Remember
the film of war protestors putting flowers into
the barrels of armed soldiers? Sounds as though
Mr. Linder would view *that action* too as a threat
as well.
>
>ah
>(Now reading Usenet in talk.politics.misc...)
--
rha
The OldTimer
tjwilson wrote in message <3742EFCA...@hb.quik.com>...
>Would spray painting Rx on the door of a Christian Science Reading Room be
>a Hate Crime?
>tjw
>
>Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
>
>> dan...@execpc.com (David Annis) wrote:
>>
>> >On Tue, 18 May 1999 15:11:43 GMT, linde...@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott
>> >Linder) wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >>>Is there a difference between these two crimes:
>> >>
>> >>>1. Vandals spray-painting a flower on my garage door
>> >>
>> >>>2. Vandals spray-painting a swastika on a synagogue door
>> >>
>> >>>Why or Why not?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>JSL
>>
>> >Your answer did clarify a point I was confused about. You consider the
>> >painting of a swastika on a synagogue door to be property damage and
>> >nothing more.
>>
>> Oh no, its a "politcal statement", no matter how vile you might
>> perceive it to be.
>>
>> >If you do not recognize any impact on the community as a
>> >whole in this specific act of vandalism, then you will certainly not
>> >understand the point of any "hate crime" legislation.
>>
>> BINGO!
>>
>> >What does the word "community" mean to you?
>>
>> Nothing special.
>>
>> What about #5? Would you consider that to be a hate crime since it
>> has an impact on the "community"?
>>
>> JSL
>
I hope this bill passes. I can't wait to get that Whattaburger gal back for
refusing me a discount.
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>>>>>> Jeffrey Scott Linder writes:
> >> no-spam-...@world.std.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Jeffrey Scott Linder writes:
> Jeffrey> dan...@execpc.com (David Annis) wrote:
> >> >> Is there a difference between these two crimes:
> >> >> 1. Vandals spray-painting a flower on my garage door
> >> >> 2. Vandals spray-painting a swastika on a synagogue door
> >> >> Why or Why not?
> Jeffrey> No. Both caused property damage.
> Jeffrey> 1). Vandal spray-painting a swastika on your garage door
> Jeffrey> 2). Vandal spray-painting a swastika on a synagogue door
> Jeffrey> 3). Vandal spray-painting a flower on your garage door
> Jeffrey> 4). Vandal spray-painting a flower on a snyagogue door
> Jeffrey> 5). Vandals painting burning a flag on the Capital
> Jeffrey> Is there a difference in those crimes?
> Jeffrey> If so, what?
> >> 1 and 2 are likely to be perceived as threats of violence.
> Jeffrey> I perceive all 5 as threats of violence.
>I do not.
Well, there you go.
JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>In article <sodiu9p...@world.std.com>,
> Hmmm, Mr. Linder calls number 5 a threat. Remember
> the film of war protestors putting flowers into
> the barrels of armed soldiers? Sounds as though
> Mr. Linder would view *that action* too as a threat
> as well.
So? Who are you to tell me what I can and cannot perceive as a
threat?
JSL
David Annis
Linder) wrote:
>dan...@execpc.com (David Annis) wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 18 May 1999 15:11:43 GMT, linde...@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott
>>Linder) wrote:
>
>>>dan...@execpc.com (David Annis) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Is there a difference between these two crimes:
>>>
>>>>1. Vandals spray-painting a flower on my garage door
>>>
>>>>2. Vandals spray-painting a swastika on a synagogue door
>>>
>>>>Why or Why not?
>>>
>>>No. Both caused property damage.
>>>
>>>1). Vandal spray-painting a swastika on your garage door
>>>2). Vandal spray-painting a swastika on a synagogue door
>>>3). Vandal spray-painting a flower on your garage door
>>>4). Vandal spray-painting a flower on a snyagogue door
>>>5). Vandals painting burning a flag on the Capital
I expect you mean "burning a flag", but do you mean vandals who sneak
up to the capital in the middle of the night, burn the flag, and run?
>>>
>>>Is there a difference in those crimes?
>>>
>>>If so, what?
>>>
>>>JSL
>
>>Your answer did clarify a point I was confused about. You consider the
>>painting of a swastika on a synagogue door to be property damage and
>>nothing more.
>
>Oh no, its a "politcal statement", no matter how vile you might
>perceive it to be.
>
I'm guessing that the content of that "statement" is: "We (the
painters of the swastika) will kill all of you as soon as we acquire
the necessary power!". Is that politics?
