He asked why a mitigating factor should be considered.
My position is "Why shouldn't it?"
-- And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
Every year, just before the November elections, I always see signs that say "Free Kittens." Who is this Kittens person? What did she do? Does Amnesty International know? -- Dionisio, 1994
Scout wrote: > Dionisio wrote: >>And you formed that opinion due to what observation?
>>Could it have been this...?
>><Historic item> >>Scout wrote:
>>>If homosexuality is to be seen as a normal acceptable sexual >>>orientation, then why should/would we want to indicate it is >>>abnormal by imposing special laws concerning it?
>>Ah, that old thing.
...
> Which it should be noted has nothing to do with the context of the question > being asked of you.
Ah, a tad snippy 'cause you realized how facile your comment was, eh?
I change a couple words and suddenly you're all defensive...
You'll get over it.
-- And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
"There's only one problem with the theory of gays-as-ethnic-group: It denies the true plasticity of human sexuality and, in so doing, helps heterosexuals evade that which they really fear. And what heterosexuals really fear is not that "they" -- an alien subgroup with perverse tastes in bedfellows -- are getting an undue share of power and attention, but that "they" might well be us." -- Time, May 10, 1993 v141 n19 p76
tankfixer wrote: > So how does "hate crime" legislation make anyone safer ?
How do laws against murder make anyone safer?
If a perp kills you, you're just as dead. That's not exactly "safe," is it?
Would you feel safe walking down a dark alley in a "bad" section of town because you know that murder is illegal?
Criminals are criminals because they choose to *not* obey the common niceties, not because they choose to abide by them.
No. Laws do not serve to provide safety. What they serve to do is remove undesirable elements from the mix for a while. (Provided the jury finds sufficient cause for a "guilty" verdict.)
What would you propose? Removing the laws against murder since they don't *prevent* murder?
What do you propose, removing the distinctions between murder, and premeditated murder, since dead is dead?
Come now...
-- And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
You know you've created God in your own image when He hates the exact same people that you do.
> Would you feel safe walking down a dark alley in a "bad" section of town because you know > that murder is illegal?
> Criminals are criminals because they choose to *not* obey the common niceties, not because > they choose to abide by them.
> No. Laws do not serve to provide safety. What they serve to do is remove undesirable > elements from the mix for a while. (Provided the jury finds sufficient cause for a > "guilty" verdict.)
> What would you propose? Removing the laws against murder since they don't *prevent* murder?
> What do you propose, removing the distinctions between murder, and premeditated murder, > since dead is dead?
> Come now...
You danced all around the question. How is making it a "hate crime" change any facts ?
> Gray Ghost wrote: >> Dionisio <moc.rr.thgi...@5ellimd.com> wrote: >>>If I kill "Victim X" as opposed to "Victim Y," that is random. >>>If I kill any victim of a certain characteristic... What's that called >>>again? Is it a "serial killer"? >>>Go ahead, tell me that we should treat serial killers the same as other >>>killers. That *is* your argument, yes? >>>You're uncomfortable with aggressors who act out against >>>those-of-cerain-traits being called out for what they are. >>>Tough.
>> Much fury signifying nothing.
>> So the person dead from random crime deserves less justice than the >> other victims?
> As I said earlier, *all* crimes deserve justice.
> *All* crimes deserve to be investigated fully.
> *All* crimes deserve to be met with appropriate responses.
> Your scarecrow of "thought crimes" is merely straw with clothing. We're > not dealing with thoughts, rather with defined actions. Yes, there were > thoughts behind them. But thoughts are not a crime. Acting on them to the > detriment of a person's life, property, liberty, livelihood, etc... > That's where the crime comes into play.
> I could think of punching you. That is not a crime. Punching you is.
> If I punch you because I think you've stolen my man, that's motivation. > (And if you punch me 'cause you think I've stolen your woman, that's > motivation too. Laughable in each consideration, but true nonetheless.)
