I'm agreeing with Tucker Carlson

[Atman]

I'll stick my finger down my throat later...but I agree.

A crime against ME is no worse than a crime against YOU. Whomever YOU are.


.

[WilliamPitt]

1. ?

[Fridays Child]

3. I think the topic was hate crimes, if that helps.

The idea being that equal offenses should be punished equallly, regardless of the victim.

[valerief]

2. Well, if YOU is the ruling elite, it's a whole other ballgame and TC knows that quite well. nt

[Atman]

6. Bullshit

As TC stated quite succinctly, do you think MY family will care LESS if I'm beaten to death than YOUR family will? Why is YOUR family deserving of more resources simply because of whom you sleep with, or the color of your skin? This has absolutely nothing to do with "elitism." It has to do with equality. We want everyone to be equal, or so we claim. Unless, of course, we get the shit beat out of us. Then some want to more equal than others. Imagine how my family would feel if they found me dead in a ditch one night and the police said "If only you were (gay)(black)(whatever), we'd have more resources available to help you."

How the hell is that "elitist" or "equal" or even MORAL?

.

[valerief]

12. The warmongers aren't in prison, are they? And the war is illegal. nt

[Sapere aude]

14. More resources? Is that what the law does? Give more resources to investigate hate crimes?

[Atman]

15. YES, that is what the law does.

It elevates so-called "hate crimes" above "mere" crimes. It allots more resources to police to investigate and prosecute HATE crimes. How the hell is that treating everyone equally?

.

[BOSSHOG]

4. An interesting topic

I'm in favor of hate crimes legislation. A crime against you might be a result of a robbery. How bout if you got the fuck beat out of you just cause you were gay or jewish or black or a good looking bald guy (me?)

People like carlson oppose hate crimes legislation and I have to question their motivation. Protecting their own?

They also oppose
- THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE
- SWEARING TO TELL THE TRUTH

[atreides1]

5. Would you change your mind

If the crime against you was simply because the criminal didn't like the color of your skin, while the crime he commits against me is for financial gain?

One is a crime based on hate, the other is a crime based on greed, see the difference?

[Atman]

7. No, I would not change my mind.

No, I don't see the difference. If you strive for equality, strive for equality. You're hedging here. Maybe the guy who beat me up for my money hated rich people. I know such people personally (not that they'd beat me to death for my money).

See the difference?

.

[mitchtv]

8. Funny the topic comes up..

Not when a law is proposed , but when Gays are being added to the list. Besides, are you saying that a swastika on a synagogue is no worse than a graffiti on my house?

[Atman]

16. Nothing funny about it.

Either way, what is the worst final outcome? Sandblasting and repainting. "HATE" crime is no different than THOUGHT crime. The law is attempting to get inside your head. What if the swastika (originally a symbol of friendship, btw), was painted on that synagogue on a drunken dare? Is there a separate Drunken Stupid crime category? Why not?

Either tagging is VANDALISM and should be prosecuted as such. Your non-too-subtle assertion that it's only being opposed because GAYS were added to it is as reprehensible and ignorant as the law itself.

.

[NashVegas]

9. We Arrest People for Their Actions - Not Their Thoughts

Why someone perpetrates a crime is only relevant to crime prevention. An act of random violence is no better or worse than one that's directed because someone has a chip on their shoulder. The end result is still the same.

[submerged99]

11. Why are there degrees of crimes in court?

If you kill someone in an accident or shoot them intentionally, are they still not dead? If so, why then is one charged with a different degree and punished more harshly?

[valerief]

13. So that rich people can get off easily. nt

[Atman]

17. Because you can ACCIDENTALLY shoot someone.

I don't think it's possible to ACCIDENTALLY beat someone to death with a baseball bat, or ACCIDENTALLY chain a person to your bumper and drag them down a dirt road.

.

[Kingshakabobo]

24. What if I beat you to death in the heat of passion.......

..............or if I lay in wait and stalk you..or how about if I beat you to death for hire... or for your insurance money. You don't know that the law will sentence differently? Or did you forget? You and 200 years of jurisprudence in this country don't see eye to eye.

I don't know why the notion of "motive" is so hard to grasp when it comes to hate crime legislation. Hint: Motive doesn't HAVE to be proved to convict.....but when motive CAN be established, it can serve to mitigate OR enhance sentencing. I don't know why you can't understand that a swastika on a synagogue is meant to intimidate/terrorize a class of persons......just like loading up your car with baseball bats and driving in to the city to beat up 'fags' is meant to terrorize and intimidate whole groups and neighborhoods......it really is.

I suppose you think a burning cross on a lawn should warrant a citation for open flame in public?

When a gay man gets bashed in my neighborhood, it sends ripples through the community. People are afraid to walk home at night. Some people refuse to go out. Some people resort to carrying weapons. Neighborhood watches are formed.....ALL due to one crime. All with the same result - terror and intimidation.