>>If you do not recognize any impact on the community as a
>>whole in this specific act of vandalism, then you will certainly not
>>understand the point of any "hate crime" legislation.
>
>BINGO!
>
>>What does the word "community" mean to you?
>
>Nothing special.
>
Exactly. This seems to be the "great divide" in current political
views. One view (I did it MY way) is that our society is composed of
pure individuals, with no responsibility outside oneself, with
complete autonomy and (near) absolute freedom. The other view (He
ain't heavy, he's my brother) is that our society is a fabric of
interdependence between co-operating individuals, whose freedoms are
valued for the benefit they provide to society as a whole.
Based only on my personal experience in work, church, and recreational
living, I believe that a large majority in the USA subscribes to the
interdependence model of society. We value the contributions of the
frontier spirits, but we don't live out there. We live in a community
of mutual support, or in multiple nested and intersecting communities
of mutual support. We have seen the damage to our communities that
results from unrestrained bigotry, and we want to suppress that
damage.
>What about #5? Would you consider that to be a hate crime since it
>has an impact on the "community"?
>
I didn't suggest that "impact on the community" was a definition of
hate crime. I'm only suggesting that, lacking any agreement on the
idea of "community", we can't even discuss the concept of "hate
crime". If there is no community, there can be no offense committed
against that community.
As far as flag burning is concerned, how great is the threat to the
government and people of the United States? Is it more or less than
the threat of someone taking his grievances underground and bombing
federal buildings? Freedom of speach is a protection to the community,
because it keeps the madmen in public view. Suppression of bad ideas
fertilizes them.
>JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>On Wed, 19 May 1999 14:08:10 GMT, linde...@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott
>Linder) wrote:
>>dan...@execpc.com (David Annis) wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 18 May 1999 15:11:43 GMT, linde...@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott
>>>Linder) wrote:
>>
>>>>dan...@execpc.com (David Annis) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Is there a difference between these two crimes:
>>>>
>>>>>1. Vandals spray-painting a flower on my garage door
>>>>
>>>>>2. Vandals spray-painting a swastika on a synagogue door
>>>>
>>>>>Why or Why not?
>>>>
>>>>No. Both caused property damage.
>>>>
>>>>1). Vandal spray-painting a swastika on your garage door
>>>>2). Vandal spray-painting a swastika on a synagogue door
>>>>3). Vandal spray-painting a flower on your garage door
>>>>4). Vandal spray-painting a flower on a snyagogue door
>>>>5). Vandals painting burning a flag on the Capital
>I expect you mean "burning a flag", but do you mean vandals who sneak
>up to the capital in the middle of the night, burn the flag, and run?
No. Vandals painting a burning flag on the Capital.
>>>>
>>>>Is there a difference in those crimes?
>>>>
>>>>If so, what?
>>>>
>>>>JSL
>>
>>>Your answer did clarify a point I was confused about. You consider the
>>>painting of a swastika on a synagogue door to be property damage and
>>>nothing more.
>>
>>Oh no, its a "politcal statement", no matter how vile you might
>>perceive it to be.
>>
>I'm guessing that the content of that "statement" is: "We (the
>painters of the swastika) will kill all of you as soon as we acquire
>the necessary power!". Is that politics?
Sure is.
How does one commit a "crime" against a "community"?
>As far as flag burning is concerned, how great is the threat to the
>government and people of the United States?
So you simply want to dismiss the feelings of an entire community
because you don't think its a big deal?
>Is it more or less than
>the threat of someone taking his grievances underground and bombing
>federal buildings?
Bombing federal buildings is not a threat, its a crime.
David Annis
Linder) wrote:
As I tried to say, if you don't recognize the concept of "community"
as more significant than just a bunch of people squatting near each
other, I can no more explain it to you than I can explain color to a
man born blind.
Most people will recognize that dumping the mangled, dead body of a
black man on the front lawn of a church with an all-black congregation
is something more than simple murder.
>>As far as flag burning is concerned, how great is the threat to the
>>government and people of the United States?
>
>So you simply want to dismiss the feelings of an entire community
>because you don't think its a big deal?
>
You seem to have translated my question "how great is the threat ...?"
into "I don't think it's a big deal". I mean what I say, not what you
say.
Hence, the rest of the question:
>>Is it more or less than
>>the threat of someone taking his grievances underground and bombing
>>federal buildings?
>
>Bombing federal buildings is not a threat, its a crime.
>
... but a threat is a threat. I'm comparing threats here.
>>Freedom of speach is a protection to the community,
>>because it keeps the madmen in public view. Suppression of bad ideas
>>fertilizes them.