> If I punch you because I wish to terrorize the class or group of people > whom you represent, that's something else entirely.
> Even you know that.
What I know is that people that attack a sinble person out of hate for a class or group are not very bright to begin with. And that "hate crime" legislation tends to make martyrs of them to thier inbred compatriots.
As has been pointed out already motive is a component of what needs to be produced to rpove a person committed a crime. Therefore motive is in fact not ignored.
Here's a radical concept for you, equal protection. How is it equal if one person is held to a higher standing based on thier class or group? A black man being assaulted by a racist blockhead is still a human being. If the blockhead assaults me, a white person, because he's a blockhead and assaults a black person because he's a blockhead and the punishment is more severe for the assault on the black person, all other factors being the same, how can that possibly be equal protection. He gets 5 year for assaulting me and 10 for assaulting the black guy. Ya reckon that might not breed a little resentment?
In any case in the case of a murder how many times do you want to execute the blockhead. Once for the homicide and then again after he's dead for having a bad thought first?
Yes it is about thought crime. And it will be abused to get the uppity white heterosexual Christians in line.
>> Based on that and the postings of many of your olk on this newsgroup, >> Conservatives should have special protections, too.
> Curiously, they seem to resist being relocated to preserves.
> Then again, their extinction seems to be mandated by their "End Times" > philosophy. Apparently, when the last Conservative is dead, Jesus will > return...
First of all you bigoted dogshit brained piece of filth that can be considered a hate crime.
Second of all fuck off. Not every Christian subscribes to the "End Times" idea.
Third of all anytime you want to relocate me and my family, you just stop by and bring some friends. We'll see how well that goes for you.
> I'm half tempted to ask why they don't suicide themselves, but apparently > that's against the rules...
Dionisio wrote: > Scout wrote: >> How exactly is hate or a lack of hate a "mitigating factor"?
>> Please explain.
> Pardon my "recycling" of a post, but it answers your question:
> If I punch you because I think you've stolen my man, that's > motivation. (And if you punch me 'cause you think I've stolen your > woman, that's motivation too. Laughable in each consideration, but > true nonetheless.) > If I punch you because I wish to terrorize the class or group of > people whom you represent, that's something else entirely.
> Even you know that.
No, no I don't know that.
Further, I will note that "terroriz[ing] the class of group of people whom you represent" is NOT a feature of the hate crime legislation.
It is enough that you punched him beause you hated him for A, B or C. However, if you punched him because you hated him for X,Y or Z.....well that's different and we'll impose less punishment.
If the objective really was terrorism, then I could understand, but that isn't what the legislation addresses. Rather it addresses the motivation for committing that one offense, not because you were attempting to terrorize others, or whatever but simply why you committed the offense whether it terrorized others or not.
Dionisio wrote: > Scout wrote: >> Which isn't what he asked you.
> He asked why a mitigating factor should be considered.
> My position is "Why shouldn't it?"
And so far, you have failed to show why a hate crime is different than any other crime of the same type.
If I punch you because you're black, well that's a hate crime and I should be punished more than if I simply punched you because you're wearing the wrong color hat.
I fail to see how one offense is any more or less deserving of punishment than the other.
Dionisio wrote: > Scout wrote: >> Dionisio wrote: >>> And you formed that opinion due to what observation?
>>> Could it have been this...?
>>> <Historic item> >>> Scout wrote:
>>>> If homosexuality is to be seen as a normal acceptable sexual >>>> orientation, then why should/would we want to indicate it is >>>> abnormal by imposing special laws concerning it?
>>> Ah, that old thing.
> ...
>> Which it should be noted has nothing to do with the context of the >> question being asked of you.
> Ah, a tad snippy 'cause you realized how facile your comment was, eh?
> I change a couple words and suddenly you're all defensive...
Defensive, hardly. Noting that you are evadomg the issue by the changes in the words you made.....certainly.