If you can't see it I don't know what to tell you.

Hints:

A) If you are agreeing with fucker carlson.....that should tell you something.

B) If you are agreeing with that asshole boiling it down to the most simplistic terms....that should tell you more.

[submerged99]

33. can't delete n/t

[Kingshakabobo]

38. My post was aimed at ATMAN. n/t

[Kingshakabobo]

40. That's ok. No worries. I'll kick this again because I want to hear the OP's views on ......

.....degrees of sentencing for motive and how society feels it OK to sentence based on motive...


...or "thought crimes" when referring to crimes against gays.:sarcasm:

[WinkyDink]

22. Intent is not motive. And that's the legal distinction.

[Kingshakabobo]

27. What if you kill someone, on purpose, in the heat of passion....

......or you kill someone for their insurance money. Are you saying there are jurisdictions that DON'T sentence differently.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

28. And it should be illegal to intentionally beat minorities.

Hence the need for hate crime legislation.

[Atman]

42. It is already illegal to intentially beat ANYBODY.

ANYBODY. Regardless of motive.

.

[Kingshakabobo]

43. But the sentences are stiffer depending on motive.

You refuse to acknowledge that when it comes to hate crimes.

I find it strange that nuance and gray areas fly out the window when it comes to crimes against gays.

You say it's illegal to beat up ANYBODY.....tell me, if I beat up an elderly person or a child, should I not be judged more harshly under the law? or are they "special classes of people."?

[Atman]

46. Which I did, in fact, acknowledge very plainly!

What I find strange is the way you're interpreting my agreement as disagreement! Come on, man, read my posts! How many times now have I said that motivation is already considered in ANY murder case? ANY. What part of ANY makes you think I refuse to acknowledge that sentences are stiffer depending upon motive? But you're not talking about motive as much as you're talking about classes of people! You want a person's social status to be the motive unto itself. This is no different than saying a rich guy's murderer deserved a harsher penalty than the killer of a middle class family guy.

So, tell me then, using your example...should the murderer of a twink receive a harsher penalty than the murderer of a bear, since, by your own example, a twink is probably less able to defend himself? Hmm? Where do we draw this particular line?

What about murderers of school teachers? Or cops? Are cops weak and defenseless like that elderly man or young child in your example? How about the poor defenseless mailman prayed upon specifically because he couldn't run away fast enough because of his big heavy sack of mail? I know that sounds flip to you, and gives you yet another reason to act like a condescending holier-than-thou brother of all mankind to my loathsome white maleness, but your example of the old man and the young child -- those mitigating factors are already taken into consideration in sentencing. Not because they're "special classes of citizens," but because they're less able to defend themselves against attackers. Are you making the case that gay men or black men are simply incapable of defending themselves? I don't think so. I certainly hope not! So then, it must be coming from someplace else, someplace deeper. Your mind.

Which is why I equated hate crime legislation to "thought crime" legislation in an earlier post. You're presupposing to know what is going on inside a person's head when he's bludgeoning another human being to death, as if the act wasn't horrible enough -- as if it makes a fucks bit of difference to the person being bludgeoned as he's reaching for the white light.

:shrug:

.

[Kingshakabobo]

47. Arrrrgh....there you go with the "thought crime" bull....

Yes, we do try to determine what's going on inside a persons head WHEN THEY COMMIT THE CRIME. It's called MOTIVE. Not while they are acting as law abiding citizens....I'll say it again: WHEN THEY COMMIT THE CRIME. It's called motive. Society has ALWAYS assessed different penalties for different motives.

Is it condoning "thought crimes" to say a person who murders for profit is worse than someone who murders in a fit of rage? How do we know if the person was, in fact, in a fit of rage? Should we do away with all 3rd degree murder and give everyone the chair? You keep acknowledging that there ARE different degrees of murder but you refuse to acknowledge the how and the WHY of proving them.

Maybe we just aren't on the same wavelength if you think some kid spraying the side of an apartment building is the same as a white supremacist spraying a swastika on the side of a synagogue.........or if you think burning a African American church where voters register is the same as burning down a barn..........it's about terrorism and intimidation.

Did you intentionally cite examples of "protected classes" in your example above(cops teachers etc.)?

I got news for you. Assaulting cops, teachers and mailmen call for, in one way or another, harsher penalties. Why is that?.....did you really just toss me that lay-up or am I missing something?

[submerged99]

39. my mistake

I got it mixed up. My bad.

[madokie]

10. I can't listen to his shit long enough to agree or disagree

so you're way up one on me

[ComerPerro]

18. no one is likely to drag Tucker behind a car for being white, or beat him to death for being hetero

[Atman]

19. But one could do it for his being an obnoxious asshole pundit.

Several on DU swear they HATE him. I don't blame them. He's a horrible, horrible human being. But you're saying if he gets beaten and dragged, he's afforded less due process than if he were black? I don't get it.