>
>JSL
******************************************************
bre...@no-spam.com
>In article <sodiu9p...@world.std.com>,
> <no-spam-...@world.std.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Jeffrey Scott Linder writes:
>>
>> >> no-spam-...@world.std.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>> Jeffrey Scott Linder writes:
>>
>> Jeffrey> dan...@execpc.com (David Annis) wrote:
>> >> >> Is there a difference between these two crimes:
>>
>> >> >> 1. Vandals spray-painting a flower on my garage door
>>
>> >> >> 2. Vandals spray-painting a swastika on a synagogue door
>>
>> >> >> Why or Why not?
>>
>> Jeffrey> No. Both caused property damage.
>>
>> Jeffrey> 1). Vandal spray-painting a swastika on your garage door
>> Jeffrey> 2). Vandal spray-painting a swastika on a synagogue door
>> Jeffrey> 3). Vandal spray-painting a flower on your garage door
>> Jeffrey> 4). Vandal spray-painting a flower on a snyagogue door
>> Jeffrey> 5). Vandals painting burning a flag on the Capital
>>
>> Jeffrey> Is there a difference in those crimes?
>>
>> Jeffrey> If so, what?
>>
>> >> 1 and 2 are likely to be perceived as threats of violence.
>>
>> Jeffrey> I perceive all 5 as threats of violence.
>>
>>I do not.
>
> Hmmm, Mr. Linder calls number 5 a threat. Remember
> the film of war protestors putting flowers into
> the barrels of armed soldiers? Sounds as though
> Mr. Linder would view *that action* too as a threat
> as well.
>
>>
>>ah
>>(Now reading Usenet in talk.politics.misc...)
Yes. In this case, the medium is not the message.
Cheers,
Bredon
********************************************************
Email mailto:Pres...@whitehouse.gov to "Pardon the Lewinskys!"
Julie Steele freed! Needs donations for $500,000 legal fees:
http://www.juliehiattsteele.com/
News site worth checking? http://www.consortiumnews.com/
Good info: http://www.rain.org/~openmind/jonesrev.htm
WP article, Serb's offensive was planned before bombing:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/1999-04/11/035r-041199-idx.html
The Eight Classic Moral Principles:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/4809/
*****************************************************
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>On Fri, 21 May 1999 13:31:36 GMT, linde...@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott
>Linder) wrote:
>>dan...@execpc.com (David Annis) wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 19 May 1999 14:08:10 GMT, linde...@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott
>>>Linder) wrote:
>>
>>>>dan...@execpc.com (David Annis) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 18 May 1999 15:11:43 GMT, linde...@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott
>>>>>Linder) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>dan...@execpc.com (David Annis) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Is there a difference between these two crimes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>1. Vandals spray-painting a flower on my garage door
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>2. Vandals spray-painting a swastika on a synagogue door
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Why or Why not?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No. Both caused property damage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>1). Vandal spray-painting a swastika on your garage door
>>>>>>2). Vandal spray-painting a swastika on a synagogue door
>>>>>>3). Vandal spray-painting a flower on your garage door
>>>>>>4). Vandal spray-painting a flower on a snyagogue door
>>>>>>5). Vandals painting burning a flag on the Capital
>>
>>>I expect you mean "burning a flag", but do you mean vandals who sneak
>>>up to the capital in the middle of the night, burn the flag, and run?
>>
>>No. Vandals painting a burning flag on the Capital.
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Is there a difference in those crimes?
>>>>>>
So how does on commit a "crime" against a "community?"
>Most people will recognize that dumping the mangled, dead body of a
>black man on the front lawn of a church with an all-black congregation
>is something more than simple murder.
Maybe less.
>>>As far as flag burning is concerned, how great is the threat to the
>>>government and people of the United States?
>>
>>So you simply want to dismiss the feelings of an entire community
>>because you don't think its a big deal?
>>
>You seem to have translated my question "how great is the threat ...?"
>into "I don't think it's a big deal". I mean what I say, not what you
>say.
Yet you are willing to use your criteria as to what is a "threat to
the community" but are unwilling to accept my criteria even though I'm
a member of that "community?"
>Hence, the rest of the question:
>>>Is it more or less than
>>>the threat of someone taking his grievances underground and bombing
>>>federal buildings?
>>
>>Bombing federal buildings is not a threat, its a crime.
>>
>... but a threat is a threat. I'm comparing threats here.
Compare away.
>>>Freedom of speach is a protection to the community,
>>>because it keeps the madmen in public view. Suppression of bad ideas
>>>fertilizes them.
>>
>>JSL
JSL