Dionisio wrote: > tankfixer wrote: >> So how does "hate crime" legislation make anyone safer ?
> How do laws against murder make anyone safer?
> If a perp kills you, you're just as dead. That's not exactly "safe," > is it? > Would you feel safe walking down a dark alley in a "bad" section of > town because you know that murder is illegal?
> Criminals are criminals because they choose to *not* obey the common > niceties, not because they choose to abide by them.
> No. Laws do not serve to provide safety. What they serve to do is > remove undesirable elements from the mix for a while. (Provided the > jury finds sufficient cause for a "guilty" verdict.)
> What would you propose? Removing the laws against murder since they > don't *prevent* murder? > What do you propose, removing the distinctions between murder, and > premeditated murder, since dead is dead?
And yet you propose a distinction between murder and murder depending solely on the motivation for the murder.....as you say " dead is dead".
So why is one death more deserving of punishment than the other?
Now what have we here? A sudden mastery of a newsreader after a comment regarding how I've seen young children master it?
Congrats!
(Unless this was an accident...)
Gray Ghost wrote: > Dionisio <moc.rr.thgi...@5ellimd.com> wrote: >>Gray Ghost wrote: >>>Based on that and the postings of many of your olk on this newsgroup, >>>Conservatives should have special protections, too. >>Curiously, they seem to resist being relocated to preserves. >>Then again, their extinction seems to be mandated by their "End Times" >>philosophy. Apparently, when the last Conservative is dead, Jesus will >>return...
> First of all you bigoted dogshit brained piece of filth that can be > considered a hate crime.
Telling the truth is a hate crime?
Fascinating.
(Which raises the question of why it would worry you. The truth that is.)
> Second of all fuck off. Not every Christian subscribes to the "End Times" > idea.
Nonsense.
I've been told -- directly, and also literally to my face -- that your *opinion* regarding that matter is flat-out false. Apparently only "pseudo Christians" have your mindset. I know because folks who call themselves "real Christians" have said so. Should I consider them liars? They say that God speaks through them... Wouldn't that be akin to calling God a liar? Rumor has it that 'tis not a good idea to piss Him off...
> Third of all anytime you want to relocate me and my family, you just stop by > and bring some friends. We'll see how well that goes for you.
Friends.
Feh. You being armed would make it merely a fair fight. And that didn't even occur to you...
Say, what's that saying? "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or somesuch?
Might one suggest trying being reasonable with the other? Threats are trite.
At the very least have the balls to declare that you want to -- oh, I don't know -- "kill the not-so-pansyish pansy."
(Balls are commonly located on the lower portion of the "trunk" of the body, should you be unfamilar with whether you might have them.)
Did ya like receiving insults? That what floats yer boat? The simple -- and surprisingly effective -- way of not receiving them, is to decline to give them.
-- And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
TV is not an entertainment medium. It is a commercial medium. The programs are not the product. The viewers are the product; They are sold to advertisers. Ratings are merely an indication of how many viewers a station has to sell.
> Only a pedophile supporter would stoop this low.
Nothing in this law mentions pedophilia or provides protection to pedophiles. Only a cowardly liar would stoop so low as to make such a claim.
The present law expands the definition of a hate crime to include sexual orientation or perceived gender. That meaqns it would protect someone who is heterosexual and was attacked because the attacker was motivated by that victim's perceived heterosexuality. I keep hearing nonsense from know-nothings about hate crimes meaning people can be prosecuted simply for hating someone for being of a particular class defined in the act, eg. a Roman Catholic a woman or a republican. One of the most basic core teachings of criminal law is simply expressed as "actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea" which in English means "an act does not make a person guilty unless (their) mind is also guilty"; hence thought in some fashion is a component to criminal liability in this country and has been since the founding fathers signed the Declaration of Independence and even before. It makes sense does it not? If Joe is standing next to a cliff and Bill stumbles into him by accident and Joe falls to his death, we would not prosecute Bill for murder. But if Bill went up and deliberately pushed Joe over the edge because he believed Joe had been talking stink about him, then we would prosecute Bill for murder.
Now some may ask, if this is so then why have hate crime acts at all? After all if the mens rea [guilty mind] is already a component of the crime then it is redundant. However this is an oversimplification of the purpose of such laws and the behaviour they are intended to punish. If Bill went up and deliberately pushed Joe over the edge because he believed Joe had been talking stink about him, then we would prosecute Bill for murder. He would be guilty of first or second degree murder depending the exact circumstances of the event. If Bill decided he was going to kill Joe because he was a Jew or a Roman Catholic because Bill hated Jews and Roman Catholics and not because he thought Joe was talking stink about Bill, then Bill would be guilty of a hate crime on top of the murder. If and this is a important issue, if the prosecution could show that was Bill's motivation in killing Joe. But Bill could sit here like some of the unwashed heathen who troll through the internet chat groups and usenet, calling people all manner of foul names based upon their religion, sexual orientation, race, color or national origin and it is not a crime. Bill can hate all he wishes so long as he does not commit an actual physical act based upon that hatred.
We as a society have decided to give enhanced penalties for certain typo's of criminal behaviour. Victimizing the very young or very old is one example. Killing a police officer who is on duty is another. We have decided to add to that enhanced criminal penalties for those who target another based upon their gender, race, color, religion and certain other categories because it is our belief that you cannot go around harming people simply because they are white or black or asian, Buddhists or Baptists, women or men, gay or straight among other categories.
You do not have to like white people or blacks etc, in fact you can hate them and even say it to their face but you better not harm them based upon that hatred or you will pay the price. And that my dear friends is a good thing.
> Gray Ghost wrote: > > Dionisio <moc.rr.thgi...@5ellimd.com> wrote: > >>If I kill "Victim X" as opposed to "Victim Y," that is random. > >>If I kill any victim of a certain characteristic... What's that called > >>again? Is it a "serial killer"? > >>Go ahead, tell me that we should treat serial killers the same as other > >>killers. > >>That *is* your argument, yes? > >>You're uncomfortable with aggressors who act out against > >>those-of-cerain-traits being called out for what they are. > >>Tough.
> > Much fury signifying nothing.
> > So the person dead from random crime deserves less justice than the > > other victims?
> As I said earlier, *all* crimes deserve justice.
> *All* crimes deserve to be investigated fully.
> *All* crimes deserve to be met with appropriate responses.
> Your scarecrow of "thought crimes" is merely straw with clothing. We're not dealing with > thoughts, rather with defined actions. Yes, there were thoughts behind them. But thoughts > are not a crime. Acting on them to the detriment of a person's life, property, liberty, > livelihood, etc... That's where the crime comes into play.
> I could think of punching you. That is not a crime. Punching you is.
> If I punch you because I think you've stolen my man, that's motivation. (And if you punch > me 'cause you think I've stolen your woman, that's motivation too. Laughable in each > consideration, but true nonetheless.)
> If I punch you because I wish to terrorize the class or group of people whom you > represent, that's something else entirely.
> Even you know that.
So true, the fundamental basis of criminal law taught to any first year law student is that for a crime there must be an actus reus [guilty act] and a mens rea [guilty mind]. Grey Ghost for example could hate all Lithuanians. He could even set up a web page blaming Lithuanians for all the ills of the past 60 years. He could announce he hates then all and wants them all sent back to Lithuania. That is not a crime. But if he goes out anf firebombs a man's house because he believes the man is Lithuanian then he is guilty of a crime which has enhanced penalties because he chose his victim based upon his national origin and wanted to kill him or scare him into returning to Lithuania. It really is not rocket science at all despite the best attempts of bigots and know-nothings everywhere to paint it to be something different from what it truly is.
> In article <x06Im.118699$Xw3.20...@en-nntp-04.dc1.easynews.com>, > moc.rr.thgi...@5ellimd.com says...
> > tankfixer wrote: > > > So how does "hate crime" legislation make anyone safer ?
> > How do laws against murder make anyone safer?
> We have those law already, how does making it a "hate crime" help ?
> > If a perp kills you, you're just as dead. That's not exactly "safe," is it?
> Nope. > Is the victim less dead with "hate crime laws" on the books ?
> > Would you feel safe walking down a dark alley in a "bad" section of town because you know > > that murder is illegal?
> > Criminals are criminals because they choose to *not* obey the common niceties, not because > > they choose to abide by them.
> > No. Laws do not serve to provide safety. What they serve to do is remove undesirable > > elements from the mix for a while. (Provided the jury finds sufficient cause for a > > "guilty" verdict.)
> > What would you propose? Removing the laws against murder since they don't *prevent* murder?
> > What do you propose, removing the distinctions between murder, and premeditated murder, > > since dead is dead?
> > Come now...
> You danced all around the question. > How is making it a "hate crime" change any facts ?
You ignore the purpose of the hate crime legislation which is to give an enhanced punishment to the perpetrator of the crime. This is nothing new we have had laws like that around for generations. For example, commit a burglary and get caught, you might get 5 years in prison. But if you possess a firearm while committing the burglary, then many states require an enhancement of the sentence so instead of five years you may receive ten years. Sell drugs out of your home and the feds might send you away for 10 years. Have fire arms in the house and then sentence is even worse. The purpose in both cases is self evident, carrying a firearm increases the risk of serious injury or death. Attack and rob some random stranger walking down the street and get 10 years, attack and rob some senior or some child under 14 and in some states, you will get a harsher sentence because these foks are seen as especially vulnerable and thus the sentence is harsher. The same purpose underlies the enhancements built into the hate crime law. Beat me up because you tink I insulted your intellignece and you will get one sentence. Beat me up because you hate Hispanics and you think I am one, bingo, you get a few extra years to sit in the pen and think about it.
> > Gray Ghost wrote: > >> Dionisio <moc.rr.thgi...@5ellimd.com> wrote: > >>>If I kill "Victim X" as opposed to "Victim Y," that is random. > >>>If I kill any victim of a certain characteristic... What's that called > >>>again? Is it a "serial killer"? > >>>Go ahead, tell me that we should treat serial killers the same as other > >>>killers. That *is* your argument, yes? > >>>You're uncomfortable with aggressors who act out against > >>>those-of-cerain-traits being called out for what they are. > >>>Tough.
> >> Much fury signifying nothing.
> >> So the person dead from random crime deserves less justice than the > >> other victims?
> > As I said earlier, *all* crimes deserve justice.
> > *All* crimes deserve to be investigated fully.
> > *All* crimes deserve to be met with appropriate responses.
> > Your scarecrow of "thought crimes" is merely straw with clothing. We're > > not dealing with thoughts, rather with defined actions. Yes, there were > > thoughts behind them. But thoughts are not a crime. Acting on them to the > > detriment of a person's life, property, liberty, livelihood, etc... > > That's where the crime comes into play.
> > I could think of punching you. That is not a crime. Punching you is.
> > If I punch you because I think you've stolen my man, that's motivation. > > (And if you punch me 'cause you think I've stolen your woman, that's > > motivation too. Laughable in each consideration, but true nonetheless.)
> > If I punch you because I wish to terrorize the class or group of people > > whom you represent, that's something else entirely.
> > Even you know that.
> What I know is that people that attack a sinble person out of hate for a > class or group are not very bright to begin with. And that "hate crime" > legislation tends to make martyrs of them to thier inbred compatriots.
> As has been pointed out already motive is a component of what needs to be > produced to rpove a person committed a crime. Therefore motive is in fact not > ignored.