.

[ComerPerro]

20. well, thing is, hate crime legislation doesn't really take away any rights

and I would have to say that targeting someone based on their race or sexual orientation alone is far worse than targeting someone because they are a douchebag.

Lynching is a serious crime on a completely different level than a crime motivated for some personal relationship reason.

One GOP talking point seems to be that hate crime legislation will cheapen other crimes. AKA, "white people won't be protected by the law anymore". But it simply isn't so.

[Atman]

26. But this bill gives MORE resources to police to prosecute crimes against gays

or blacks or whatever. You're correct, rights are not being taken away, but special rights are being given to certain people for no other reason than color of skin or sexual orientation. Understand, this does not put everyone on an equal footing under the law, as you imply. It affords EXTRA rights/resources specifically for crimes against certain people. IOW, my life is worth less to the government than yours. Why?

.

[Huskerchub]

30. well whoppiti damn ding dong...

giving fagots "special rights" when they should be treated like everyone else. Until every dumb ass that says that is in full support of removing the "special rights" of heterosexuals to get legally married and removes the over 1000 privileges that provides them needs to shut the F up about "special rights"! Actually I could give a shit whether you take the privileges away from heterosexuals or grant them to homosexuals just make it the same for everyone. And then, once there are not more crimes based on the hatred of who I AM as a human being THEN and ONLY THEN should there not be "special rights" granted to those of us who are at risk. You are acting like if I am robbed at gun point and I'm a gay man that it is a hate crime....buzzzzzz wrong. Is it a hate crime if I'm called a c&*ksucking fagot during the robbery? Probably not and just like you I get no "special rights" Now if I am robbed BECAUSE I'm gay then for that reason, it is a hate crime. Almost all hate crimes legislation I've ever seen in the spirit of "crimes committed on the basis of a person's....fill in the blank". See it's about the motivation of the crime not who the crime was committed against.

[Kingshakabobo]

31. What, exactly, is the "special right"? Do I get secret service protection?

Do I get to jump in the front of line at Disney Land?

Do I get special privileges in Las Vegas?

Oh, by the way, do I have to get my head bashed in to cash in on these "special rights"?

[Atman]

32. Oh for christ sake, get real.

You're not listening/reading. You are so far off base it's not funny, on so many different levels. Including your own pre-conceived notion of my own sexuality, simply because I disagree with laws granting extra-legal rights to ANYONE, regardless of race, gender, sexuality, etc. How many times do I have to state that, and how many times will you ignore it and denigrate your own position by equating this law with cutting in line at Disneyland? That is just plain ridiculous. Read slowly if it helps...the law as written devotes more resources to a crime against group a than to groub b. Period. IOW, as I stated in one of the other posts you obviously didn't read, if I get beaten to death and tossed into a ditch, unless it can be proven that I'm gay or black, the police can say, "Feh, sorry, we don't have the manpower." Will they? Probably not, but who knows, right? OTOH, if a black guy is found in that same ditch alongside me, this law provides for MORE manpower and money to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of the crime against him than me. So you're okay with defining special classes of citizens? Remember, I didn't write any slavery laws and I have nothing to do with any anti-gay legislation. Yet, this bill treats me as a lesser citizen, worthy of less attention than a gay man or a black man. You seem to be okay with it now that it is the gay/black citizen getting the special treatment; suddenly "But he did it first" is okay. That's bullshit, it sounds like the Republicans saying it's okay to lie to congress because Bill Clinton lied about Monica. You're rationalizing the shit out of your own prejudice, whereas I'm am only trying to say that YOU and I are both supposed to be equal under the law. Reparations and civil unions and gay marriage rights are serious issues which remain unresolved. But that fact does not mean that my life should be considered worth less until the time that all the other societal issues get straightened out.

We are either all equal under the law -- and that obviously includes marriage and every other right -- or we're not. You don't seem to agree with that premise. I find that very disturbing coming from a so-called democrat.

.

[Kingshakabobo]

37. I didn't ask you about resources. I specifically asked you about 'rights.'

What are they?

Also, would you mind addressing my points regarding motive and the fact that the law/society has ALWAYS felt it perfectly OK to sentence based on motive.

As for resources - talk about republican talking points. Note: I'm not calling you a republican as I've seen you around and I know better.......I would appreciate the same respect and not have you call me a "so called democrat."....

.....back to resources: It reminds me of the republican argument against gay marriage - when they run out of pseudo logic and they get backed in to a corner, they fall back on "my taxes" and the loss of revenue....oh the horror.

Anyway, I thought we were liberals and progressives? Aren't we SUPPOSED to throw resources at problems? Maybe we can take those resources away from on-line gambling and internet porn prosecutions???

