"Emos" now protected by "hate crime" laws

"A hate crime law is a law intended to prevent bias-motivated violence. Hate crime laws are distinct from laws against hate speech in that hate crime laws enhance the penalties associated with conduct that is already criminal under other laws, while hate speech laws criminalize a category of speech."


Got this out of Wikipedia, 'cause I know there's a lot of controversy surrounding hate crime laws. Let me make the disclaimer that I'm not looking for confrontation on the matter with this post, but rather try and throw some objectiveness into the subject.

Note that hate crime laws look to "enhance the penalties associated with conduct that is already criminal under other laws." So basically what I take this to mean is that, yeah... murder is murder. But intent is taken into account.

If a white man murders a black man, it's not automatically considered a hate crime. That would be ludicrous. But.... if a white supremacist gang goes out and lynches a black man... that is a hate crime. It's motivated by hate based solely on race. If there was a militant black group, and these people went out and killed a white person.... I would imagine the same thing would apply. If not, then the law is flawed.

I'm not defending the laws as they are now. I'm sure they could be improved and are probably very flawed. But hate based on race, ethnicity or religion is very wrong... and lawmakers can't be blamed for wanting to legislate to make penalties tougher.

Hate Crime legislation exists in the US and has for some time too but I am not going to comment on the legal ramifications in a system with which I am not familiar. I have worked for the criminal justice system in the UK though and have seen the real impact that the drafting of and prosecution using such a law can and has had.

Hate crimes are not thought crimes. You are entitled to your opinion however bigoted, ill informed and ignorant it may be.

Motive is, and always has been, an important factor in criminal prosecutions and pretending that it is irrelevant, is not a good enough argument. The simple difference between manslaughter and murder is probably the most striking and obvious, but motive and intent are often crucial in securing a conviction. E.G


Someone smashes a window.

Should everyone who smashes a window be treated equally?

A kid who accidentally hits a cricket ball through his neighbours window ?

A person with previous history of breaking into properties breaks a window of a shop intent on stealing what is inside.

A heavy user of Class A drugs who sustains their habit with burglary knowingly breaks the window of a pensioners house intent on stealing personal belongings to sustain their habit

A rapist breaks the window of a young single women he has followed home

A jealous and harassing ex husband breaks the window of his ex-wife on hearing her and her new man are inside

A prominent member of a holocaust denying anti-jewish group breaks the window of a synagogue..............yet again

The crime in all these cases barring the accidental cricket ball is criminal damage but the intent and it's intended consequences are very different.

So intent is important but so is the fact that we live in democratic societies in which the judgement of people purely on their birth characteristics or choices in life is recognised as being discriminatory.

The victim of a crime should not be made to feel that the fact that they were picked on merely for being disabled,the wrong race, religion or sub-culture is irrelevant when the perpetrator has made it abundantly clear that is the motive for the attack. The message the law is supposed to send it is pretty clear in it's wording. HATE CRIME is often premeditated, planned and concurrent. The offender needs to know that the rest of society does see a difference between having a fight when a couple of parties have had too much to drink and going out looking for a victim because they are in a wheelchair, are wearing a kippah, have a different skin colour to you, are gay, a goth, morris dancer whatever.

Sections of society should not be living in fear of unprovoked violence. Hate Crime laws are there to try and deter the proliferation of patterns of violence toward those minority groups. You can not in all seriousness suggest that a gang beating the shit out of someone and saying " take that you fucking nigger, emo, yid, spazzy,morris dancing homo" is not going to make the victim and those in the vicinity think that they are not being singled out for another layer of verbal assault on top of the violence to add to their reticence and fear when next going out in the neighbourhood?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

"A hate crime law is a law intended to prevent bias-motivated violence. Hate crime laws are distinct from laws against hate speech in that hate crime laws enhance the penalties associated with conduct that is already criminal under other laws, while hate speech laws criminalize a category of speech."


Got this out of Wikipedia, 'cause I know there's a lot of controversy surrounding hate crime laws. Let me make the disclaimer that I'm not looking for confrontation on the matter with this post, but rather try and throw some objectiveness into the subject.

Note that hate crime laws look to "enhance the penalties associated with conduct that is already criminal under other laws." So basically what I take this to mean is that, yeah... murder is murder. But intent is taken into account.

If a white man murders a black man, it's not automatically considered a hate crime. That would be ludicrous. But.... if a white supremacist gang goes out and lynches a black man... that is a hate crime. It's motivated by hate based solely on race. If there was a militant black group, and these people went out and killed a white person.... I would imagine the same thing would apply. If not, then the law is flawed.