> Here's a radical concept for you, equal protection. How is it equal if one > person is held to a higher standing based on thier class or group? A black > man being assaulted by a racist blockhead is still a human being. If the > blockhead assaults me, a white person, because he's a blockhead and assaults > a black person because he's a blockhead and the punishment is more severe for > the assault on the black person, all other factors being the same, how can > that possibly be equal protection. He gets 5 year for assaulting me and 10 > for assaulting the black guy. Ya reckon that might not breed a little > resentment?
The simple answer is always best don't you think. You and your black friend walk into a bar. There is a blockhead in there who is drunk and when he is drunk he is a mean drunk. So he sees the two of you sitting there having a good time and decides that he wants to fight the two of you. So far nothing here indicates that he is acting on racial animus, he simply is a mean drunk looking for a fight. He sneaks up behind the two of you and starts to lay into the two of you with a chair leg. He is arrested and prosecuted. It turns out that he is the leader of the local KKK klan but there is nothing to indicate that he selected the two of you based upon any racial motivation. He does not call your friend a n*gger or call you a n*ggerlover. And he has attempted to start several other fights that night with other whites but been restrained from doing so before anything serious happened. There is no evidence of a hate crime and no one is going to be prosecuted for one.
But let us suppose you walked into that bar with your black friend and this red neck laid into the two of you screaming all sorts of racist invective, calling you a race traitor and other such racist pecker- head behaviour directed at the two of you. That my friend is indicative of a hate crime for that crime he should be and will be punished harsher than he would be in the first instance.
> Dionisio wrote: > > Scout wrote: > >> Which isn't what he asked you.
> > He asked why a mitigating factor should be considered.
> > My position is "Why shouldn't it?"
> And so far, you have failed to show why a hate crime is different than any > other crime of the same type.
> If I punch you because you're black, well that's a hate crime and I should > be punished more than if I simply punched you because you're wearing the > wrong color hat.
> I fail to see how one offense is any more or less deserving of punishment > than the other.
That would be your moral failing. We as a society have at different times decided that the motivation of an act or the status of a victim merits a harsher punishment. For example, if you beat up some guy your age ihn a bar, you might get one sentence. Beat up a 75 year old man in the same bar and in many states, you will get a harsher sentence because the elderly are considered as more vulnerable. Rape a 21 year old woman and you will get one sentence. Rape a 13 year old woman or an 80 year old and the sentence will be far harsher in most states. Kill a cop who is acting in the line of duty and in many states, assuming you make it to trial, the punishment is far harsher than if you killed someone else. We as a society have decided you cannot target people for crimes motivated by certain defined factors which include their gender, national origin, religion or race among others. If you do then your punishment will be harsher than if you simply randomly chose someone.
In talk.politics.guns juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>We as a society have decided to give enhanced penalties for certain >typo's of criminal behaviour. Victimizing the very young or very old >is one example. Killing a police officer who is on duty is another. >We have decided to add to that enhanced criminal penalties for those >who target another based upon their gender, race, color, religion and >certain other categories because it is our belief that you cannot go >around harming people simply because they are white or black or asian, >Buddhists or Baptists, women or men, gay or straight among other >categories.
What about the weak?
>You do not have to like white people or blacks etc, in fact you can >hate them and even say it to their face but you better not harm them >based upon that hatred or you will pay the price. And that my dear >friends is a good thing.
It's the stupidest fucking thing and it doesn't do a bit of good- in fact, it makes the situation WORSE.
>> Only a pedophile supporter would stoop this low.
> Nothing in this law mentions pedophilia or provides protection to > pedophiles. Only a cowardly liar would stoop so low as to make such a > claim.
> The present law expands the definition of a hate crime to include > sexual orientation or perceived gender. That meaqns it would protect > someone who is heterosexual and was attacked because the attacker was > motivated by that victim's perceived heterosexuality. I keep hearing > nonsense from know-nothings about hate crimes meaning people can be > prosecuted simply for hating someone for being of a particular class > defined in the act, eg. a Roman Catholic a woman or a republican. One > of the most basic core teachings of criminal law is simply expressed > as "actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea" which in English means > "an act does not make a person guilty unless (their) mind is also > guilty"; hence thought in some fashion is a component to criminal > liability in this country and has been since the founding fathers > signed the Declaration of Independence and even before. It makes > sense does it not? If Joe is standing next to a cliff and Bill > stumbles into him by accident and Joe falls to his death, we would not > prosecute Bill for murder. But if Bill went up and deliberately > pushed Joe over the edge because he believed Joe had been talking > stink about him, then we would prosecute Bill for murder.
> Now some may ask, if this is so then why have hate crime acts at all? > After all if the mens rea [guilty mind] is already a component of the > crime then it is redundant. However this is an oversimplification of > the purpose of such laws and the behaviour they are intended to > punish. If Bill went up and deliberately pushed Joe over the edge > because he believed Joe had been talking stink about him, then we > would prosecute Bill for murder. He would be guilty of first or > second degree murder depending the exact circumstances of the event. > If Bill decided he was going to kill Joe because he was a Jew or a > Roman Catholic because Bill hated Jews and Roman Catholics and not > because he thought Joe was talking stink about Bill, then Bill would > be guilty of a hate crime on top of the murder. If and this is a > important issue, if the prosecution could show that was Bill's > motivation in killing Joe. But Bill could sit here like some of the > unwashed heathen who troll through the internet chat groups and > usenet, calling people all manner of foul names based upon their > religion, sexual orientation, race, color or national origin and it is > not a crime. Bill can hate all he wishes so long as he does not > commit an actual physical act based upon that hatred.
> We as a society have decided to give enhanced penalties for certain > typo's of criminal behaviour. Victimizing the very young or very old > is one example. Killing a police officer who is on duty is another. > We have decided to add to that enhanced criminal penalties for those > who target another based upon their gender, race, color, religion and > certain other categories because it is our belief that you cannot go > around harming people simply because they are white or black or asian, > Buddhists or Baptists, women or men, gay or straight among other > categories.
> You do not have to like white people or blacks etc, in fact you can > hate them and even say it to their face but you better not harm them > based upon that hatred or you will pay the price. And that my dear > friends is a good thing.
I thought pedophillia was just another sexual preference.
And you silly rants aside, no black man or homosexual has ever been charged under a hate crime statue. Ever.
> Gray Ghost wrote: >> Dionisio <moc.rr.thgi...@5ellimd.com> wrote: >>>Gray Ghost wrote: >>>>Based on that and the postings of many of your olk on this newsgroup, >>>>Conservatives should have special protections, too. >>>Curiously, they seem to resist being relocated to preserves. >>>Then again, their extinction seems to be mandated by their "End Times" >>>philosophy. Apparently, when the last Conservative is dead, Jesus will >>>return...
>> First of all you bigoted dogshit brained piece of filth that can be >> considered a hate crime.
> Telling the truth is a hate crime?
> Fascinating.
No, but spouting typical secular dohma about Christians is.
> (Which raises the question of why it would worry you. The truth that is.)
>> Second of all fuck off. Not every Christian subscribes to the "End >> Times" idea.
> Nonsense.
> I've been told -- directly, and also literally to my face -- that your > *opinion* regarding that matter is flat-out false. Apparently only > "pseudo Christians" have your mindset. I know because folks who call > themselves "real Christians" have said so. Should I consider them liars? > They say that God speaks through them... Wouldn't that be akin to calling > God a liar? Rumor has it that 'tis not a good idea to piss Him off...
Really and how many have you talked to, all of us? You are as bigoted as any klnasman.
>> Third of all anytime you want to relocate me and my family, you just >> stop by and bring some friends. We'll see how well that goes for you.
> Friends.
> Feh. You being armed would make it merely a fair fight. And that didn't > even occur to you...