We ARE all equal under the law.........but all assaults aren't equal under the law and all murders aren't equal under the law.

Please address motive. Motive counts.

[Atman]

41. You simply are not getting what this bill proposes -- RESOURCES.

MONEY. MANPOWER. Actual, physical resources. What is so hard to understand about that? You don't like being the term 'so-called democrat,' but it's okay to say I'm just spouting GOP talking points? How does that work?

If you've read every post I've made in this thread, you'll see I've addressed everything you keep repeatedly asking. Motive is already taken into account in ANY murder case. Any murder case. But now, there is a special level of motive, above and beyond any motive one might already have, if the victim is gay or black or whatever.

I repeat, and I'll repeat as often as it takes -- Motive is already taken into account in any murder case. This bill devotes MORE RESOURCES in the form of money and manpower toward the arrest and prosecution of those committing crimes against a specific "class" of people. Not a "republican talking point," just a simply fact. I am not creating the class of people, this law is. I am saying there is only one class of people, American citizens. You seem to be the one who doesn't agree with that premise.

Motive counts, of course it does. And every judge and jury already is able to take that into account. Except with this bill, if am beaten and murdered, being a mere white guy whose sexuality, one way or another, isn't overt, I am considered less worthy of police/prosecutorial attention than this newly designated class of citizens. Again, this bill does that, not me. It is written into the bill.

So why is it now okay to specifically designate special classes of citizens when you have been fighting AGAINST that very thing up until now? That's all I want to know.

.

[mitchtv]

49. ah finally "extra rights"

gays are lucky if crimes against them are investigated or prosecuted Extra indeed

[Swamp Rat]

21. because he is neither

:D

[ComerPerro]

23. creepy

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

25. Damn, you beat me.

:rofl:

[Madspirit]

29. Kind of Not the Point

It's that certain groups are specifically targeted. We walk out the door in the morning and we all have a certain percentage of chance that we will be killed. If you belong to certain groups, that percentage jumps way up. Certain people and groups specifically have a purpose to destroy certain SPECIFIC other people.

...but hey, if you want to trade because your widdle feelings are hurt we can make it where straight white men are THE targets. *snerk* This isn't the kind of "special" we desire. I'll trade any day. Take me off the Special list and let's kill YOU. Not fun? I didn't think so.

This thread is now hidden because I cannot stand to hear straight white men whine.
Lee

[Atman]

35. Hiding seems to suit you.

And who the hell ever said I was straight? Quite an assumption you're making simply because I hold an opinion you disagree with.

:eyes:

.

[liberalEd]

34. Then I disagree with both of you

The motivation for a crime is important.

It may not matter in the effect it has on the individual victim, but when it comes to calculating the penalty it does.

As a simple example, someone killed in a traffic accident (a real accident, no alcohol, drugs, carelessness involved) is just as dead as someone who is murdered. Yet we punish a murderer more than someone who is at fault in an accident.

[Atman]

36. You're equating MURDER with an accident.

A traffic accident can claim the life of a gay black nun. Should that driver be prosecuted even more harshly? Accidents are just that, accidents. Which is why they are taken into account when a life is lost. But murder is murder. Sure there are different levels of man-killing-man. Manslaughter is different than premeditated murder, no one denies that. But you don't seem to understand what the difference is. You can actually accidentally kill someone. As I stated before, you cannot accidentally drag someone behind your jeep with chains wrapped around his ankles. That is murder, it is heinous, and the perpetrator should be send away forever. Period. Unless, apparently, that victim liked members of his/her own sex. Then we should what? KILL the perpetrator? You know, because he was meaner and badder for killing a gay guy than if he had dragged a straight guy who hit on his wife. That's absurd.

We are either equal in the eyes of the law or we are not. Institutionalized prejudice is still prejudice.

.

[liberalEd]

45. Only to make one point

But the point applies to murder as well. We have different degrees of murder - and the difference is the mindset of the murderer. The victim is dead regardless, the victim's family may be equally affected, but they are still different.

I don't think all forms of murder deserve the same punishment.

[Matsubara]

44. I'm against hate crime legislation, too.

But we do need to make sure that crimes against minorities are prosecuted better.

But in principle, I have to agree that the MOTIVATION for a crime should not be relevant. If you killed someone because they were gay, it is no better or worse than killing them so you could take their money.

But the reason these hate crime laws have been proposed is because crimes against minorities have been ignored for too long. It is a problem that needs to be addressed.

[SammyWinstonJack]

48. I'd rather eat my own face than agree with tucker carlson.

:puke:

[Atman]

50. Me too. That's why I thought it was noteworthy enough to post about!

I'm not even sure why I had his fetid mess of a "program" on the teevee, other than the remote not being nearby.

.

[SammyWinstonJack]

51. ..

:evilgrin: To quote Jimmy Buffet, "Turn off the TV,Turn off the Crap!" :rofl: