Is this an admission that you’re wrong? Because your strawman claim that any crime committed against someone of a different race - one you made repeatedly - certainly isn’t consistent with this.
At any rate, I was explaining the purpose of the law, not giving the text. This text doesn’t disagree with what I stated as the purpose of the law in any respect.
I wasn’t using the legal distinction between “intent” and “motivation”. Obviously, though, it has nothing to do with the issue, as hate crime laws exist to punish crimes committed with the intent of terrorizing a specific segment of the population. There is a good reason to punish crimes of bigotry more heavily, as those crimes have a specific purpose beyond that of other crimes. That is a matter of intent, and the intent matters, because these crimes are tools to make an entire population live in fear. Lynching was used during the early parts of the twentieth century for that exact purpose. Black people in the south lived in fear of being lynched; it was a tool that existed so that an example could be made of someone, thus keeping the entire black community “in line”. This is the ugliest side of human nature; it’s an impressive thing that so much of the population - including yourself, obviously - has been convinced to step up and defend those crimes as it were. It’s a sad thing, too.
Which of course is a strawman (you do like those, don’t you?) Hate crime laws exist so that gays, blacks, Jews, and so forth don’t have to live in fear of bigots. Apparently, even though the purpose of these laws has been explained to you, you still disagree with them. I can only assume that means you don’t particularly care about the reality that violence is used as a tool of terror against specific groups of people. I find that quite horrifying, actually.
Where did you state you were explaining the purpose, you say A hate crime is… you’re defining what a hate crime is, and Congress apparently disagrees with you.
I’m not sure what assertion you are claiming that I am making. You say that I “claim that any crime committed against someone of a different race”…and then you just stop. So you can clear that part of your argument later.
I think you are inserting a motive into the heads of the criminal that is hard to prove. A person could kill a homosexual because he hates “fags”, but I wouldn’t draw the conclusion that he is doing it out of a desire to scare the gay population. But even if it was the case additional charges like in the case of advocating violence against a group of individuals, a charge of inciting violence would be more prudent that dragging out the tired hate crime legislation.
Ok, now you’re just putting words in my mouth. I have made no statements to that effect. I certainly don’t condone acts of violence, nor hate crime legislation. The two are not mutually exclusive, I think hate crime legislation does nothing to solve the problem, and if anything exacerbates it.
Why should someone’s social background, sexual affiliation, etc. entitle them to special treatment because their attackers are different from them?
Which is why I concluded my statement with “IMO”. It is my opinion, clearly labelled as such. I am not trying to claim it as a statement of fact.
I didn’t bring up the subject. I was clarifying a point of discussion brought by another poster using the cited case as an example. And your logic here is flawed anyway. Nowhere did I say that since this case is not a hate crime, then all hate crime laws are bad or anything even remotely of that ilk.
You’ll kindly show me where I tried to claim there was no racial element here, thanks. Go on, I’ll wait…
Almost all of the times I have ever hear the term “race card” used have been in reference to blacks. And that “drop of a hat” remark is bullshit; this is not something done by me or most other blacks I know.
From your post, Erek, I am more than willing to believe YOU have reading comprehension problems. When did I say anything about “keeping the ‘black man down’”? And what makes you think I “play the race card inappropriately”? The part of my post you quoted includes
In all societies there are relative social advantages and disadvantages baased on one’s being identified with a group, whether it’s by ethinicity, gender, economic status, or a number of other things (and FWIW, economic status is almost certainly a greater indicator of advantage or disadvantage than race or anything else). These are not set in stone; the degree of advantage/disadvantage can change over time; I certainly don’t believe racism impacts my life to anywhere near the degree it did my grandparents’. The fact that I don’t think that racism has disappeared completely seems to lead mswas to condescendngly conclude that I am not capable of not seeing it everywhere. As he’s showing a similar attitude to posters who may not be black, I won’t say he’s a bigot. There are, however, other words I might use to describe him.
Well, you’ve certainly not come up with any evidence to support this extravagant claim. I suppose if I defined a car as a means of personal transport over moderately large distances, and you found a definition elsewhere that said a car was a big metal contraption with an engine and four wheels that consumed gasoline, you’d claim I was wrong? I’m sorry, but you can make your claims over and over, and it still won’t be true. I don’t even get what you’re trying for here - do you really feel that quoting the law somehow contradicting what I said about its purpose? Because it doesn’t. You found the text of a law. Congrats. I explained what the law was for. You won’t find an explanation of why murder is wrong in murder statutes either. So I have no idea what you think you’re proving by quoting the act itself.