I'm not defending the laws as they are now. I'm sure they could be improved and are probably very flawed. But hate based on race, ethnicity or religion is very wrong... and lawmakers can't be blamed for wanting to legislate to make penalties tougher.

---

This is not the case. White people are not a protected class and cannot legally be a victim of a federal hate crime (not sure about individual state laws). I actually didn't know this until last year when having a similar conversation with a FBI agent. These laws are not about protecting anyone but rather a knee jerk reaction by politicians to pander for votes by showing they did "something". While I don't 100% agree with some of Lyle's posts on this thread or his style I think we can all agree that one has the right to be outraged that their nation enacts laws that put the well being of some groups over others. Giving what already are felony offenses steeper penalties has not shown to be a deterrent. People willing to commit assault, rape and murder don't usually stop to consider that instead of one life sentence they might get two. The laws also have the potential to have serious 1st amendment issues by 1) Like other hate crime statutes, the law (2009 federal law) imposes extra punishment based on defendants' beliefs, and 2) it could be used as an excuse to investigate and/or prosecute people for aiding and abetting hate crimes through provocative speech. So in the end we get laws that don't produce a marked decrease in crime, pose Constitutional issues and create more racial divisiveness through unequal protection. If the goal is equality then we shouldn't legislate otherwise.

GB, I would agree intent and other circumstances should be involved in the sentencing but I'd prefer judges and juries weigh these issues on a case by case basis rather than a law that takes the decision making out of their hands.

Stateside I'm weary of legislation directed at a dress in the same similarity to race and sexuality. Its a slippery slope. You cannot compare to the shit history of this country in regards to race and the level of violence perpetrated. I don't know what a emo is but something tells me they aren't running with people I and others had associated with back in the day. Cops were often siding with the dipshits jumping us, and a couple times the dipshits were wearing badges. There are always roving tribes of assholes claiming to represent the 'majority, or a way of life' who take pleasure in lashing out, verbally and physically, at those they don't feel fit in. I don't live across the pond and I have no idea the level of 'gang' violence or targeting of sub cultures today but its nothing to be justified or dismissed. It has to be high or they find some organized intent to target sub culture. Just as quick as some kid...goth, punk, skater, whateva, and thats mainly who we're talking about...gets pounded on by some insecure mental midgit trying to impress his boys because 'the weirdo' has half a head of hair, that kid is plotting payback. It happenes everyday, in every State and we've watched it play out far too often.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

"A hate crime law is a law intended to prevent bias-motivated violence. Hate crime laws are distinct from laws against hate speech in that hate crime laws enhance the penalties associated with conduct that is already criminal under other laws, while hate speech laws criminalize a category of speech."


Got this out of Wikipedia, 'cause I know there's a lot of controversy surrounding hate crime laws. Let me make the disclaimer that I'm not looking for confrontation on the matter with this post, but rather try and throw some objectiveness into the subject.

Note that hate crime laws look to "enhance the penalties associated with conduct that is already criminal under other laws." So basically what I take this to mean is that, yeah... murder is murder. But intent is taken into account.

If a white man murders a black man, it's not automatically considered a hate crime. That would be ludicrous. But.... if a white supremacist gang goes out and lynches a black man... that is a hate crime. It's motivated by hate based solely on race. If there was a militant black group, and these people went out and killed a white person.... I would imagine the same thing would apply. If not, then the law is flawed.

I'm not defending the laws as they are now. I'm sure they could be improved and are probably very flawed. But hate based on race, ethnicity or religion is very wrong... and lawmakers can't be blamed for wanting to legislate to make penalties tougher.

---

This is not the case. White people are not a protected class and cannot legally be a victim of a federal hate crime (not sure about individual state laws). I actually didn't know this until last year when having a similar conversation with a FBI agent. These laws are not about protecting anyone but rather a knee jerk reaction by politicians to pander for votes by showing they did "something". While I don't 100% agree with some of Lyle's posts on this thread or his style I think we can all agree that one has the right to be outraged that their nation enacts laws that put the well being of some groups over others. Giving what already are felony offenses steeper penalties has not shown to be a deterrent. People willing to commit assault, rape and murder don't usually stop to consider that instead of one life sentence they might get two. The laws also have the potential to have serious 1st amendment issues by 1) Like other hate crime statutes, the law (2009 federal law) imposes extra punishment based on defendants' beliefs, and 2) it could be used as an excuse to investigate and/or prosecute people for aiding and abetting hate crimes through provocative speech. So in the end we get laws that don't produce a marked decrease in crime, pose Constitutional issues and create more racial divisiveness through unequal protection. If the goal is equality then we shouldn't legislate otherwise.