Well then come on down, it's your turn to play relocate the conservative.
> Say, what's that saying? "Do unto others as you would have them do unto > you" or somesuch?
Don't quote Chrsistian words to me secularist. You have no flaming idea what you are talking about, bigot.
> Might one suggest trying being reasonable with the other? Threats are > trite.
Like your threat to relicate me?
> At the very least have the balls to declare that you want to -- oh, I > don't know -- "kill the not-so-pansyish pansy."
I could give a shit who you fuck dumbass. Just keep it yourself and don't expect me to celebrate with you or to allow you special rights.
> (Balls are commonly located on the lower portion of the "trunk" of the > body, should you be unfamilar with whether you might have them.)
I'm sure you know exactly where balls are.
But if you'd like to test my fortitude, anytime baby.
> Did ya like receiving insults? That what floats yer boat? The simple -- > and surprisingly effective -- way of not receiving them, is to decline to > give them.
Actually arguing with idiots is fruitless. Go blow Barney Frank.
> On Nov 3, 6:14 pm, Dionisio <moc.rr.thgi...@5ellimd.com> wrote: >> Gray Ghost wrote: >> > Dionisio <moc.rr.thgi...@5ellimd.com> wrote: >> >>If I kill "Victim X" as opposed to "Victim Y," that is random. >> >>If I kill any victim of a certain characteristic... What's that called >> >>again? Is it a "serial killer"? >> >>Go ahead, tell me that we should treat serial killers the same as >> >>other killers. That *is* your argument, yes? >> >>You're uncomfortable with aggressors who act out against >> >>those-of-cerain-traits being called out for what they are. >> >>Tough.
>> > Much fury signifying nothing.
>> > So the person dead from random crime deserves less justice than the >> > other victims?
>> As I said earlier, *all* crimes deserve justice.
>> *All* crimes deserve to be investigated fully.
>> *All* crimes deserve to be met with appropriate responses.
>> Your scarecrow of "thought crimes" is merely straw with clothing. We're >> not dealing with thoughts, rather with defined actions. Yes, there were >> thoughts behind them. But thoughts are not a crime. Acting on them to >> the detriment of a person's life, property, liberty, livelihood, etc... >> That's where the crime comes into play.
>> I could think of punching you. That is not a crime. Punching you is.
>> If I punch you because I think you've stolen my man, that's motivation. >> (And if you punch me 'cause you think I've stolen your woman, that's >> motivation too. Laughable in each consideration, but true nonetheless.)
>> If I punch you because I wish to terrorize the class or group of people >> whom you represent, that's something else entirely.
>> Even you know that.
> So true, the fundamental basis of criminal law taught to any first > year law student is that for a crime there must be an actus reus > [guilty act] and a mens rea [guilty mind]. Grey Ghost for example > could hate all Lithuanians. He could even set up a web page blaming > Lithuanians for all the ills of the past 60 years. He could announce > he hates then all and wants them all sent back to Lithuania. That is > not a crime. But if he goes out anf firebombs a man's house because > he believes the man is Lithuanian then he is guilty of a crime which > has enhanced penalties because he chose his victim based upon his > national origin and wanted to kill him or scare him into returning to > Lithuania. It really is not rocket science at all despite the best > attempts of bigots and know-nothings everywhere to paint it to be > something different from what it truly is.
Enhanced penalties? Why, my motive will be used to find me guilty of the underlieing crime. If I'm sentenced to death for the underlieing crime what else will you do to me, hang me after I'm dead.
New concept, equal protection. If you start punishing people disporportionately for the same crimes the victims of the crimes receiving lesser penalties might start to think that ther pain and suffering is soemhow less than the protected minority. Ya think that might tend to breed resentment making the situation worse?
Frankly if I ever sit on a jury I would never convict a person of "hate crime" only whatever the underlieing crime was. Unless of course the offender was a protected minority, just to spread the pain.
|