You claimed, over and over, that any crime committed by a person against someone of a different race was a hate crime. You suggested that all it took was to attack someone with a different skin color, and it automatically counted as a hate crime. And once again, that is not true. (I mentioned South Park in jest earlier, but I have to point out that this is precisely the false claim made in an episode of South Park that concerned hate crime laws. I do enjoy that TV show, but (while I hate to break it to you) their political commentary is generally less than probing.
Also, pool, despite the fact that I seem to have dropped a couple words in that sentence, it was entirely comprehensible. Obviously you’re trying for debate points by capitalizing on a very minor error on my part. Congratulations. You spotted an incomplete sentence. Bully for you.
A charge of “inciting violence” would, in most cases, be completely erroneous. The idea is to spread terror, not to incite a mob to drive the rest of the kikes out of town. Though I don’t doubt some people would be happy to do so. The problem with your suggestion is that if a wave of violence doesn’t occur, then it’s pretty much impossible to claim that violence was incited. That doesn’t mean that whatever community was targeted isn’t living in fear.
I never said you condoned bigotry. I said you were defending it. Much like the ACLU defends the right of the Klan to conduct rallies. Except that in this case, you’re not accomplishing a noble purpose. You’ve been swept up into a wave of popular sentiment that’s simply not based upon any truth. It’s sad that you would decide to defend people like this over some abstract, intellectualized concept of hate crimes that you’ve picked up from second rate political pundits and doesn’t have anything to do with reality.
pool, I’m trying my best to be patient with you. But no matter how many times you say this, it’s still a straw man. You once again are making a claim predicated on the belief that any crime whose victim is of a different race (etc.) than the criminal’s is prosecuted as a hate crime. And that is simply not true. If there is no element of targetting a particular race (etc. again), such crimes aren’t, and shouldn’t be, prosecuted as hate crimes. This has nothing to do with special treatment and everything to do with acknowledging the fact that racial (etc.) violence still exists, and it’s something that needs to be dealt with.
Gosh, I’m sorry. I must have gotten confused when you posted this:
Because that looks an awful lot like a discussion of whether this crime was a hate crime, followed up by a claim that hate crime laws are “overused” (which is truly a bizarre statement.) See, it almost looks like you were exploring this crime and whether it’s a hate crime, and using that to justify your prior beliefs (beliefs internalized, as are so many others, from hearing the same things over and over in the media) about hate crimes. In fact, I’m still confused, Q.E.D. Because I simply can’t find another way to interpret what you said. But you got all mad at me when I responded to what you said. Do I need a special decoder ring to understand your posts?
It amazes me that people can’t understand how screaming a racial epithet doesn’t necessarily make someone racist. A racial epithet can just as easily be a convenient weapon to use to further degrade your victim. If I am beating up a black man and calling him a stupid nigger, it could easily be transposed to a gay man and call him a stupid faggot, or a white man and call him a stupid cracker. It doesn’t really matter. People so desperately want to cling to racism that they cannot see this. In my neighborhood I don’t think I am statistically more likely to get beaten up and mugged for being white than any other color. Far more likely motive would be if I came home in a suit looking like I might have some cash. Then when my mugger comes up to me and says “Hey whitey, give me all your cash.”, he’s not mugging me because I’m white, he’s mugging me because I appear to have cash. The racial epithet is not relevant, it’s not racially motivated, even if somewhere in his state of mind he is angry because whitey is more likely to have money than him. When walking down the street I find the attitude one holds in their posture is FAR MORE relevant than the color of the skin. The skin color is just a convenient way to label someone, but it’s only a shallow covering over what the actual motivation was.
Believe me if I get mugged by a black person, I’m going to believe that it’s because the person thought I had cash, not because I was white, no matter what they say to me about my skin color. Then again, I’ve always lived in Ethnically diverse areas, so maybe other people have a window into racism I’ve never had. <shrugs>
I quite simply think it is naive to always blame things on racism, even if on the surface it seems like racism was an issue. It may have been an issue, but it also might be that racism is low on the list of motivations for the assailant. That’s all I am trying to get at.