GB, I would agree intent and other circumstances should be involved in the sentencing but I'd prefer judges and juries weigh these issues on a case by case basis rather than a law that takes the decision making out of their hands.

---

Ok then, if white people are excluded from protection under hate crime laws, then yes... the laws are seriously flawed and people like Lyle have a right to be outraged. And yes again... lawmakers who make laws solely to pander for votes without the slightest concern for the people, are doing more harm than good. I have no issues with anything you said in your post.

Having said that, hate crimes and hate speech are serious issues in an already decaying society. Haters grab on to the Constitutional rights which again... were drafted back when society wasn't such a sick, rotten mess. It's so convenient to claim "free speech" when you're openly spewing hate and provoking violence against groups based on race or ethnicity.

Current lawmakers may not be the best people to have in charge of trying to right the wrongs in society... but something should be done, don't you think? You've seen my posts enough to know that I'm always in favor of doing something, even if that "something" later needs some tweaking. Doing anything is better than sitting around fretting while society continues to flush itself down the toilet.

"Lyle has a right to be outraged" did you say? ;D

I had a feeling you'd react to that. :) Don't worry... it wasn't meant as a slight.
Us banana republic citizens have a least a little sense of right and wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mars_ax

Last time I checked, there's no law against hating anyone you like, as long as you keep it to yourself.

The thing I 'hate' about hate crime legislation/laws, is they were primarily designed to protect blacks from being targeted by whites, it's ironic however, that black on white crime is 7 times higher in the U.S.. Fuck yer hate crime legislation.

As for, emos, goths, punks, I say take them to the top of one of the many castles you have in England, and give them a good toss.

---

Yup, but don't let any of the Saddo posters see what you've posted....it might be racist somehow, give them some time, they'll think up a way.

---

I don't know Lyle, Saddo posters are highly intelligent and besides, i'm not sure i'm a racist, I try to hate all of humanity equally. :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

Ok then, if white people are excluded from protection under hate crime laws, then yes... the laws are seriously flawed and people like Lyle have a right to be outraged. And yes again... lawmakers who make laws solely to pander for votes without the slightest concern for the people, are doing more harm than good. I have no issues with anything you said in your post.

Having said that, hate crimes and hate speech are serious issues in an already decaying society. Haters grab on to the Constitutional rights which again... were drafted back when society wasn't such a sick, rotten mess. It's so convenient to claim "free speech" when you're openly spewing hate and provoking violence against groups based on race or ethnicity.

Current lawmakers may not be the best people to have in charge of trying to right the wrongs in society... but something should be done, don't you think? You've seen my posts enough to know that I'm always in favor of doing something, even if that "something" later needs some tweaking. Doing anything is better than sitting around fretting while society continues to flush itself down the toilet.

---

As a white male this means dick but I really don't think hate speech is as big of an issue as the media reports. I personally encounter much more overt racism from blacks than anyone else and remember my wife's family is from East Texas. That being said punishing (ostracizing is cool though) for unpopular speech/beliefs is a slippery slope. Believing in freedom and personal liberties unfortunately means putting up with a nation's lowest common denominator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

Ok then, if white people are excluded from protection under hate crime laws, then yes... the laws are seriously flawed and people like Lyle have a right to be outraged. And yes again... lawmakers who make laws solely to pander for votes without the slightest concern for the people, are doing more harm than good. I have no issues with anything you said in your post.

Having said that, hate crimes and hate speech are serious issues in an already decaying society. Haters grab on to the Constitutional rights which again... were drafted back when society wasn't such a sick, rotten mess. It's so convenient to claim "free speech" when you're openly spewing hate and provoking violence against groups based on race or ethnicity.

Current lawmakers may not be the best people to have in charge of trying to right the wrongs in society... but something should be done, don't you think? You've seen my posts enough to know that I'm always in favor of doing something, even if that "something" later needs some tweaking. Doing anything is better than sitting around fretting while society continues to flush itself down the toilet.

---

As a white male this means dick but I really don't think hate speech is as big of an issue as the media reports. I personally encounter much more overt racism from blacks than anyone else and remember my wife's family is from East Texas. That being said punishing (ostracizing is cool though) for unpopular speech/beliefs is a slippery slope. Believing in freedom and personal liberties unfortunately means putting up with a nation's lowest common denominator.

---

Ditto, and it's something i'd 'prefer not to deal with at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

Ok then, if white people are excluded from protection under hate crime laws, then yes... the laws are seriously flawed and people like Lyle have a right to be outraged. And yes again... lawmakers who make laws solely to pander for votes without the slightest concern for the people, are doing more harm than good. I have no issues with anything you said in your post.

Having said that, hate crimes and hate speech are serious issues in an already decaying society. Haters grab on to the Constitutional rights which again... were drafted back when society wasn't such a sick, rotten mess. It's so convenient to claim "free speech" when you're openly spewing hate and provoking violence against groups based on race or ethnicity.

Current lawmakers may not be the best people to have in charge of trying to right the wrongs in society... but something should be done, don't you think? You've seen my posts enough to know that I'm always in favor of doing something, even if that "something" later needs some tweaking. Doing anything is better than sitting around fretting while society continues to flush itself down the toilet.

---

As a white male this means dick but I really don't think hate speech is as big of an issue as the media reports. I personally encounter much more overt racism from blacks than anyone else and remember my wife's family is from East Texas. That being said punishing (ostracizing is cool though) for unpopular speech/beliefs is a slippery slope. Believing in freedom and personal liberties unfortunately means putting up with a nation's lowest common denominator.

---

And if and when lawmakers grow some balls to address these issues from an even-handed point of view...... then we'll be getting somewhere.

Everyone is supposed to enjoy equal protection under the law. These kind of laws protect different classes of people more so than others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Everyone is supposed to enjoy equal protection under the law. These kind of laws protect different classes of people more so than others.

---

I'm pretty sure everyone still has the same protection under the law. It is the punishment for the criminals that is different, as opposed to the protection people receive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superheavyrhun

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Everyone is supposed to enjoy equal protection under the law. These kind of laws protect different classes of people more so than others.

---

I'm pretty sure everyone still has the same protection under the law. It is the punishment for the criminals that is different, as opposed to the protection people receive.

---

Is an emo's life worth a harsher punishment than a non-emo? The differences in punishment mean inequality... do you not see that? Why emos why not chavs? Everyone hates chavs, should their group not be protected?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superheavyrhun

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Everyone is supposed to enjoy equal protection under the law. These kind of laws protect different classes of people more so than others.

---

I'm pretty sure everyone still has the same protection under the law. It is the punishment for the criminals that is different, as opposed to the protection people receive.

---

Is an emo's life worth a harsher punishment than a non-emo? The differences in punishment mean inequality... do you not see that? Why emos why not chavs? Everyone hates chavs, should their group not be protected?

---

Let's go back to an earlier post of yours, where you make the point that being an emo is a choice. Unlike being black, Vietnamese, or a Jew. If you're a member of a hate group, and go out and lynch a person because he's any of the aforementioned, IMO you deserve a worse punishment than if you murder someone under other circumstances or for other motives.

Let's go back to something similar to an earlier GB post as well. Different scenarios:

• You kill someone you found in bed with your wife.
• You kill someone who cut in front of you on the freeway.
• You kill someone because you had a fight in a bar.
• You kill someone because he's black and you're a KKK or skinhead.

IMO, murderer # 4 deserves a worse punishment than 1-3. All victims are protected by law. But motive decides the severity of the punishment.

it seems unlikely that chavs would be a target of a hate crime, but if there is a groundswell of violent crimes and murders happening because they are of that social group...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superheavyrhun

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Everyone is supposed to enjoy equal protection under the law. These kind of laws protect different classes of people more so than others.

---

I'm pretty sure everyone still has the same protection under the law. It is the punishment for the criminals that is different, as opposed to the protection people receive.

---

Is an emo's life worth a harsher punishment than a non-emo? The differences in punishment mean inequality... do you not see that? Why emos why not chavs? Everyone hates chavs, should their group not be protected?

---

Let's go back to an earlier post of yours, where you make the point that being an emo is a choice. Unlike being black, Vietnamese, or a Jew. If you're a member of a hate group, and go out and lynch a person because he's any of the aforementioned, IMO you deserve a worse punishment than if you murder someone under other circumstances or for other motives.

Let's go back to something similar to an earlier GB post as well. Different scenarios:

• You kill someone you found in bed with your wife.
• You kill someone who cut in front of you on the freeway.
• You kill someone because you had a fight in a bar.
• You kill someone because he's black and you're a KKK or skinhead.

IMO, murderer # 4 deserves a worse punishment than 1-3. All victims are protected by law. But motive decides the severity of the punishment.

---

BTW, before you complain....... if a black kills someone because he's white, and he happened to walk into a black militant neighborhood...... then he's lumped into # 4 as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mars_ax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mars_ax

Last time I checked, there's no law against hating anyone you like, as long as you keep it to yourself.

The thing I 'hate' about hate crime legislation/laws, is they were primarily designed to protect blacks from being targeted by whites, it's ironic however, that black on white crime is 7 times higher in the U.S.. Fuck yer hate crime legislation.

As for, emos, goths, punks, I say take them to the top of one of the many castles you have in England, and give them a good toss.

---

Yup, but don't let any of the Saddo posters see what you've posted....it might be racist somehow, give them some time, they'll think up a way.

---

I don't know Lyle, Saddo posters are highly intelligent and besides, i'm not sure i'm a racist, I try to hate all of humanity equally. :cool:

---

Yes Mars I'm no racist I hate ever fucker,;D I treat ever one with contempt, in the words of Doris Day
what ever will be will be, kick that Emos ass.;D

Most of you are getting your knickers in a twist. No law is being changed, it is simply encouraging these victims of crime to report attacks against them. A crime is a crime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superheavyrhun

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Everyone is supposed to enjoy equal protection under the law. These kind of laws protect different classes of people more so than others.

---

I'm pretty sure everyone still has the same protection under the law. It is the punishment for the criminals that is different, as opposed to the protection people receive.

---

Is an emo's life worth a harsher punishment than a non-emo? The differences in punishment mean inequality... do you not see that? Why emos why not chavs? Everyone hates chavs, should their group not be protected?

---

Do you have Chav's in the US? I had assumed it was a UK thing, track suit wearing, toothless wasters.

Basically you cannot say anything mean about anyone. You can think what you like, but if you say it outloud then you offend someone. That then makes you racist, gayist, gingerist, chavist, heightist and so on. Some people are just wankers, always will be. If that wasn't a taboo and likely to be offensive, they would just say something else offensive. There should be a law against cunts, a panel decides and if you are generally a cunt to people, you'll get dealt with.

Killing someone on purpose is murder, full stop. Doesn't really matter if you did it because what they look like or if it was because you had a dodgy Big Mac for lunch. Either way, it's a cuntish thing to do, no better or worse than each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

Let's go back to an earlier post of yours, where you make the point that being an emo is a choice. Unlike being black, Vietnamese, or a Jew. If you're a member of a hate group, and go out and lynch a person because he's any of the aforementioned, IMO you deserve a worse punishment than if you murder someone under other circumstances or for other motives.

Let's go back to something similar to an earlier GB post as well. Different scenarios:

• You kill someone you found in bed with your wife.
• You kill someone who cut in front of you on the freeway.
• You kill someone because you had a fight in a bar.
• You kill someone because he's black and you're a KKK or skinhead.

IMO, murderer # 4 deserves a worse punishment than 1-3. All victims are protected by law. But motive decides the severity of the punishment.

---

My punishments for your list

#1-#4 If premeditated death penalty or life with no parole. If heat of the moment then 18-life if it was unintentional then perhaps a lesser sentence.

Motive isn't the crime!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

Let's go back to an earlier post of yours, where you make the point that being an emo is a choice. Unlike being black, Vietnamese, or a Jew. If you're a member of a hate group, and go out and lynch a person because he's any of the aforementioned, IMO you deserve a worse punishment than if you murder someone under other circumstances or for other motives.

Let's go back to something similar to an earlier GB post as well. Different scenarios:

• You kill someone you found in bed with your wife.
• You kill someone who cut in front of you on the freeway.
• You kill someone because you had a fight in a bar.
• You kill someone because he's black and you're a KKK or skinhead.

IMO, murderer # 4 deserves a worse punishment than 1-3. All victims are protected by law. But motive decides the severity of the punishment.

---

My punishments for your list

#1-#4 If premeditated death penalty or life with no parole. If heat of the moment then 18-life if it was unintentional then perhaps a lesser sentence.

Motive isn't the crime!

---

1 thru 3 are "heat of the moment". # 4 is coldly premeditated.
Thanks for answering.

What if I'm in the KKK and kill a black guy that cut me off in traffic?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

Let's go back to an earlier post of yours, where you make the point that being an emo is a choice. Unlike being black, Vietnamese, or a Jew. If you're a member of a hate group, and go out and lynch a person because he's any of the aforementioned, IMO you deserve a worse punishment than if you murder someone under other circumstances or for other motives.

Let's go back to something similar to an earlier GB post as well. Different scenarios:

• You kill someone you found in bed with your wife.
• You kill someone who cut in front of you on the freeway.
• You kill someone because you had a fight in a bar.
• You kill someone because he's black and you're a KKK or skinhead.

IMO, murderer # 4 deserves a worse punishment than 1-3. All victims are protected by law. But motive decides the severity of the punishment.

---

My punishments for your list

#1-#4 If premeditated death penalty or life with no parole. If heat of the moment then 18-life if it was unintentional then perhaps a lesser sentence.

Motive isn't the crime!

---

1 thru 3 are "heat of the moment". # 4 is coldly premeditated.
Thanks for answering.

---

Also 1-3 don't necessarily have to be heat of the moment. I could kill a guy I found with my wife at a later date same with the traffic incident or the fight.

The thing is, it is supposed to be "equal protection under the law." It is not that way. In my youth, I was involved in a mini race war, just neighborhood stuff. When white guys were assaulted and beaten and called 'punk ass white boys', it was chalked up to 'boys will be boys.' When we retaliated, and the dreaded 'n-word' was used, guys got phone number sentences.
Take a look at the 'Zebra Killings.' Black ex-cons went on a rampage, violently stabbing (and stabbings are REALLY violent) white victims. Nobody got 'hate' crime enhancements. Can you imagine if white convicts did the same thing?
I have been involved in racially motivated assaults, both as target and perpetrator. In the situations I was party to, it was just young men being violent, as young men will, but it wasn't adjudicated that way.
I think that, in some situations, there should really be no rules. You have young men, out portraying themselves in a particular way, let them handle their business. Let 'em fight,even if it is along racial lines. And it will be. How else should you pick teams? Go at it. I don't see the point in initiating violence towards people that are non-violent, merely different. That is cowardice.

Refreshing honesty there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greynotsoold

The thing is, it is supposed to be "equal protection under the law." It is not that way. In my youth, I was involved in a mini race war, just neighborhood stuff. When white guys were assaulted and beaten and called 'punk ass white boys', it was chalked up to 'boys will be boys.' When we retaliated, and the dreaded 'n-word' was used, guys got phone number sentences.
Take a look at the 'Zebra Killings.' Black ex-cons went on a rampage, violently stabbing (and stabbings are REALLY violent) white victims. Nobody got 'hate' crime enhancements. Can you imagine if white convicts did the same thing?
I have been involved in racially motivated assaults, both as target and perpetrator. In the situations I was party to, it was just young men being violent, as young men will, but it wasn't adjudicated that way.
I think that, in some situations, there should really be no rules. You have young men, out portraying themselves in a particular way, let them handle their business. Let 'em fight,even if it is along racial lines. And it will be. How else should you pick teams? Go at it. I don't see the point in initiating violence towards people that are non-violent, merely different. That is cowardice.

---

THANK YOU!

See Titofan, hate crime legislation is full of prejudice and inequality and if the bleeding hearts truly cared about "fairness" then the laws on the books would be justly and equally enforced.

Titofan you're a fan of this list, let's tweak it a bit

• You kill someone you found in bed with your wife. Let's say the man you found in bed with your wife is of a different race, does that make it a hate crime?
• You kill someone who cut in front of you on the freeway. Let's say it was a person of a different race, does that make it a hate crime?
• You kill someone because you had a fight in a bar. Again, let's say it was a person of a different race does that make it a hate crime?
• You kill someone because he's an emo and you're not. Does that make it a hate crime?

Real life example of the prejudices "hate crimes" legislation can lead to would be the case of Matthew Shepard as opposed to the case of Jesse Dirkhising and also James Byrd's case as opposed to the case of Channon Christian & Christopher Newsome. All the cases listed were absolutely terrible, but only the minorities who were murdered had extra hate crime legislation either added to the books or added on the sentences of their murderers and THAT my friend does little more than create resentment.

Brace yourself Lyle, you are about to get a bulletized retort in size 15 font and sky blue

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

Brace yourself Lyle, you are about to get a bulletized retort in size 15 font and sky blue

---

Oh no, not SKY BLUE!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

What if I'm in the KKK and kill a black guy that cut me off in traffic?

---

The motive was he cut you off in traffic. It's not a race-motivated lynching.
Next.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Titofan you're a fan of this list, let's tweak it a bit

• You kill someone you found in bed with your wife. Let's say the man you found in bed with your wife is of a different race, does that make it a hate crime? The motive was jealous rage. Not a hate crime.
• You kill someone who cut in front of you on the freeway. Let's say it was a person of a different race, does that make it a hate crime? The motive was road rage. Not a hate crime.
• You kill someone because you had a fight in a bar. Again, let's say it was a person of a different race does that make it a hate crime? It was heat of the moment. Not a hate crime.
• You kill someone because he's an emo and you're not. Does that make it a hate crime? If you killed him solely because he's an emo, it's a hate crime.

Real life example of the prejudices "hate crimes" legislation can lead to would be the case of Matthew Shepard as opposed to the case of Jesse Dirkhising and also James Byrd's case as opposed to the case of Channon Christian & Christopher Newsome. All the cases listed were absolutely terrible, but only the minorities who were murdered had extra hate crime legislation either added to the books or added on the sentences of their murderers and THAT my friend does little more than create resentment.

---

I hope this helps.

;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

Brace yourself Lyle, you are about to get a bulletized retort in size 15 font and sky blue

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

Brace yourself Lyle, you are about to get a bulletized retort in size 15 font and sky blue

---

Oh no, not SKY BLUE!!!!

---

The Batman and Robin analogy wasn't well received (VC refuses to be Robin).
How about Laurel and Hardy?

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

The motive was he cut you off in traffic. It's not a race-motivated lynching.

---

Yeah but that is not how this always plays out. If a attention seeking prosecutor could allege that I am a racist (while despicable not illegal) then he can get his/her face in the news for going after hate crimes. "The traffic incident set this in motion but the victim wouldn't be dead if VC wasn't a KKK member." This type of law violates free speech b/c you are sentencing people based on their thoughts and beliefs. It shouldn't matter if someone is a bigot, assault and murder are enough in their own right to prosecute.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

Brace yourself Lyle, you are about to get a bulletized retort in size 15 font and sky blue

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

Brace yourself Lyle, you are about to get a bulletized retort in size 15 font and sky blue

---

Oh no, not SKY BLUE!!!!

---

The Batman and Robin analogy wasn't well received (VC refuses to be Robin).
How about Laurel and Hardy?

:)

---

Always with the name calling ;D

Oh no, I got called Batman and/or Robin, how dreadful.......or are you implying that VC & I are gay, because I'm pretty sure that's a hate crime or hate speech. As a matter of fact I've been singled out by other posters and they've poured out their hate speech on me, I'm calling Gloria Allred!!! You bastards are going to pay!!! Little did you know I'm in a subculture group......YEAH! a Subculture group! And You're discriminating against me & hurting my f-f-f-feelings, and lowering my self esteem by cyber bullying and hate speech....MOOOOOOODS!!!!!!!! Ban Tito, he's hate speeching against me!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

No, they're about trying to protect people from being picked on, and in some cases killed, by ignorant dumb-as-shit members of the majority.

---

So prior laws did not protect those classes of people then? Murder, assault, those things just didn't cover minorities?


Damn...we could have all been out killing emos....FUCK! We fucking missed our golden opportunity!!!

---

They're being picked on because they're a distinctive minority. The justice system is now going to use the power of the courts and the press to persuade the mindless thugs who attack them for (whatever reason) not to attack them. And that's a good thing! I think we're all in favour of no young kids getting smashed up, brain damaged or worse just because of the way they look. Right?

They're being afforded the protection that the law also gives to other vulnerable groups, ethnic minorities, gay people and so on. To try and prevent violence and death brought upon a group of people for no other reason than they offend the sensibilities of a number of violent idiots. What part of this don't you understand?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

They're being picked on because they're a distinctive minority. The justice system is now going to use the power of the courts and the press to persuade the mindless thugs who attack them for (whatever reason) not to attack them. And that's a good thing! I think we're all in favour of no young kids getting smashed up, brain damaged or worse just because of the way they look. Right?

They're being afforded the protection that the law also gives to other vulnerable groups, ethnic minorities, gay people and so on. To try and prevent violence and death brought upon a group of people for no other reason than they offend the sensibilities of a number of violent idiots. What part of this don't you understand?

---

OK, that's fine they are a minority and they are being picked on well the authorities in charge of protecting 100% of their citizens should be aware of this and offer protection. Not in the form of discriminatory laws, but just by enforcing the laws currently on record....are the laws broken? Why isn't assault being charged if someone is beaten up? Why isn't murder being charged if someone is killed?

Ethnicity & sexual orientation aren't "choices" (I guess, I mean I'm not gay so I don't understand how people come to the conclusion that they are...not an insult, I'm just saying I don't know how the process goes). Being emo/goth/punk is a CHOICE....do we see how that might be stretching these already discriminatory "hate crime" laws a bit thin? What's next "Oh, it's a hate crime if you don't invite me to your birthday party because I have low self esteem"? Or "It's a hate crime for you to have peanut butter in your lunch because I'm allergic to peanut butter...how could you, you soulless bastard?!?!"

But hey I'm a white, Anglo-Saxon, heterosexual, Christian, male....so what have I got to worry about, I mean it's not like anyone hates me ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

They're being picked on because they're a distinctive minority. The justice system is now going to use the power of the courts and the press to persuade the mindless thugs who attack them for (whatever reason) not to attack them. And that's a good thing! I think we're all in favour of no young kids getting smashed up, brain damaged or worse just because of the way they look. Right?

They're being afforded the protection that the law also gives to other vulnerable groups, ethnic minorities, gay people and so on. To try and prevent violence and death brought upon a group of people for no other reason than they offend the sensibilities of a number of violent idiots. What part of this don't you understand?

---

OK, that's fine they are a minority and they are being picked on well the authorities in charge of protecting 100% of their citizens should be aware of this and offer protection. Not in the form of discriminatory laws, but just by enforcing the laws currently on record....are the laws broken? Why isn't assault being charged if someone is beaten up? Why isn't murder being charged if someone is killed?

Ethnicity & sexual orientation aren't "choices" (I guess, I mean I'm not gay so I don't understand how people come to the conclusion that they are...not an insult, I'm just saying I don't know how the process goes). Being emo/goth/punk is a CHOICE....do we see how that might be stretching these already discriminatory "hate crime" laws a bit thin? What's next "Oh, it's a hate crime if you don't invite me to your birthday party because I have low self esteem"? Or "It's a hate crime for you to have peanut butter in your lunch because I'm allergic to peanut butter...how could you, you soulless bastard?!?!"

But hey I'm a white, Anglo-Saxon, heterosexual, Christian, male....so what have I got to worry about, I mean it's not like anyone hates me ;)

---

The law isn't discriminating. They're publicising this to make voilent thugs out there aware that attacking people because they're emos will bring the same kind of sanction as attacking ethnic minorities or gay people.

And yes, you're a white male. You're a member of the majority and you've got far less to fear than any minority, your racial paranoia notwithstanding. But if somebody ever does attack you because you're white then you'll be afforded the same protection under the law as any other victim of a hate crime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

The law isn't discriminating. They're publicising this to make voilent thugs out there aware that attacking people because they're emos will bring the same kind of sanction as attacking ethnic minorities or gay people.

And yes, you're a white male. You're a member of the majority and you've got far less to fear than any minority, your racial paranoia notwithstanding. But if somebody ever does attack you because you're white then you'll be afforded the same protection under the law as any other victim of a hate crime.

---

Umm yeah it IS discriminating and I'll show you how. Now pay attention little one ;)

A murders B, A is caught, charged with murder and given the typical sentence nothing special 18-life

A murders C, C is a minority, A is charged with murder AND a hate crime and a harsher sentence is handed down.

Is B any LESS of a person than C? 2 lives were taken, the end result is IDENTICAL but why are the punishments different?



What I am trying to say is because I'm white I WON'T be "protected" by hate crime legislation, it has fucking happened already http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders...stopher_Newsom ...there ya go partner, read that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

The law isn't discriminating. They're publicising this to make voilent thugs out there aware that attacking people because they're emos will bring the same kind of sanction as attacking ethnic minorities or gay people.

And yes, you're a white male. You're a member of the majority and you've got far less to fear than any minority, your racial paranoia notwithstanding. But if somebody ever does attack you because you're white then you'll be afforded the same protection under the law as any other victim of a hate crime.

---

Umm yeah it IS discriminating and I'll show you how. Now pay attention little one ;)

A murders B, A is caught, charged with murder and given the typical sentence nothing special 18-life

A murders C, C is a minority, A is charged with murder AND a hate crime and a harsher sentence is handed down.

Is B any LESS of a person than C? 2 lives were taken, the end result is IDENTICAL but why are the punishments different?

---

Because in the hate crime case a jury decided the murderer was guilty of a hate crime.