Those of you who continue to not understand what I am trying to say may now continue to spew invective at me.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that this is clearly a racial crime, except perhaps the victim. But there’s some evidence to suggest that the motivation was racist, at least in part - screaming racist invective does suggest a racial component, and like others have said, it honestly wouldn’t occur to me to pull out the racial slurs if I decided to attack someone for bagging my groceries wrong. There’s evidence that there’s some racial motivation behind this crime, and it seems strange to me that you would claim that there’s none, when there’s some evidence - inconclusive evidence, but evidence nonetheless - that this crime was in part racist, and there’s no evidence to claim that it’s not.
Whether the victim was right or wrong in calling this a racial crime seems like a very small issue to start a pit thread over, particularly when there’s not a lot of evidence either way.
Excalibre I don’t think that there was no racial component, I don’t know either way. I am simply trying to point an idea out, one that goes beyond this particular case.
Guinistasia You clearly have very little street experience.
Guinistasia So in the above scenario outlined, where I am walking home in a suit, and I get mugged by some black person from my neighborhood, who yells at me “Hey, whitey give me all your money.”
Is he mugging me because he hates white people? Or is he mugging me because I look like I have money?
Apparently so, since none of that has anything remotely to do with my response to you. I’m still waiting for you to address the specific issues I raised, which for your convenience I will list here and clarify for you:
[ul][li]I do not dispute your contention that my statement concerning the frequency of hate-crime prosecution is my personal opinion or belief and that I have no facts at hand to back it up. In point of fact, I clearly labeled the original statement as my opinion. Why do you continue to press this issue as if it were an original observation by you?[/li][li]You contended that it is “…completely ridiculous for you to bring up the merits of hate crime legislation in this case…” It is indeed ridiculous, or at least irrelevant. However, you have yet to demonstrate the truth of your statement that it was I who introduced the subject. You also contend that I made a statement to the effect that “since this was not a hate crime, then all hate crime laws are invalid”. This is also blatantly false. Nowhere did I profer such a conclusion.[/li][li]You appeared to assert that I “…[tried] to claim that this case didn’t involve a racial element…” I made no such claim. Is it your contention that I did make such a claim, and if so, can you show me where?[/li][/ul]
Nowhere did I say I was not discussing whether this was, or was not, a hate crime. Of course I was. Maybe my English isn’t so good; please educate me and show me where in any of these statements I denied this:
Frankly, I’m amazed you haven’t run out of hay yet.
Miller. You keep equating racism with hate crimes. But it’s not so. Hate crimes are violent crimes motivated by any ethnic, religious, or sexual orientation prejudice, not just out-and-out-racist inclinations. Colin Ferguseon repeatedly indicted himself by saying he was shooting those commuters because they were white and he felt opppressed by white people. It’s pretty cut and dried, and it wasn’t random. Just like Bernie Goetz actions against those black muggers was a hate crime. An understandable hate crime, evidentally a sympathetic and forgiveable hate crime (I’m not shedding any tears), but a hate crime nonetheless.
Might be both. Might be that mugging you gives him the excuse and additional financial reward for going out and beating up white people. If you can investigate the mugger’s past behavior it might reveal a pattern of attacking whites, making anti-white statements and associations with anti-white groups like the Mau-Maus or old-school Nation of Islam. It’s not that complicated.
And it might not have anything to do with the fact that I am white, and calling me whitey is just a convenient way to intimidate me. Could go any particular way.
I have never argued that racism doesn’t exist, only that it’s often a very shallow answer that allows people not to look any deeper at an issue.
Uh no I never said that, but I am trying to illustrate that people will try to erroneously claim that a crime is a hate crime like in the case of the OP if the races are different and inject motives that are not evident from the details we have of the incident.
Well in the example I used if they did incite violence then they would be charged as such. If they were trying to spread terror they would be charged with making terroristic threats. You see no hate crime legislastion is necessary.
I’m not defending it, I’m condemning the fact that some seek to prosecute what amounts to a thought crime. People are allowed to hate whomever they want , but when they do something unlawful they need to be charged, but not have a stiffer sentence because they don’t like the race, creed, etc.
Once again, that is not what I am saying, though I admit some of my examples were extreme. What I am saying is that Hate Crime legislation opens the door to charging people with hate crimes in situations which they don’t apply and in many cases as in the OP impossible to prove.
You realize “whitey” is about twenty-five years out of date, right?
Actually the really hateful brothers I know wouldn’t bother with talk to intimidate anybody. That’s what the guns are for. This is why they have developed the “thousand yard stare,” the “thug mug,” and having house-shaking bass speakers in their car trunks.
At this point, you’re simply lying about what you’ve said earlier. Further, your use of this case to “illustrate that people will try to erroneously claim that a crime is a hate crime” is at best disingenuous, as this crime has not been prosecuted as a hate crime. While the victim claimed there was a racial element to the crime (a claim that - I remind you - we have no evidence to disprove, while the victim does have evidence to support the claim), this crime has not, as a matter of pure fact, been prosecuted as a hate crime. It is incorrect to say otherwise, and it’s deceptive to try to use it to prove that hate crime law is applied too broadly.
Except we’re talking about cases that don’t involve inciting mob violence or explicitly making terrorist threats. Are you having trouble reading the things I write? Do I need to use smaller words here? Hate crime laws don’t exist to prosecute actual attempts to get violent mobs to attack mosques - there are already laws about that. They obviously don’t cover making threats - if you call in a bomb threat to a black church, there’s laws against that as well. Hate crime laws exist for a different circumstance than what other laws cover. That’s why they’re on the books.
And I’ve explained why exactly these crimes are punished more heavily - not because the person is committing “thoughtcrime” (I believe that came from the South Park episode as well . . . there’s nothing more insufferable than the sort of person who thinks 1984 was some kind of intellectually rigorous discourse on political science, except I guess the sort of person who thinks a TV show about children in snow suits is an intellectually rigorous discourse on political science). Hate crimes are punished more heavily than other crimes because they have very specific effects on large groups of people. There are not criminal statutes in existence other than hate crime legislation - no matter what you claim - that properly deal with instances in which criminals decide to make an example out of someone.
It is disingenuous or worse for you to continue making claims like this one when the actual reasoning behind hate crime legislation has been offered, and it has nothing to do with banning illegal thoughts.
They need to have a stiffer sentence if they are trying to frighten an entire group of people. How the fuck many times do I have to explain this to you? In the bit I quote here, you state that hate crime law means “a stiffer sentence because they don’t like the race, creed, etc.” - this is not true. This is one more strawman.
Congratulations. This is not a straw man. It’s just stupid. The case cited in the OP was not prosecuted as a hate crime. This case has nothing to do with hate crime laws. The fact that this case is not a good example of a hate crime is perfectly okay, because no one has tried to claim that this is a hate crime except for folks like you and Q.E.D. who are trying to use a case that is not a hate crime as evidence that hate crime laws are bad.
Any law on the books “opens the door to charging people with . . . crimes in situations which they don’t apply”. That’s perhaps the stupidest thing you’ve said yet. (Sorry, but your continual failure to come up with anything resembling an argument and your constant use of strawmen has tested my patience, and I’m no longer going to pretend that you are offering rational, thoughtful argument.)
Any law can be misapplied if the entire justice system fails. If a prosecutor decides to charge me with bank robbery even though I haven’t done it, a grand jury agrees, a judge permits it, and a jury finds me guilty, then I’ll end up in jail on charges of bank robbery. Likewise, if I beat up some black guy for entirely non-racial reasons, but the prosecution argues that it’s a hate crime, the judge allows it, and the jury agrees, my sentence will be longer because I will have been found guilty on a hate crime. Suggesting that a law shouldn’t exist because it could hypothetically be applied unfairly is absolute nonsense. Any law may be applied unfairly. We have a whole justice system in place to make sure that this doesn’t happen, but obviously sometimes all that stuff fails. By the reasoning you’ve offered up here, every law should be stricken from the books - all of them could potentially be misapplied, so they all have to go.
That’s fucking moronic.
Now, pool, until you can rationally address the points I’ve made here, and stop making strawman claims about what hate crime laws are, we will not discuss this matter further. You clearly have no response to the arguments I’ve made, because you haven’t addressed them at all and continue to raise points that have already been refuted. This is not productive for either of us - you have made up your mind, and while you have done so on the basis of propaganda and lies, you are not willing to examine your position in the slightest. It doesn’t seem to matter what I type, as your attempts at “argument” are nothing but reciting the same strawmen and fallacious reasoning that I’ve heard from plenty of other idiots. It’s obvious you’re not going to suddenly come up with something enlightening here, since you continue to make arguments long after I’ve countered them, and since you have no original thought of your own to give to the matter.
